Strengthening Our Board

SOA leadership discusses proposed Board governance changes in a new Q&A

Amanda Hug and Bob Stein September 2025

---

Photo: Adobe

The Society of Actuaries (SOA) is dedicated to continually improving our operations so we can be well positioned for the future. The SOA Board of Directors (Board) initiated a Task Force in fall 2024 to review SOA Board governance, pinpoint challenges, examine leading practices and solicit member feedback. The insights gathered by the Task Force led to a series of proposed governance changes approved for a membership vote taking place October 13–24, 2025.

Key changes include:

• A more diverse Board with two or more seats for members outside of the U.S. and Canada, up to two ASAs who have been members for five or more years and up to two non-actuaries
• An objective, transparent candidate recruiting and evaluation process that is based on the skills and experience needed by the Board
• A voting process that strategically aligns candidate skills with Board needs and shifts from competitive elections to a “for/against” vote
• Separation of the President and Chair into two distinct roles
• A smaller, more nimble Board that has 12 members instead of 18

SOA President and Chair Amanda Hug, FSA, MAAA, MBA, and Governance Review Task Force Chair Bob Stein, FSA, MAAA, met up for a conversation about the Governance review discovery process, resulting recommendations and the proposed SOA Bylaws changes.

Why did the SOA choose to conduct a governance review?

Amanda Hug: Our world is changing, and as a result, a lot is changing in the actuarial profession and in the insurance industry as well. It makes sense for an organization to look at its operations to ensure it is positioned to excel in the future.

Although the Board structure hasn’t materially changed since our inception in 1949, the SOA has made a point, over the years, of evolving its governance to reflect best practices. For example, the SOA did a governance review 20 years ago. As a result of that review, we added a Governance and Policy Committee and created a Board Executive Committee to convene on time-sensitive matters that arose between Board meetings. Then, about 10 years ago, the SOA did another governance review, and we trimmed the Board from 28 to 18 members.

It’s time again to look at how we operate. We want to grow our profession and to better serve our members, employers and the public. We also want to be in line with leading practices in the association management space and our peer actuarial associations. This is our chance to take a fresh look and ensure that we have the right voices on the Board to represent our global membership.

What was the process of reviewing our governance structure?

Bob Stein: Once the Governance Review Task Force was formed last fall, we engaged a consulting firm specializing in association governance. The first thing the Task Force did was develop an understanding of current governance practices and the SOA Board’s strengths, those things that we would like to keep. We also identified possible weaknesses and processes that might be improved upon and canvassed other actuarial and professional organizations. We built a library of leading practices and used that as a benchmark.

We also gathered input from membership. This is all about making the organization more effective for members, so we wanted to make sure that we were in sync with what they were seeking to accomplish. That led to having eight virtual town halls, as well as many small group and one-on-one conversations to get a sense of what members thought of SOA Board governance.

What were some of the issues that were discussed? How did member feedback affect the final proposals?

Stein: The first thing that I remember hearing, almost unanimously, was about the challenging election process. There was a view that information that might be relevant to assess a candidate effectively was difficult to find and interpret and it didn’t go deep enough. There were also concerns about the voting process itself. Another aspect that needed to be addressed was the makeup of the Board versus the composition of the membership. We needed more adequate representation of members from outside North America. Also, there was no representation of ASAs on the Board. They are a significant portion of our membership and contribute mightily to the profession’s excellence.

We received a lot of feedback from the Board on the major issues: Should there be competitive elections or not? Should we separate the President and the Chair roles? We explored a process in which the ballot presents one candidate per open seat, and that candidate would align with the skills and experience needed by the Board. Members would then vote “for” or “against” for each candidate.

Hug: Input from our membership was crucial and led to revisions to the proposed changes. For example, the Task Force originally proposed extending Board terms from three to four years, but we heard from our members that four years might be too large of a volunteer commitment for employers to support. So, we scaled that back and determined that three-year terms are the appropriate length to balance tenure in the role and commitment from members and their employers.

Also, at one point, there was a proposal to move away from competitive elections for the President. Through our town hall sessions, we learned that members view the President as their representative of the SOA around the world. Based in part on that member feedback, we decided that it made sense to continue to have that role selected by the members in a competitive election.

How will members and the SOA benefit from the proposed changes?

Stein: It’s important to understand that the changes being proposed are not because the Board has been ineffective or dysfunctional. The proposals are forward-looking, and they are intended to strengthen the Board’s ability to successfully manage a constantly changing environment.

One benefit of the proposed changes will be better communication and understanding of the overall election process. It will be more transparent to members. It will begin with a clear definition of the challenges facing the SOA at that point in time and the strategic priorities of the organization that respond to those challenges.

The specific skills and experiences being sought will be described. The Board candidates will be clearly identified and their capabilities communicated thoroughly so members can evaluate them. It will be much easier for members to vote in Board elections and understand the entire process from beginning to end.

Another important benefit is the creation of the Member Leadership Advisory Council. This new council will include representatives from many of the volunteer councils and committees at the SOA and will provide an outstanding way for the member leaders to provide regular, meaningful input to the Board.

Also, the Board will proactively identify a regional representative in key markets to work more effectively with local industry, actuaries, actuarial clubs and organizations to make sure we are cognizant of local and regional conditions, issues, and strategies, and that we get their input.

Hug: Having better global representation on the Board is another benefit I’m personally ready to see. Our current election process was designed when the SOA was a much smaller organization largely based in North America. Today, 35% of our members and 45% of our candidates are outside the U.S. For that reason, we want to make sure that we’re paving a way for our global membership to be represented.

Additionally, speaking as someone who has been on the Board for the last five years and as current President and Chair for the last year, the current election process doesn’t necessarily ensure we will have the right mix of people and skills on the Board. We’re lucky that we have very talented members who submit their names to the Nominating Committee, but with our current election process, we may not end up with the right mix of skills, experience or representation on the Board. The voting process we are proposing, which is a “for/against” vote, will allow the new Board Recruiting and Selection Committee to fill experience and skill gaps that might exist on the Board.

Why introduce ASAs and non-actuaries to serve on the Board?

Hug: For the entirety of the Board’s history, we have always had solely FSAs serve as both elected Board members and in the Presidential role. While we aim to have diversity of thought in the boardroom, at the end of the day, we all decided to be actuaries, and we all pursued our Fellowship. I often feel, as Chair of the Board, that we are maybe over- or under-indexing on some things because we’re all FSAs. Because of our rigorous training to be risk managers in our day jobs, we can sometimes fall into a similar—sometimes risk-averse—way of thinking. I’m thrilled we are on a path to bring in some outside perspectives with non-actuaries and ASAs who have been members for five years or more.

About four years ago, we created an outside Board advisor pilot, which was a trial where we brought a non-actuary to join us in the boardroom as a non-voting member. The pilot was meant to last a year and ended up lasting two because we found it so beneficial. At the time we felt we needed to get outside of ourselves and have someone help provide that voice. This is the next step, moving this concept from a pilot to having a full-fledged voting Board member or two who aren’t actuaries.

In addition, ASAs are such an important part of our membership. They make up 30% of our SOA membership, and they can already vote in Board elections if they’ve been an ASA for five years or more. So, we believe that they should also have the ability to serve on the Board. They can bring important insights from across the profession to create a more inclusive and well-rounded Board.

What is being done to improve transparency and communication?

Hug: I’m particularly excited about the skills and experience matrix that we’re going to put forth. Essentially, members will be able to see the candidates on the left-hand side of the matrix, and the skills and experiences needed by the Board will be listed across the top. We’ll then fill in what skills and experience each Board director possesses. SOA membership will be able to see what gaps the Board Recruiting and Selection Committee is trying to fill and why they recommend certain candidates. Collectively, a holistic Board will bring all the skills and experiences that we need to best make decisions for our members.

Figure 1: Sample Board Skills and Experience Matrix

What is changing in Board governance and what will remain the same?

Hug: Though it might feel like a lot is changing, there’s a lot that’s not changing. Importantly, members who are eligible to serve on the Board (currently FSAs and, with the proposed changes, ASAs who have been members for five years or more) can still submit their name as a candidate. They do not need to wait to be recruited. This was incredibly important to the current Board when voting on the proposal. We wanted to make sure that the Board did not become an “insider” club and that we remain open to new-to-us candidates who may have just the skills and experiences we are looking for!

We are also keeping competitive elections for the President-Elect. As I noted before, the President role is that of a global ambassador and the person who is representing you—the members. We want to empower you to continue to select the President through a competitive process. Much of the process for self-nominating and selecting who goes on the ballot for President-Elect will be the same. Also, Presidential officers will still be limited to FSAs.

Finally, our general election process will remain the same. We’ll still be voting in August and September. We’ll continue to use a third-party vendor for the integrity of results, and members still have an option to vote on candidates. However, instead of having more candidates than open seats, there will be one candidate for each. You will vote “for” or “against” each vetted candidate, and a candidate will need to get a majority of “for” votes to be elected to the Board.

Why is it important for members to vote for this package of proposed SOA Bylaws changes?

Stein: We need a more agile and modern SOA Board to deal effectively with the rapidly changing landscape. These updates are particularly important for the younger actuaries and the student population, so we can demonstrate to them that we’re doing everything necessary to ensure that the tremendous success we have had as a profession continues.

Hug: We have education sessions every couple of years on how to perform well as a Board, and we often hear from our association management consultant about all the things that are working well with the SOA Board, and where we are embodying best practices for association boards. However, there are a couple places where the SOA is an outlier compared to peers and best practices. We want to be a board marked by leading practices that’s prepared for future challenges. We aspire to reflect our current membership, bring more people into the fold, and ensure we have the right mix of skills and experiences to lead the SOA well.

I’m also excited about the idea of moving from 18 to 12 Board members. A smaller Board will allow for more active and robust dialogue in the boardroom, which will in turn allow us to be nimbler and make decisions more rapidly.

At the end of the day, this is about the long-term success of the organization, the actuarial profession, and our SOA membership. And so, Bob and I just really want to encourage you to vote “yes” to support the proposal because we deeply believe this is the right thing for the future of the SOA.

SOA Fellows can vote on the proposed SOA Bylaws changes during a special election Oct. 13–24, 2025. If approved, the changes will be phased in over time, ensuring stability and continuity.

Statements of fact and opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily those of the Society of Actuaries or the respective authors’ employers.

Copyright © 2025 by the Society of Actuaries, Chicago, Illinois.