Disciplinary Board
(Version 1: effective from July 2005)
| 1. |
These guidelines have been developed by the Disciplinary Board under rule 9.3 of the disciplinary schemes for use by adjudication, disciplinary tribunal and appeals tribunal panels when applying sanctions involving education, retraining and/or supervised practice. The Board's objective in offering these guidelines is to seek to achieve consistency and fairness in the operation of the disciplinary schemes. The guidelines will be published on the profession's website and printed copies will be made available on request to inquirers. |
| 2. |
The guidelines will be further developed in the light of experience of cases under these schemes, which were introduced on 1 January 2004. The Board will review them regularly and the first scheduled review will be after a year of operation; earlier review will take place if need arises. |
Use of terms
| 3. |
Under the schemes, adjudication panels may invite a Respondent to accept a sanction, disciplinary tribunal panels may determine to impose a sanction, and appeal tribunal panels may uphold, vary or rescind sanctions imposed by disciplinary tribunal panels. In these guidelines the phrase 'apply a sanction' is used to mean all three of these options, and the term 'educational intervention' means all sanctions involving periods of education, retraining and/or supervised practice. |
Circumstances in which educational intervention may be appropriate
| 4. |
Educational intervention was designed for those cases where a panel considers that all the following apply, namely:
- it is in the public and/or the profession's interest for the Respondent to receive such a sanction;
- it is the most appropriate means of response to a deficiency of knowledge, skills and or behaviour, or to an error, which has come to light from the evidence in a case report or charge of misconduct;
- the identified deficiency is amenable to improvement through a period of education, and/or retraining, and/or supervision;
- the actuary has demonstrated commitment to putting right the deficiencies that have been identified. The onus should therefore be on the Respondent to show understanding of the need for educational intervention, and willingness both to take the necessary remedial action and to audit his or her own progress.
There may be cases where a Respondent is willing to co-operate with an educational sanction, but where the pubic or professional interest requires a different response.
|
| 5. |
Educational intervention may also be applied, where appropriate, in conjunction with other sanctions, such as a reprimand, a fine or suspension. If, however, this sanction is applied in conjunction with suspension or withdrawal of a practising certificate, or suspension of membership, the panel must consider whether is it feasible for the Respondent to achieve the desired educational goals, given the limitations on practice caused by the other sanction. |
Circumstances where educational intervention may be inappropriate
| 6. |
Educational intervention is unlikely to succeed where the Respondent is unable to find a source of training, supervision or support: if, for example, the Respondent's employer is unwilling to assist (through means such as an existing appraisal scheme for personal development, or peer review or audit of work undertaken). |
| 7. |
If educational intervention is not considered appropriate, other sanctions should be considered. |
General principles
| 8. |
Educational intervention should be:
- clearly defined by the panel;
- demonstrably relevant to the needs;
- proportionate to the allegations or charge under consideration and the identified deficiency;
- achievable by the Respondent;
- affordable by the Respondent;
- and its completion must be demonstrable.
|
Statement
| 9. |
The Panel should prepare a Statement for the Respondent specifying as clearly as possible:
| a. |
precisely which area(s) of the Respondent's knowledge, skills and/or behaviour is deficient and in need of educational intervention; |
| b. |
the objective of the intervention; |
| c. |
which is required: a period of education, or of retraining, or of supervised practice, or a combination of any of these; |
| d. |
the length of the period concerned; |
| e. |
what options for education, retraining or supervised practice the Panel considers relevant to the needs (see paragraph 11, below); |
| f. |
benchmarks to measure progress by, so that the Respondent will know what goals and milestones need to be achieved; |
| g. |
the evidence that will be required of having tried to assess the identified deficiency. |
|
| 10. |
It is important to avoid raising the expectations of the Respondent or others that:
- the Actuarial Profession is under an obligation to provide education, or training; or that:
- employers are under an obligation to provide sources of support.
|
Options available for consideration
| 11. |
The following list is illustrative, and not exhaustive, of options available. The panel considering the allegations or the charge is best placed to determine what is appropriate in each case. |
| i. |
Education
| a. |
review and discussion of guidance notes with a senior professional colleague; |
| b. |
attendance at a professionalism course, either for new Fellows or the 10-yearly courses; |
| c. |
attendance at specialist seminars or meetings organised in the different branches of practice, as part of the profession's CPD activities; |
| d. |
sitting some Practice module multiple choice questions, if a test of knowledge is appropriate; |
| e. |
keeping a log book recording both international activity and the extent to which it contributed to achievement of the objectives; |
|
| ii. |
Retraining
| f. |
mentoring in the work place; |
| g. |
undertaking directed CPD in the work place to improve knowledge, skills or attitudes in specified areas; |
| h. |
work-based skills training; |
|
| iii. |
Supervised practice
| i. |
It would be important to specify the closeness of the supervision required from simple peer review of completed work, to more stringent arrangements.
- the extent of the supervision may, for example, vary from 'adequately supervised' to 'close personal supervision' of work by the Respondent;
- panels should be aware that there are differing levels of supervision and select that which is most appropriate in the individual case;
- the referral should make as clear possible to the Respondent to what extent supervision is required;
- supervision should normally be undertaken by a senior actuary.
|
|