dear (former and current) usat board members,
as you might know, i've commenced a series on usat v gtg, to explore each organization and see what one might learn from the other, and perhaps to cause each to rethink, at some point, whether a duplication of efforts is better or worse (this is an open question).
but i would like to ask board members about the wisdom of insurance broker as risk manager. my understanding is that we've let our risk manager go, saving that money, and have instead vested our broker with these duties.
i guess i have this question: if usat can't issue a water quality statement of any sort because it's not an expert in water quality (and this is the wisdom that came from our broker/risk manager), how can an insurance broker, as one who knows basically nothing about safety at the race site, act as risk manager? sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, it seems to me.
is it wise to think the risk manager should work in hand with the insurance broker, but not BE the insurance broker?
yes, we underfunded the risk manager position. but the gal we got, it seemed to me that after 6 months of casting about she more/less had constructed a go-forward plan, and was gradually filling the chair in which she was sitting.
in particular, I believe she was working on an entirely new set of much expanded sanctioning guidelines. i wonder what happened to that document? if this was considered a good work, and certainly a piece of work that our risk manager is not equipped to duplicate, why did we let this person go?
our relationship with our broker should certainly be cordial, friendly, and one in which we receive help. but it should be with some element of an arms-length posture. at certain points he's on the other side of the negotiation. if we want a certain benefit, or a service, or a better price, he's on the other side of that.
as you answer, please contemplate and perhaps address this: if you ask any insurance company who the broker represents, isn't that company probably going to say, as a matter of contract, that the broker represents the insurance company, not the customer? he's more their "employee" than he is ours, right?
i ask this with full understanding that our board president is very well versed in insurance matters, as he is a home office executive with a large insurer. also, as a matter of style he prefers to be the only one opining in public on board matters. so perhaps he can shed some light on this.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
as you might know, i've commenced a series on usat v gtg, to explore each organization and see what one might learn from the other, and perhaps to cause each to rethink, at some point, whether a duplication of efforts is better or worse (this is an open question).
but i would like to ask board members about the wisdom of insurance broker as risk manager. my understanding is that we've let our risk manager go, saving that money, and have instead vested our broker with these duties.
i guess i have this question: if usat can't issue a water quality statement of any sort because it's not an expert in water quality (and this is the wisdom that came from our broker/risk manager), how can an insurance broker, as one who knows basically nothing about safety at the race site, act as risk manager? sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, it seems to me.
is it wise to think the risk manager should work in hand with the insurance broker, but not BE the insurance broker?
yes, we underfunded the risk manager position. but the gal we got, it seemed to me that after 6 months of casting about she more/less had constructed a go-forward plan, and was gradually filling the chair in which she was sitting.
in particular, I believe she was working on an entirely new set of much expanded sanctioning guidelines. i wonder what happened to that document? if this was considered a good work, and certainly a piece of work that our risk manager is not equipped to duplicate, why did we let this person go?
our relationship with our broker should certainly be cordial, friendly, and one in which we receive help. but it should be with some element of an arms-length posture. at certain points he's on the other side of the negotiation. if we want a certain benefit, or a service, or a better price, he's on the other side of that.
as you answer, please contemplate and perhaps address this: if you ask any insurance company who the broker represents, isn't that company probably going to say, as a matter of contract, that the broker represents the insurance company, not the customer? he's more their "employee" than he is ours, right?
i ask this with full understanding that our board president is very well versed in insurance matters, as he is a home office executive with a large insurer. also, as a matter of style he prefers to be the only one opining in public on board matters. so perhaps he can shed some light on this.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman