Consumer advocates and insurer representatives' criticism of the closed sessions was sparked by an NAIC move toward a procedural change that will result in some proposed model laws that fail to pass being designated as “guidelines.”

Birny Birnbaum, consumer representative from Austin, Texas, said the NAIC's executive session development of a “fundamental” change to its model law illustrated a failure to involve its stakeholders.

Mr. Birnbaum asked why the meetings that led up to the announcement were done in executive sessions. He also called on the NAIC to hold a public hearing on the issue and, based on the feedback offered during that hearing, to make a decision on whether to proceed with the change to the model law policy.

The new policy may have merit, but because stakeholders did not have the opportunity to listen to discussions about why it should be implemented, there is no way to determine this, he said.

In response, NAIC President-elect and Kansas Commissioner Sandy Praeger said that “change is difficult and we all recognize that it is natural to have some resistance.”

But, she added, rather than spend two years developing a model, it is better to look at it upfront. “We don't have the luxury of spinning our wheels on a model that doesn't go forward.”

Dave Snyder, a representative for the American Insurance Association, Washington, said that public input on the model change would be appropriate. He asked about the legal significance of best practices guidelines for proposals that do not have model status but are recommended as a best practice.

In response, Ms. Praeger noted that model laws do not become law until a state takes action. The time devoted to determining whether work should be a model will provide opportunity for dialogue, she said.

Steven Poizner, California insurance commissioner, said that priorities will be important going forward because state regulators have challenges they will have to meet.

Among other things, he said, the system has been criticized for being cumbersome as a decision-making process and slow to respond to a global economy. But, he continued, if one considers the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it becomes “crystal clear” that states and not the federal government were protecting consumers.