Deidre Manna, a representative with the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI), Des Plaines, Ill., noted an NAIC estimate that the organization testifies on insurance issues before Congress between 30-50 times a year.

She asked if the NAIC has a process for approving the positions it takes during testimony. "If there is one that is more formalized, we'd be interested in hearing about it. But, if that is not what is taking place, we'd like to urge you to formalize [the process.]"

Marsha Harrison, representing the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, in Indianapolis, said there are three types of NAIC activity that concern industry members.

The first instance, she says, occurs when NAIC Congressional testimony is in conflict with what working groups and committees during the NAIC are doing. A second case, according to Harrison, is when a single commissioner speaks his or her individual views, but NAIC publicity makes it appear as if the testimony represents the organization. "The fact that a person is testifying on his own is lost in the translation."

A third situation, she added, is when a news release praises an act in Congress when the NAIC has not adopted a position. Harrison cited the Klein-Mahoney Homeowners Insurance bill on catastrophe funding.

"The threshold question is 'what is the process and is it tracking with what NAIC working groups are doing," Dave Snyder, a representative with the American Insurance Association, Washington, stated. "Secondly, if there is diversity [of opinion] in the regulatory community, how can that be expressed?"

Michael McRaith, Illinois insurance director and chair of the industry liaison committee, said that e-mails are exchanged and there is a discussion among members so that commissioners have a chance to look at testimony. Then it is used, he said.

But Mary Jo Hudson, Ohio insurance director, disagreed using the Klein-Mahoney bill, the Home Owners' Defense Act, as an example. "There is a very involved process for model laws but where there is divergent views, it appears the NAIC as a whole had a position where only certain parts of the NAIC [were considered.] It was a done deal by the time it was circulated."

Commissioner Hudson said on a number of occasions an NAIC position has not reflected her state's stance on the issue.

Mr. McRaith in response said the Homeowners' Defense Act had been the subject of a briefing and Power Point presentation by U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fla., at the NAIC fall meeting and it was discussed by the NAIC property-casualty "C" committee. So, the position should not have been a surprise, he continued.

The issue of greater public access to all NAIC meeting sessions was raised during the consumer liaison meeting by three consumer representatives.

Former Indiana insurance commissioner Sally McCarty, now insurance and advocacy specialist with Hemophilia of Indiana; Don Morrison, executive director with the North Dakota Center for the Public Good and Brendan Bridgeland, director with the Center for Insurance Research all called for a new policy on open meetings.

What is "particularly disturbing," according to Ms. McCarty, is the lack of openness in the model law process, the NAIC's "most important product."

Mr. Bridgeland recognized that there are legitimate reasons to close meetings when there are solvency discussions for individual companies that could cause a "run on the bank situation."

But, he continued, it is important to have tight guidelines and avoid new names such as "regulator-to-regulator" for meetings that are still closed.

"It is important that there be policy deliberation," he said, adding that he doesn't believe "pure policy matters warrant secrecy."

During the session, consumer advocates invited the head of the National Conference of Insurance Legislators to offer his views on open meetings.

Rhode Island State Rep. Brian Kennedy, D-Hopkinton, the new NCOIL president, in April of this year raised the issue of open session and worked with NAIC to establish a legislative liaison committee.

Mr. Kennedy noted that progress had been made but that there would be over four months until the spring NAIC meeting, sufficient time to restructure meetings so that they could be open and closed at the end of sessions, if company issues were raised.