Tom Curtis: 112205 Curtis Resp To Asbury Resp; Re SB190 Study
From: Tom Curtis
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Subject: 112205 Curtis Resp To Asbury Resp; Re SB190 Study
Good Morning Damon,
Thank you for your immediate response.
I am once again chagrined that we will not learn of the results at the December board meeting of a study we have asked about for 2 years, possibly showing a huge detriment to the current and future financial viability of our retirement system.
I have in hand, a document from Buck Consultant Principal and Consulting Actuary Kim Nicholl to your predecessor, Herb Dyer, from May 13, 2003. (This is clearly 3 years after the implementation of SB190 and you were on board). This document was brought to your attention by Leon Knore at our monthly CORE/STRS meetings in late 2003.
In that document, Mr. Dyer raised concern that "the 2.5% accrual for a 35-year teacher was overly generous, which might result in a negative financial impact on the STRS Ohio."
This would indicate to me that Herb Dyer, 3 years after the implementation of SB190 was unsure of its future impact on the system. WOW! Further, this would indicate to me that the board of that time, controlled by 5-OEA past or present executive committee members, provided the underlying impetus, introduction and support for the implementation of SB190 in 1999.
Would you care to offer your opinion on such?
In this same document of May 2003, Kim Nicholl proceeds to validate the reasons they approved such. The method she used for validation, was "a chart that described the pros (+) and cons (-) of the 2.5% accrual form the perspective of the teacher, the employer and the STRS Ohio. This chart points out the positives - the 35-year teacher receives a higher pension are offset by the negatives - the teacher has to work and make member contributions for five more years."
Leon Knore and the members of the CORE/STRS committee took issue with some of the determined pros and cons in this chart, thus feeling that the findings by that method were possibly incorrect. You assured us at that time that the 2.5% accrual for a 35-year teacher was a "wash", end of discussion. Those on the committee and I continued to attempt to address this issue, but you stood strong on your conviction about such.
Did you or any executive staff member sitting in those early CORE/STRS meetings of 2003 have any concern that what we attempted to present to you was of any consequence, thus causing you or anyone else to review the documentation presented by Buck Consultants?
Kim Nicholl goes on to say, "The financial impact of the 2.5% accrual on STRS Ohio is immaterial due to the additional member contributions collected, coupled with STRS Ohio paying pension and health care for five years.
It is my request that the current board is supplied with copies of this document. I ask that they review this document and chart to see if they come to the same conclusions that Buck Consultants did. Those on the CORE/STRS committee did not feel these facts held true. We felt many of the reasons Kim Nicholl cited are misleading and were not true.
In relation to this, I read something in an answer sheet provided by you to the CORE/STRS committee on August 26, 2004. In that document it was stated, "Also attached is the ORSC analysis of Sub. SB190 in which staff recommends that the General Assembly approve the legislation. The analysis indicated that an independent actuarial analysis by Milliman and Robertson concluded that the STRS Board could, at the time, reduce the employer contribution by 2% and still fund the cost of the bill within the statutory 30-year period."
That statement obviously never came true, but would seem to have been one that would have impressed the legislators involved with the passage of this bill. From when I first read these various documents in 2003, I have had grave concerns, as I have indicated to you before. My concern always has been that all of you fiduciaries well knew that not only the statement about reducing the employer contribution did not come true, but many other assumptions at that time did not come true as well. Yet, you and the rest of the executive staff seemed to be of little concern. You simply said that until 5 years of data could be collected and analyzed, no one would know for sure if the 2.5% accrual for a 35-year teacher were detrimental to the system. I could and still cannot believe that was your rather flippant response to the CORE/STRS committee.
Damon, knowing that another month or so will go by before we see the Buck study on the effects of SB190 on the financial status of the STRS is just what I was attempting to convey to you in my last email.
You did not feel my response to you concerning the time line you provided for the discussion of my request for a "grandfathering" provision was appropriate.
In response to your dislike of my comments, offering a projected date of review or consideration of almost anything the membership has requested has been just that. You have usually put us off, as opposed to dealing with the issue in a timely manner. This may really be the issue, that being, your interpretation of a timely manner and that of those now suffering from decisions made by possibly you, the board or whomever has been involved. No matter what, the issue remains, we have been asking for changes that are legitimate requests. We have continually been getting smoke and mirrors, tap dancing or whatever as the response from those that are by all rights our employees. That is not acceptable and should not be the case here. Once again I will remind you, since you did not offer any response to my prior recognition of this fact. We still not have an audit of the STRS as was projected to be done in July of 2003. We still do not have the results of the study of SB190. We still have had no response to our questions about the Buck Consultants report from 2002.
Damon, you and your top-level associates only address or discuss issues from your viewpoint. You have absolutely provided a deaf ear to those of us who have spent an inordinate amount of our own time attempting to be knowledgeable enough to raise questions. You have attempted to minimize our input by telling us things like "that is a good idea, but it won't work here at the STRS. Then, when you actually did implement change we requested, you took the full credit for doing such. Just how self-serving is that!
This is exactly why I said you flippantly make statements to those of us who have attempted to resolve the plethora of poor policies in place at the STRS. You will certainly never be accused of being an advocate of change in line with the true spirit of 3307.15.
Damon, please apprise me of where you feel you have been a strong advocate for the membership, as I fail to find where you have been? You are not part of the solution the membership desires, you are part of the problem and I am sure will continue to be such until the very last day you remain in your position.
Take care,
Tom Curtis
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Subject: 112205 Curtis Resp To Asbury Resp; Re SB190 Study
Good Morning Damon,
Thank you for your immediate response.
I am once again chagrined that we will not learn of the results at the December board meeting of a study we have asked about for 2 years, possibly showing a huge detriment to the current and future financial viability of our retirement system.
I have in hand, a document from Buck Consultant Principal and Consulting Actuary Kim Nicholl to your predecessor, Herb Dyer, from May 13, 2003. (This is clearly 3 years after the implementation of SB190 and you were on board). This document was brought to your attention by Leon Knore at our monthly CORE/STRS meetings in late 2003.
In that document, Mr. Dyer raised concern that "the 2.5% accrual for a 35-year teacher was overly generous, which might result in a negative financial impact on the STRS Ohio."
This would indicate to me that Herb Dyer, 3 years after the implementation of SB190 was unsure of its future impact on the system. WOW! Further, this would indicate to me that the board of that time, controlled by 5-OEA past or present executive committee members, provided the underlying impetus, introduction and support for the implementation of SB190 in 1999.
Would you care to offer your opinion on such?
In this same document of May 2003, Kim Nicholl proceeds to validate the reasons they approved such. The method she used for validation, was "a chart that described the pros (+) and cons (-) of the 2.5% accrual form the perspective of the teacher, the employer and the STRS Ohio. This chart points out the positives - the 35-year teacher receives a higher pension are offset by the negatives - the teacher has to work and make member contributions for five more years."
Leon Knore and the members of the CORE/STRS committee took issue with some of the determined pros and cons in this chart, thus feeling that the findings by that method were possibly incorrect. You assured us at that time that the 2.5% accrual for a 35-year teacher was a "wash", end of discussion. Those on the committee and I continued to attempt to address this issue, but you stood strong on your conviction about such.
Did you or any executive staff member sitting in those early CORE/STRS meetings of 2003 have any concern that what we attempted to present to you was of any consequence, thus causing you or anyone else to review the documentation presented by Buck Consultants?
Kim Nicholl goes on to say, "The financial impact of the 2.5% accrual on STRS Ohio is immaterial due to the additional member contributions collected, coupled with STRS Ohio paying pension and health care for five years.
It is my request that the current board is supplied with copies of this document. I ask that they review this document and chart to see if they come to the same conclusions that Buck Consultants did. Those on the CORE/STRS committee did not feel these facts held true. We felt many of the reasons Kim Nicholl cited are misleading and were not true.
In relation to this, I read something in an answer sheet provided by you to the CORE/STRS committee on August 26, 2004. In that document it was stated, "Also attached is the ORSC analysis of Sub. SB190 in which staff recommends that the General Assembly approve the legislation. The analysis indicated that an independent actuarial analysis by Milliman and Robertson concluded that the STRS Board could, at the time, reduce the employer contribution by 2% and still fund the cost of the bill within the statutory 30-year period."
That statement obviously never came true, but would seem to have been one that would have impressed the legislators involved with the passage of this bill. From when I first read these various documents in 2003, I have had grave concerns, as I have indicated to you before. My concern always has been that all of you fiduciaries well knew that not only the statement about reducing the employer contribution did not come true, but many other assumptions at that time did not come true as well. Yet, you and the rest of the executive staff seemed to be of little concern. You simply said that until 5 years of data could be collected and analyzed, no one would know for sure if the 2.5% accrual for a 35-year teacher were detrimental to the system. I could and still cannot believe that was your rather flippant response to the CORE/STRS committee.
Damon, knowing that another month or so will go by before we see the Buck study on the effects of SB190 on the financial status of the STRS is just what I was attempting to convey to you in my last email.
You did not feel my response to you concerning the time line you provided for the discussion of my request for a "grandfathering" provision was appropriate.
In response to your dislike of my comments, offering a projected date of review or consideration of almost anything the membership has requested has been just that. You have usually put us off, as opposed to dealing with the issue in a timely manner. This may really be the issue, that being, your interpretation of a timely manner and that of those now suffering from decisions made by possibly you, the board or whomever has been involved. No matter what, the issue remains, we have been asking for changes that are legitimate requests. We have continually been getting smoke and mirrors, tap dancing or whatever as the response from those that are by all rights our employees. That is not acceptable and should not be the case here. Once again I will remind you, since you did not offer any response to my prior recognition of this fact. We still not have an audit of the STRS as was projected to be done in July of 2003. We still do not have the results of the study of SB190. We still have had no response to our questions about the Buck Consultants report from 2002.
Damon, you and your top-level associates only address or discuss issues from your viewpoint. You have absolutely provided a deaf ear to those of us who have spent an inordinate amount of our own time attempting to be knowledgeable enough to raise questions. You have attempted to minimize our input by telling us things like "that is a good idea, but it won't work here at the STRS. Then, when you actually did implement change we requested, you took the full credit for doing such. Just how self-serving is that!
This is exactly why I said you flippantly make statements to those of us who have attempted to resolve the plethora of poor policies in place at the STRS. You will certainly never be accused of being an advocate of change in line with the true spirit of 3307.15.
Damon, please apprise me of where you feel you have been a strong advocate for the membership, as I fail to find where you have been? You are not part of the solution the membership desires, you are part of the problem and I am sure will continue to be such until the very last day you remain in your position.
Take care,
Tom Curtis
posted by Kathie Bracy at 10:11 AM
<< Home