Molly, Tom: Issue of support for nonclassroom teachers for STRS Board

From Tom Curtis

December 26, 2005

Hello Molly,

You provided some great answers for Nancy. You might also remind Nancy that Tom Hall is truly a classroom teacher and active member of the STRS. Since Nancy has been researching the past board members, she might also have found out that many of these past board members were not actually classroom teachers for much of the time they were on the STRS board. Please ask her if she researched that and if so, what are her results.

It is so sickening to me to see how the OEA leadership twists the truth about almost everything, so it fits their description as they see it.

What actually constitutes a classroom teacher in the eyes of the OEA leadership?

The OEA leadership's most glaring example of twisting the truth about this issue involves our current board member, Mike Billirakis. He was advertised as an active classroom teacher when he ran in 2000 and in 2004. Mike Billirakis has not been in a classroom since the 1980's. He is not an active classroom teacher by any stretch of the imagination.

The OEA leadership's true definition of an active classroom teacher is anyone that has been a current or past member of the OEA executive committee, period. They have not elected anyone that was not on their executive committee for at least a decade and maybe even longer.

Molly, please ask Nancy to research that point. Also, ask her to research just how many of the OEA board members truly spent the majority of their time in the classroom, while on the STRS board. I would bet that the majority of the OEA sponsored and elected STRS board members spent very little, to no time in the classroom. Yet the OEA leadership would be the first to discredit a school administrator, superintendent or college professor as not being a true classroom teacher. This is exactly what I mean about the OEA leadership's twisted way of looking at things.

The OEA leadership has made numerous damaging statements about others, yet they rarely follow the rules. That is because they feel they should make the rules, as they are the almighty union! Further, when asked to support their statements, they simply ignore their questioners. The OEA leadership rarely backs up most of rhetoric they put out about anyone not tied to the OEA, simply so they can discredit that person.

It is my understanding that for the past two decades the OEA has told actives that school administrators and superintendents should not be on the board because they would not be as understanding as active classroom teachers. Again, this is pure propaganda! Why should they not be on the board? Well, probably because they would actually understand what was happening and have put a stop to it.

Take care, Tom Curtis

From: Molly Janczyk

To: Nancy Luddeke

Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005

Subject: Re: Prof. Tom Hall Why I Am Running

Dear Nancy,

Many things done in the past decades were also controlled by the 5 OEA Actives and OEA's pick for Exec. Direc. Herb Dyer. Retiree Joe Endry rubber stamped all items as well, it seems. The huge expenditures were all approved and spent on themselves. Now it wasn't enough to save HC but while they were riding the wave of the market, they were distracted from their real goals of protecting us with long term thinking. Things they could have done: -raise costs incrementally over the past 15-20 yrs so as to offset the devastating overnight raises which have ruined retirement for this generation with no warning. Instead they told us we had HC second to none and we'd never have to worry though they knew of impending crisis. -create long ago a stream of revenue for the HC Stabilization Fund instead of to use their words 'relying on the market'. Anyone knows, except for this former board, that things go up and go back down. -work to change legislation and incrementally increase contributions long ago vs. a now crisis situation. In the early 90's legislation was proposed and STRS and OEA said it was not necessary even though Joe Endry stated back then, 'If we don't do something about HC now, we won't have HC in the future.' But, Dyer wanted out of the HC business and some feel he was just going to let it run out and say: High costs have simply depleted the fund. We'd have no HC.

So, while that board did do things for actives such as the 35 yr. enhancement which increased their own benefits and had the appearance of being a premier pension system with goals met, many of those goals were of a personal nature and some a glossy finish to cover up what they were not doing for retirees' long term futures. They didn't tell you they used your investment earnings to drive cars, pay for gas, let their families drive those cars until Dr. Leone brought it down with a public statement at a board meeting: "Do you realize the danger you put the entire retirement system in when one of these family members drive under the influence and get sued for damages/death. They can take down STRS.' Promptly, it was no longer allowed. Anyway, they used your earnings (think of it as your broker earning you big bucks and skimming since you'll never notice for himself) for $600 dollar rooms, bar bills, plays, dinners, manipulating first class tickets by buying the high priced coach tickets near flight dates instead of further out. Then, they would get upgraded. $98,000,000 building (take a look at it and all the wasted space floor by floor) and nearly a $1,000,000 in art specific to it. You paid for their childcare subsidy and cafeteria, and fitness. You paid for annual sick and vac. days. OK. The list goes on.

TO YOUR QUESTION:

1. Dr. Leone and John Lazares were the ones to discover the misspending when they went for consults, saw the palacial building and wondered where STRS , a public pension system go so much money for such lavish surroundings. They heard rumors and began to research. Dr. Leone spent weeks on his report including the above waste and much more: Huge bonus programs above and beyond protocal. Getting bonuses of up to 115% of one's salary and for doing things that were merely job description for the rest of us.

2. They fully expected OEA and ORTA to step in and take over when hearing of the perks and pleasures and abuse but instead were met with icy rebuff, maligning statements and refusal to confront STRS but instead praised them. So, they stayed feeling they could not allow these wrongs to go unnoticed.

3. We retirees were noticing too and met these 2 men who only wanted retirees_future and current to get what they deserved. We asked them to run because they now had name recognition and wanted to do what was right. As John Lazares said, 'I didn't just become a superintendent, I began as a classroom teacher.' WHY should we NOT run candidates who are best qualified vs. a well meaning classroom teacher with no background when we had these 2 experinced in all realms of education, had background in working on boards, legislative connections and were savvy in how investments worked. Instead of spending money on training and having them slowing things down with a learning curve, they hit the ground running and looking for the details, asking questions, most classroom teachers would just not be knowledgeable enough to do. I wouldn't.

4. Who do you want to oversee how to manage your funds? Me who knows nothing , comes in and has to go through mountains of books, papers, asking constant questions and still not understanding much, having to go to endless training when others already have the understanding or those who are educators and understand every facet from classroom to management and have knowledge of investments as well or enough to ask tough questions?

5. I want the most qualified person to be on the board. I KNOW LAZARES AND LEONE WORK FOR US more than any of the past board members.

6. TOm Hall is an educator, has market trends, investment background and economic expertise. HE is excited about taking on this challenge to improve the board for US. He IS affected just as we are. He doesn't have to take as many days off from kids to be there. He doesn't need to waste 1-2 years just to understand what they are talking about as has Ramser, current OEA board member whose OEA aligned. Mostly: I WANT NO ORGANIZATION TO CONTROL THIS BOARD EVER AGAIN: NO VOTING BLOCKS to rubber stamp approvals that you and I never know about.

We now have board members who are there by our request to look at every detail and question any item not seeming to be completely revealed-something STRS is very likely to do...........tell enough to get approval and not all the details.

So, we want candidates driven to follow the ORC:3307.15-to act SOLELY on behalf of membershilp with enough knowledge to oversee our fund management and with enough expertise to know when something is being shoved through.

Could that be a classroom teacher? SURE! DO YOU KNOW ONE? I don't. As educators we have all our time taken to do our jobs and being out of the classroom up to 50% of the time doesn't lend itself to doing a good job anywhere, in my opinion. THE CLASSROOM TEAHCERS THEY CREDITED THEMSELVES TO BE WERE NOT CLASSROOM TEACHERS: Billirakis hasn't been in a classroom since '88, he travels for NEA and gets extra retirement credit for being a Perry LSD teacher when he has never taught there one day. His friend hired him, I hear and he immed. went on leave and travels. Jack Chapman was a psuedo teacher-I subbed for him and his principal said to me how much can you come ; Jack's only here 50% of the time. My job for him was in other teachers' classroom and merely graded papaers or helped ; he oversaw a detention and tutored for one student when he was there and one other pull out period. At 12:30-1pm his principal said, you can go, this is his lunch/planning for rest of day. Eugene Norris was on special assignment for years of one kind or another. Jack Chapman also created a deal for himself where he got on another salary with an ESC to increase retirement credits.

These were your classroom teachers or advertised to be but not really teachers by OEA.

Now we have concerned, more savvy educators who really want what is best for you.

A couple of the current and new classroom teachers are caring and wish to do what is right. But they vote on issues when they are unaware as stated by them after the fact and would not have if fully informed. THAT IS WHAT WE DO NOT WANT, individ. who can easily be persuaded bec./ they don't have the facts. LAZARES AND LEONE FIND OUT WHAT THE SPECIFICS ARE BEFORE VOTING AND then make informed decisions.

Thanks for asking; that's my reasoning.

From: Nancy Luddeke
To: Molly Janczyk
Subject: Re: Prof. Tom Hall Why I Am Running
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005

Dear Molly,

I am concerned that we are supporting persons other than classroom teachers. Why? I have been researching the past 15 years of the Board and I think there are many great things that have been accomplished. Again, why are we moving from classroom teachers?

Nancy