Tom Curtis reflects on STRS Board past, present and future

From: Tom Curtis

Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005

Subject: 120305 Curtis Resp To Janczyk; Re Important Decisions To Be Made About STRS Candidates

Hello Molly,

You are absolutely correct in stating that there are some important decisions to be made concerning whom we support for the upcoming STRS election.

I have made my choice perfectly clear. I am in support of Professor Thomas Hall of Miami University for one of the two seats that will be elected in the spring. I have not decided on a second choice to date, but will not support Conni Ramser for reasons I will address in this communication.

I feel Thomas Hall has skills and knowledge in the areas of economics, investments and financial decision making that would be beneficial to the STRS board. I have felt this way since the time he placed himself in the running as a candidate, to fill the remaining two years of Jack Chapman's seat in 2004.

After reading the vita's of the five candidates for that position, I clearly felt Thomas Hall was the most qualified candidate to bring value to our board, of those being considered.

Obviously he was not chosen by the then strongly OEA influenced board. Conni Ramser, an OEA executive committee member, one of the least qualified, as far as business and financial background are considered was chosen. This was due to political pressure, certainly not by her qualification of background and her ability to bring value to our board. As controversial as my next statement may be, I find it to be of great importance when deciding whom we elect to the STRS board from this date forward.

It is my opinion, after being involved on a monthly basis at most all STRS board meetings since June 2003, no active teacher with little to no background in business and finance has any business being on the STRS board. They have nothing to offer and are constantly in a learning curve that could not possibly be fulfilled in a four-year term.

I say this because an active teacher has so many other demands on them in their own classroom or school setting. In reality, an active educator with no background in business and finance is causing harm to both the school systems they are employed with and to the STRS board.

They are hurting their school system by being away from their duties for at least 3-5 business days each month. They are hurting the board, because they will never fully understand what is taking place in most discussions. Discussions about the highly important issues that must be faced by those on our STRS board for the next 5-10 years.

In my opinion, it will take this long to rid the STRS with all of the management people that developed a feeling of entitlement during the OEA reign of Herb Dyer's tenure. These individuals have dragged their feet for the past three years and have shown no mercy to retirees. Quite simply, they need to be replaced and we need a new executive director with a vision that follows the true spirit of 3307.15.

Damon Asbury's contract expires February 18, 2007. It is my feeling that he should never be considered for the position. He can be very congenial, but he is very unqualified to lead the STRS. He has no vision for such. He was awarded that position by a highly inept OEA dominated board against the will of the membership who had requested, but were denied a national search for a new director at the time he was the acting executive director once Herb Dyer was gone.

I have found from my 3-year experience working with CORE and attempting to work with the OEA and ORTA leadership, that the STRS needs a strong unified and decisive board focused on issues of importance. Not a board full of highly concerned individuals about who and what organization they represent and what that organizations agendas are. We have had that for the past 10-15 years with the OEA leadership at the helm and look where we are today. Board members are there to solely and exclusively represent the best interests of the membership, period. They are not there to be puppets of any union or other organization that feels they have a stake in the STRS.

Who a candidate is or is not affiliated with means little to me, with the exception of those with strong affiliation with the OEA. In my opinion, the OEA leadership is most responsible for the poor financial situation we find the STRS in at present. The OEA made no attempt to bring any investigation or charges against their own people on the board who held our STRS board captive for over a decade and made many very poor and foolish business decisions. Decisions the STRS board now has to deal with. For example, the STRS management and Staff are the best paid and receive the best benefits, bar none, of any of the five public retirement systems. These employees have offered no concessions during our struggle to become financially responsible over the past three years.

To the contrary, our STRS staff has been paid outrageous bonuses for the job they have supposedly done. In some cases this is very justified, but certainly not the vast enormity of individuals receiving such. All changes have only been made because Dennis Leone, John Lazares, CORE and others have pushed them to do so. Had we all not been there, any of the changes that have occurred to date would probably have not been made. If you know anything at all about what has transpired over the past three years at the STRS, you know what I have just stated to be the truth and not what the STRS Newsletter has stated and given credit to.

The OEA leadership has totally stonewalled us concerning their derogatory remarks about Dennis Leone's position paper of 2003 and has never provided any proof of their derogatory allegations about him and his position paper. (If you have not read this document, please kindly email me at tcurtis2@neo.rr.com and I will gladly send it to you by email only)

In short, the OEA has totally ignored the outrageous misspending their own people permitted from 1992 to 2004.That in my mind is totally irresponsible. I in turn wish to have nothing to do with the OEA at present, until an entire leadership shift has been made. I also hold the OEA fully responsible for us not having a guaranteed health care benefit at this time. This is inexcusable on their part.

In closing, I wish each and every educator and/or member of the STRS would make an effort to become knowledgeable about what has taken place at the STRS during the reign of Herb Dyer and the OEA controlled board (1992-2004). That has been the number one mission of CORE. CORE is here and has been here for the past three years trying to make a difference. We have been up against a "turf war" with other organizations, but that is of little concern to us. Our mission has never been about turf; it has been about people, the members of the STRS. CORE is about changing the leadership and direction of the STRS, so it serves the membership, as it was meant to in the mind of the founders of the STRS and according to the ORC section 3307.15.

Take care,

Tom Curtis