Tom Curtis to Damon Asbury: Nearly 2006 and still no consideration for members' ideas

From Tom Curtis
December 28, 2005

Hello Damon,

I hope you and your family had an enjoyable Christmas and look forward to 2006 in a few days.

Because we are about to begin a New Year, l would like to review what has transpired in the past year and during your tenure. I realize this is something you and other leaders indicate as being negative, looking at the past in any way, but in a positive manner. However, I am a technologist and being such, past performance is a highly integral part of the technological process I have followed my entire life. And I might add, is followed by any legitimate and progressive company, or organization in the world. So, I hope you will not take to much offense to my questions and will kindly respond to each one.

Sadly, I find there is a plethora of unfinished business at the STRS from 2005 and before, business, which has yet to be considered, as far as any possible closures to various issues and situations. I will address some of these issues and situations throughout this correspondence. This fact is very unsettling to the membership. We are seeing little progress toward returning the faith and trust, once held by the membership in the STRS. It appears to many of the STRS membership that you are unwilling to make many changes, or you are unable to do so. Is it one, or both of these, because little has changed due to your leadership? Just what issues keep you from initiating such? You must clearly understand what our message has been and yet you do little, unless pressured continuously by the membership?

Beginning in 2003, the membership began getting involved in the business of the STRS. The reason for this was because of the poor business practices found in place at the STRS, by Dennis Leone, John Lazares and by the membership, due to the continuing reduction and elimination of benefits promised to retirees. This should have never happened, if our leadership had truly had their focus on the membership, as indicated in ORC 3307.15.

Since then, the membership through the election process has become highly involved in changing much of the board. We will continue to do such, until we find a board that will work collectively, without the detrimental influence of the OEA leadership, which sadly still exists, both on our board and at the OEA. It is difficult and tedious to get rid of the people that have both our money and power behind them, but the good news is that the membership is awakening and finding that the union they once depended on has in fact, become just the opposite. They have become a parasite to the active teacher's pay and future retirement benefits.

Personally as a retiree, I have found "NO" support from the OEA concerning any of the misspending and utter waste of our funds. Actually, I have found just the reverse, a total withholding of any representation and constant retaliation with their usual verbal rhetoric, which they are unwilling to document. After paying dues to that organization for nearly 30 years, I did not expect such. This was an earth shattering revelation for me to understand at first, but once I found out just how detrimental the 5 OEA board members had been for the past decade or more, it became totally understandable. The OEA leadership was not about to help in any form of discipline of their people.

I am told the OEA spent over $100,000 dollars attempting to re-elect Eugene Norris, the longtime incumbent and board chair that was part and parcel to this whole misspending process. Eugene was listed as an active teacher board member, when in fact; Eugene had not been in the classroom for several years. This would seem to be unethical to most, though by board rules, this was not illegal. This must be corrected! Actually, few of the 5 OEA board members were classroom teachers, as most active classroom teachers would define them. Most of them had very limited, to no classroom duties, if they were even directly affiliated with a school.

Past OEA President Mike Billirakis is still on the STRS board as an active teacher. He has not been directly involved, or in the classroom since the 1980's. He currently is listed as a social studies teacher in the Perry Local School system in southern Ohio. He has never taught in the Perry Local School district. How did this happen? The NEA currently lists his salary as $149,550. He must then be the highest paid teacher in the state of Ohio and yet does not teach school. Go figure this set-up! How is this not illegal or highly unethical at the very least? How do the taxpayers of the Perry Local community permit such? Because the board rules, probably written by OEA leaders, allow for such. When Mike Billirakis retires, he will at least qualify for 88.5% and may well qualify for 100% of his three best years. Won't that be sweet?

Just think of all those retired teachers in Ohio in there 70's and above, who probably receive less then $1000 dollars per month in pension benefits. Then, take away the amount they must spend, if in the STRS health care plan, for them and a non-teaching spouse. Just how much would be left, darn little, if anything. This seems fair, doesn't it? No, Damon, this is not fair. Please correct me if I am wrong here. Further, just what have you, your staff and the board done to make this situation more equitable for all retirees?

The membership helped to pass SB 133, against strong OEA objections in the legislature, up until the very last minute, before passage. SB 133 also made changes to the board, adding 3 financial appointments and removing the Auditor of State, Betty Montgomery and the State Attorney General, Jim Petro, as they were certainly not performing their duty on the board as the membership's watchdog. They permitted all of the gross misspending to take place, right under their noses, how pathetic? Then, when asked for help by the membership, we were told they had a conflict of interest and would not help us at all. Neither of them received any consequences for their failure of official state duty. Then to pour salt in our wounds, both of them were successful in lobbying the Governor to veto the budget request for an investigation into the STRS by the State Inspector General in July of 2003. This is an utter misuse of political influence and what any uneducated person could identify as white-collar crime. Today, these two unscrupulous individuals have the audacity to run for the Governor of the State of Ohio. They both should have been charged with obstruction of justice and thrown out of office for their failure to oversee the five public retirement systems in Ohio as they were charged to do by the legislature. And I will add what a sad commentary for Governor Bob Taft, for willingly signing that veto of funds for an investigation requested by numerous members of the legislature and the STRS membership.

I understand change will take time, but I still find that the old OEA control of the board remains, even though they do not hold a majority of the seats. This has to end, as the leadership of the OEA, has not and does not have the classroom teacher's best interest in focus. The OEA obviously has had little concern about the STRS providing sufficient funds for our promised health care benefit. The OEA held that carrot out in front of us throughout our careers, without making sure it was funded properly. Now the OEA reminds us this was only a promise and not a guarantee. It is apparent they consider the active teachers only to be sheep, which should be a glowing revelation to the active teacher. This is especially true for those individual teachers that pay dues to such an organization. The OEA has let us down and not stood up for what they promised us in the past. The current leadership of the OEA needs to be replaced by honest working people.

Damon, correct me if I am wrong, but on February 18th, 2006, you will have one year remaining on your contract as the Executive Director of the STRS. The prior OEA influenced board, one of which still remains, granted you this contract without completing a national search, as they assured the membership they would do. The membership was not happy about this decision, as obviously no other candidates were even considered, as no national search was done. Wasn't that just an obvious case of administrative fiat? The OEA knew what was best for us, right? Isn't that why we elected them, so they could represent us? True, we did elect them, but we did not give them Carte Blanche to do whatever they wanted, without any regard for the membership's future. This disregard for the membership was clearly expressed to the board by the membership, month after month in 2003, 2004 and to date.

It is sad to say, but as has been and still is the case, the membership of the STRS remains unheard. Those that do speak up were most recently termed a few "malcontents" by the immediate past chairman of the board, Joe Endry. This was very unsettling to retirees, as Joe was a longtime advocate for retirees, but became a huge disappointment to most retirees once he was elected to the board. Joe accomplished little for retirees, while on the STRS board and always voted "Yes", for all of the motions presented for a vote. When retirees asked him why he was unable to accomplish anything, such as a second retiree seat on the board, he indicated that the board was controlled by five OEA members and he did not stand a chance of getting a second on anything he brought to the table. His excuse for voting "Yes" on all motions during his term was simply that one "No" vote meant little, so he just went along with the rest. This was during the time we had a representative from the State Attorney General's office and the Auditor of State on the board. He had a ready source right before him to lodge a complaint concerning this issue of OEA dominance, but he would not risk that issue. At first, Joe's statements seemed impossible to believe, but the more the membership became involved, the more we found this was truly the case. The five OEA board members were controlling the STRS. That is a proven fact and is undeniable.

This was obviously not a healthy situation, but I must admit, it is a growing concern by the membership of many organizations and companies throughout the United States today. Administrative fiat has become the norm and the membership, or stakeholders of these organizations and institutions seem powerless to stop this from continuing. This is because the legal branches of our local and national governments have been unwilling to penalize white-collar criminals that have been brought before them. Until white-collar crime is dealt with properly, many individuals will continue to take advantage of the situation and I might add, why not? What happened to Herb Dyer? He received an unbelievable severance package of $550,000 dollars to leave, or should I say, retire from the STRS. When charged with ethics violations, Herb Dyer was merely given a slap on the wrist. What will happen to Hazel Sidaway and the remaining members of that board, all will supposedly be charged with ethics violations? Time will tell, but probably little punishment will be handed down, considering the climate of the legal system in this State. Those willing to permit this sort of white-collar crime to continue have no conscience and obviously no guts to stand up and go against it. This is simply another reason the legal profession has so many jokes made about it. Though, on the other hand, they are probably laughing all the way to the bank, as one cannot do much legally, without hiring a lawyer. That is sad, but an entirely different issue.

The citizenry of this country are increasingly being ruled by administrative fiat and less and less by what the citizen desires. Yes, the citizenry elected these people, but the citizenry also relies on the legal system to protect them against abusive, which is not happening. These unscrupulous individuals are using the stakeholders' money to buy politicians and their way out of being prosecuted. They then simply go on to wreak havoc on others. This has been a continuous topic for most newspapers throughout 2005, yet little has changed to date.

Damon, the past board members told us that you were selected to continue as the executive director, because you represented everything the membership supposedly desired. So, what have you done for us during your tenure? What major changes have you set in place that were done, due to your leadership? I am not asking about changes that Dennis Leone, or members initiated and pressed to be made. You simply were there and you and your staff took credit in STRS correspondence to the membership, for being the brainchild of those changes, when you definitely were not the initiator of such. I am asking for changes you yourself initiated and brought to fruition. Please list those accomplishments, as your stakeholders would like to know what we have paid for by having you as our executive director for the past two years? I am sure there are many, just list them please? What have we received for the large salary you command? This is crucial, as the board will soon need to begin a search for the next executive director. The board and the membership need to understand just what that person does now and what that person should be expected to do in the future.

It concerns me that since 2003, you and your staff have not seriously considered many of the numerous proposals brought to you by the membership, in hope of improving the operation of the STRS. There are many loose ends that have not been addressed, when you in fact promised you would get back to these members.

This began long ago, starting in May of 2003, when Dennis Leone made one of two important presentations, with accompanying documentation to the entire executive staff and the board. Have his concerns ever been fully considered? We both know the answer to this question. No, they have not been fully addressed to this date. Therefore, I am requesting that you and the board chairman, Bob Brown, see that Dennis Leone's two position papers are reviewed by the board and the executive staff, as soon as possible.

While I chaired some of the beginning CORE-STRS monthly committee meetings in late 2003 and early 2004, Bob Buerkle, Leon Knore and Jim Alley, among others, brought well thought out proposals and questions to you and your executive staff for consideration. You said you would get back to them and the CORE-STRS committee. You usually did not. When I asked you about any one of these proposals, you consistently told me that though they were good ideas, they just simply would not work for the STRS. If this is not an example of administrative fiat, then I guess I do not clearly understand the definition of such.

In 2005, there have been proposals brought to you by member John Bos, concerning the STRS purchase of prescription medication plans for the membership. Leon Knore, his brother and Jim Norris, all members of the STRS brought you a proposal for the equal distribution of pension benefits to all retirees. Their proposal would do away with the variety of pension plans that exist at the STRS today and that provide for an unequal distribution of funds. Their plan would equalize the funding for all present and future retirees. To my knowledge, you have not followed up on either of these proposals. You have not even asked these individuals to come back to the STRS and discuss them again. It is obvious that you, the executive staff and board members involved in these presentations have simply dismissed these as well.

Damon, how do you in your wildest dreams defend such? This is inexcusable and I assure you the malcontents will never let these abuses go unanswered. We will continue to come to the board meetings and ask these same questions time after time, until you and your staff and the board members that appear to be stone deaf to these issues acknowledge them. Just because you and others tend to ignore us and write us off as a few malcontents will not cause us to go away. I assure you this attitude in dealing with us only makes us more tenacious and determined to fight against the administrative fiat currently in place at the STRS. I am not sure if you understand this, but we will keep you reminded of such.

Your attempts to ignore those that have sincerely attempted to help; those you mock by asking why we keep coming back and asking the same questions; and those you attempt to discredit by referring to us as a few disgruntled or malcontent retirees will never go away. We will be there when you and others of this attitude are gone. If this were not the true situation at the STRS, then I would not be writing this letter to you and the many members that attend the board meeting at present would not be there. All STRS retirees would be happy and living as comfortably as they planned throughout their careers, based upon what they were told to expect throughout their careers.

As usual, I could not contain my comments in a few paragraphs, as far too many issues are still unanswered, but we will keep up the pressure, that you can count on.

Sincerely,

Tom Curtis
STRS Life Member
ORTA Life Member
Stark Co. RTA Life Member
CORE Life Member
AARP Life Member