FLASHBACK -- 1 YEAR AGO -- Molly to ORTA's Richard -- Have things really changed in one year?

From: Molly Janczyk
To: Richard Stearns
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004
Subject: RE: Response to CORE

Richard, Thank you for this response to date. Some misperceptions are iincluded and a ******* response is under each response of yours by me. Others may respond as they wish.

From: Richard Stearns
Subject: Response to CORE
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004

Dear Molly,

As I had promised earlier, I will have responses to the e-mails which you have forwarded to me. I had thought that I would do it all in one e-mail but it was becoming too cumbersome when I started to compile the information. Therefore, I will respond to one or two items when making a reply that you can forward to recipients on your e-mail list. Since I have named other groups in this e-mail, I will also forward a copy to those groups .

1. Request for ad hoc committee member names:

The ORTA By Laws does not permit disclosure of any member's information. These By Laws are voted upon by the general population of ORTA members at District Conferences, Area Conferences, or at the Biennial Meetings by those attending.This information has been requested before and ORTA had to decline the information for the same reason as stated above. The By Laws have not changed to date. This provision of the By Laws is to protect each member's privacy. A person's doctor, hospital, their bank, credit card companies (hopefully), and others have the same policy about every individual, including CORE members. That set aside, it is obvious and was stated in e-mails, some CORE members said that they would "get all over" the ad hoc committee members with their criticisms. Some of those criticisms that have been circulated are of the "poison pen" type. CORE has attacked the endorsements, the endorsed candidates, the ad hoc committee as a whole, the Executive Committee, and ORTA for the endorsements that were made. To subject those individuals to that anger will almost certainly generate hard feelings toward the CORE group and individuals in CORE in return. This will not benefit anyone.

********IT IS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE WHO IS ON THE AD HOC COmmITTEE: NOTHING ELSE WAS ASKED: ONLY A LIST OF NAMES TO DETERMINE IF THE AREA WAS INDEED REPREENTED: NO PERSONAL INFO: JUST THE NAMES: IT IS STRONGLY FELT THIS COMMITTEE ACTED INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS DISTRICT SINCE SO MANY DISTRICT AND LOCAL RTA 'S DISAGREED WITH THE OUTCOME. THERE IS NOTHING SECRET NOR SHOULD THERE BE WITH PROVIDING NAMES ONLY! TO DO SO IS NOT RESPONSIVE TO MEMBERSHIP BUT ONLY ORTA'S WILL..

YOU BET, ORTA has met with criticism: THEY DID NOT REP THEIR MEMBERSHIP! SHOW US THE REAL NUMBERS ON THAT ONE VS INDIVIDUAL COMM MEMBERS RATING AS THEY FELT ORTA WISHED!

WHO says it will not help to respond to ORTA with real feeling? Besides ORTA?

It was questioned about where the ad hoc committee was from, was it representational. The members were from areas adjoining Lake Erie and the Ohio River and almost from the Pennsylvania/West Virginia side to the Indiana side of the state. When I called Dennis and told him of the endorsement decision I wished him well. That gesture of good will is something that is foreign to those of the CORE membership that attack almost anything and anyone that does not agree with them. Although ORTA does not agree with some of the methods of CORE, ORTA has not ridiculed CORE. The inverse is certainly not true. ORTA as an organization and as individuals, OEA as an organization and as individuals, STRS Board members and as individuals on the Board, STRS staff, Damon Asbury, and others have been on the receiving end of venomous rhetoric generated by persons identifying themselves as CORE members. We are not "the enemy" but have treated as such by some of the CORE members. We are all attempting to provide the best retirement system that is possible for the members of STRS.

*******AGAIN: JUST BECAUSE AREAS HAD INDIV FROM A LOCATION DOES NOT MEAN THEY REPRESENTED THEIR MEMBERSHIP. THAT IS WHAT WE WISH TO KNOW. REPS SHOUlD REP THEIR RTA'S WISHES AND WE DO NOt BELIEVE THAT OCCURRED DUE TO RESPONSES FROMYOUR RTA'S!

********ORTA HAS RIDICULED CORE: REMEMBER: "CONFUSED OHIO RETIRED EDUCATORS" AT PUBLIC MEETINGS! Statements made by IRVINE AND VAN TINE have been heard by many. UNDERMINING CORE by stating in letters to RTA's ,I believe, it was a waste to send funds to CORE and retirees should send the money to ORTA instead.

SHALL I GO ON???????

IT IS ALWAYS OK WHEN DONE BY THE OTHER SIDE ISN'T IT?

*********NOW OEA:
1. CORE ATTACKED OEA AND ITS LEADER ALLEN AFTER: I SAY AFTER ALLEN PUBLICLY WROTE A HUGE ARTICLE CALLING LEONE NAMES, SAYING HE MISREPRESENTED FACTS, QUESTIONING HIS MOTIVES AND ON AND ON! SHALL I SEND YOU THIS LETTER? I STILL HAVE IT. ALLEN IN SPITE OF MANY REQUESTS AND REPEATED ATTEMPTS BY MEMBERS, LEGISLATORS AND I AM TOLD 50% OF OEA NEVER WOULD RETRACT ONE WORD! LEONE WAS WILLING MULTIPLE TIMES TO MEET AND FORGE A NEW BEGINNING!
2. Bill Leibensperger ridiculed us to our face! I have witnesses where he smirked at us along with his young underlings laughing at us in the first months when we tried to speak with them. THEY REBUFFED US WITH "OEA HAS ACTIVE ON THE BUILDING (BILL L.)" "YOU HAVE YOURS: WE WANT OURS" (YOUNG OEA RESP WHILE LAUGHING AT US). AND OTHER COMMENTS. Bill gave his speech and we listened and he sat down and talked constantly during CORE speeches till I turned and said, "BILL , we listened to you!"

*********STRS: Smug, dismissive and unresponsive from the beginning. WE WERE A NUISANCE THEY WAITED TO GO AWAY! THEY STILL WAIT!

ENDRY:
1."We are a corporation" when I said they wanted to act like corporate America in stead of a pension system.
2. 'You know Molly, many teachers only worked to get their husbands healthcare.' To my asking about spousal subsidy.
3. "Why do they keep coming back?" re: CORE
4. Re: Leone, published in newspapers aobut Leone's research, "That doesn't necessarily make him a good board member."
(NOTHING positive.
5. When asked why STRS didn't spearhead movement to change the law about not allowing rehires to be on the board, "WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?"
6. Voted for non investment employee bonuses vs. voting against usuing retirees' money for such lavish business practices because they were promised EVEN THO THE PROMISE WAS WRONG TO BEGIN WITH thus against ORC:
3307.15, in my opinion. You don't vote for something wrong just because it promised something to someone which never should have been approved in the first place.
7. VOTING FOR RAMSER AND TELLING LAZARES TO HIS FACE IT WAS TO KEEP HIM FROM GETTING ANY MORE VOTES FOR ISSUES ON THE BOARD! THAT IS GOOD RETIREE REPRESENTATION WITH SOLID FOUNDATION! SURE SHOWS TRYING TO DO WHAT IS BEST OVER PERSONAL MOTIVE , DON'T YOU THINK?
8. 'None of the money spent on building , art, etc. makes any difference. It wouldn't pay for HC' Isn't there something dismissive about that? It's ok to misspend YOUR money! WHEN DID IT BECOME OK FOR STRS TO SPEND ONE CENT ON THEMSELVES FOR PLEASURE AND PERKS? Those cents, (hundreds of millions) could have gone into pension fund, been thought of with legislation to estab. a needy HC fund.

SCOTT: TO LAZARES' FACE: WELL I AM NOT HAPPY YOU ARE HERE! (WHEN LAZARES WAS ELECTED TO STRS BOARD). -crying for employees vs. devastated retirees. -being one of the top spenders of memberships' money.
(to list a few).

MIKE: -- hiring himself out to an alleged friend in Perry Co. and yet never showing, I am told for one day's work YET having this district reimbursed for substitutes never hired for days of STRS business
(ILLEGAL? PERHAPS NOT DUE TO CRAPPY, LOOSE DEFINITIONS IN OHIO FOR THE WORD TEACHER BUT MORAL OR ETHICAL: I THINK NOT)! -'none of the money spent on building, art, etc,makes any difference.........doesn't change HC.' and more..........

Then there is Sidaway with her let them eat cake attitude and high spending of members' money along with Chapman and Norris (Norris also having his district paid for subs not used).

ALL THESE WITH DISDAIN for CORE from the beginning.

THEY WERE TOO BUSY TO ANS EMAILS or respond to constituents after all. SCOTT AND MIKE STILL ARE!

Damon: Personally, it is hard not to wonder about Damon. He is good at making one feel personal and in touch with him.

But, He continued with the bonus money for non investment employees.........HOW AGAIN DOES THAT WORK TOW THE BEST RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR US? He continues with part answers and takes credit for changes he made DUE TO BEING FORCED! HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE WE SAT WITH HIM MONTH AFTER MONTH AND STILL DO TO FORCE THOSE CHANGES WHILE HE AND HIS STAFF SMIRKED AT US IN THE BEGINNING WITH SELF RIGHTEOUS ATTITUDES! BUT we keep coming back and got the legislators to change WHAT THEY WOULD NOT!

COMMENTS: SLATER: MOLLY: NOT ONE CENT OF ANY CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN SPENT! ONLY THE INTEREST ON THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS! (OH! OK! IF MY BROKER EARNS ME MONEY: IT IS OK FOR HIM TO SPEND IT?)

MANY TIMES by many staff: IT WILL TAKE LEGISLATION TO CHANGE AND GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! WELL! NO ATTEMPTS WILl NOT BRING CHANGE! AND IT WILL BRING SOMEOVERSIGHT! BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR? YES! BUT, when one is not making one effort and smugly tossig our cocerns away each month....

EVERYONE FORGETS ONE THING: NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF: STRS hadn't taken our money! ORTA had overseen STRS. Endry had fought for US VS APPROVING EVERY LAVISH MISSPENDING! The list with Endry goes on and on with so many having bad experiences and he certainly doe not hide his disdain for CORE, in my opinion.

*******RICHARD: PLEASE DO NOT SAY WE HAVE NOT MET WITH RIDICULE BY ANY OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS: WE HAVE MET WITH DISMISSAL, DISDAIN, RIDICULE and CONTEMPT FROM THEM ALL!

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HEARD: "ONLY A FEW DISGRUNTLED RETIREES" FROM ORTA, OEA, STRS............................accompanied by smirks and laughing and remarks.......unkind........ You have heard them Richard. WE ALL H AVE!

There has been a request to know how the ad hoc committee voted. There was no vote per se. The six candidates (four retired and two active) were rated on a scale of 1 to 10 by each member on the committee . Each candidate was asked a set of questions and responded to them. The committee members rated the candidates and their ratings were compiled. A discussion was then held about the perceptions of the interviews. The committee members were then asked if they would like to re-rank the candidates using the same scale. The committee declined and moved that the results be forwarded to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee held a quite lengthy discussion on the recommendations and then, by majority vote, accepted the recommendations. No candidate was named nor a vote taken for or against anyone.

*******YET AGAIN: 16 individuals rated-the QUESTION IS: DID THEY REPRESENT THEMSELVES AND ORTA OR THEIR LOCAL VOICES IN ENTIRETY?

2. Communications sent in CORE's name.

CORE has said that they have no officers, only an "advisory board", and that communications which go out are seen by this board before being forwarded. In making inquiries, I know that this board does not see a lot of what goes out in CORE's name. Those individuals from CORE that make inflammatory statements agitate much of the anger that has been expressed. No structure is convenient to those individuals when there is something to be challenged. Someone with a different viewpoint has no place to which they can address that challenge. It is also known that not all CORE members condone everything that has gone out in CORE's name.

*********MISCONCEPTION: ANYONE FROM CORE MAY RESPOND IN A MANNER THEY FEEL APPROPRIATE. THERE ARE NO BY-LAWS! ONLY CORE ALERTS To COUNTY CONTACTS SENT BY ONE INDIVIDUAL AND APPROVED BY THE ADV BOARD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS YOU STATED ABOVE. NO ONE CONTROLS ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION OR PERSONAL VOICE WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY I DON'T WANT TO BE ON ANY BOARD.

ANYONE IN CORE CAN MAKE A STATEMENT WHICH WILL BE PUBLISHED TO DISAGREE WITH ANY STAND AND SOME HAVE COME THRU BUT NONE TO DISPUTE ANY CLAIM THAT I HAVE SEEN OTHER THAN WE NEED TO BECOME ORTA AND NOT DISMISS THEM TOTALLY! BUT TO SLOWLY FILL POSITIONS AND TAKE THEM OVER! REGARDING ORTA: THAT IS THE MOST + thing said that I have heard or seen. WE HAVE OPEN DISCUSSIONS AT CORE MEETINGS AND DISCUSS EVERY REP'S PT OF VIEW WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN PRIVY TO AND SEEN ME DEFEND ORTA WHEN NO ONE ELSE DID! I WILL NOT DO SO ANYMORE AS I CANNOT DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE!

3. Joe Endry and his part in the activities of ORTA:

Joe Endry has been accused of orchestrating the operations of ORTA and most recently the endorsements of STRS candidates. Where this speculation came from is unfathomable as Joe has not been involved with ORTA since retiring from there. He was not informed as to who the candidates to be interviewed were, the time, place, date, nor whom was endorsed. Charges that members of CORE are making without foundation that assails and damages people's reputations are unacceptable. Someone or some group in CORE may find themselves as defendants in a libel suit when those on the receiving end have "had enough of it" and pursue damages.

********ANYONE CAN STATE THEIR PERCEPTION: NO ONE IS STATING THEIR VIEW IF CONCRETE FACT! THIS VEILED THREAT IS NOT OF CONCERN TO US. ORTA CANNOT EVEN SUE WHEN IT IS APPROP DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS WE ARE TOLD SO NOW THEY CAN OR JOE CAN AFFORD TO DO SO! PlEASE! IT IS "FELT" THAT ORTA AND JOE Are STRONGLY ALIGNED AND In STRONG AGREEMENT WITH ONE ANOTHER ON A CONTINUED BASIS WITH NOT MUCH WHICH IS NOT DISCUSSED. IF SOMEONE WISHES TO SUE ME ON THAT, SO BE IT! I CAN DEFEND MYSELF ON THAT ONE! Won't cost me a cent. Too many precise and obvious alignments and ORTA did not nor did Joe watchdog STRS for misspending of our funds. You want to say, suit, we have the grounds on this one, I would think. OUR FUNDS were stolen along with our retirements, IN MY OPINION (WORDS I AM CAREFUL TO USE BY THE WAY and advise others to do.)

4. ORTA's presumed "lack of looking out for our membership":

I will respond with information on this subject at a later time, hopefully in the coming week or two.

Richard Stearns, President Elect-ORTA

********MEMBERSHIP IS DISMALLY let down and turned off by ORTA's lack of movement toward STRS during this entire mess. THEY SHOULD HAVE been doing what LEONE has done but didn't. I think I heard it was said, (not sure) by ORTA that THEY COULD have done what Leone did but were too busy. THAT is repping memberhip? MULTIPLE ex's can be listed as well.

This is not meant to be inflammatory but is meant to be absolute honest feelings based on the past 2 years. I ,mostly alone, defended ORTA and took a lot of abuse over it. But I stood by my conviction tho it turned out to be false. I fought too many times to count to forge an alliance. THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A DIFFERENCE OF OPINIOn, RICHARD! THIS IS A BETRAYAL FOR REASONS ORTA CANNOT DEFEND!

WHERE ARE THE EX'S OF JOHNSON'S MORE QUALIFIED HISTORY FIGHTING FOR RETIREES STATEWIDE? WHERE ARE THE ANS TO THOSE QUES? WHERE HAS HE BEEN WHILE RETIREES STATEWIDE CAME TO STRS : SPOKE TO MEDIA: GOT LEGISLATORS TO LISTEN AND FORCE CHANGES AT STRS FOLLOWING THE HEROIC EFFORTS OF LEONE WHO ASKED NOTHING FROM US IN RETURN?

RICHARD, YOU MAY NEVER SAY SO OUT LOUD, BUT I THINK YOU FEEL LEONE IS THE ONE WHO BOUND US; SECURED CHANGES FOR US AND THAT ORTA IS BEHIND THE TIMES WITH YOU WANTING CHANGE.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US IS: I WILL SAY SO OUT LOUD .

Lines should be drawn at ORTA. There is no place in our generation's thinking that one feels one way and yet votes another to make nice and for future gain which rarely or certainly too slowly comes.

I am sincere in my statements and do not wish them to be anything other than direct and honest. That is how we deal with each other as well AS YOU HAVE SEEN! We do not mince words and waste valuable time. We say it as we feel based on our history of this crisis and always COME TO AGREEMENT BY ONLY ONE METHOD: THE MAJORITY VIEW BASED ON ALL VOICES FROM CALLS, EMAIL AND REPS PRESENT. ASK ANY CORE MEMBER AND THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT ALL COMMENTS ARE POSTED AND HEARD AND RESPONDED to.

REPS SAY SUCH THINGS AS: SUCH AND SUCH A COUNTY WANTS ME TO SAY................... This comes from meetings locally and then a rep comes to STATE THAT FEELING OF ITS MEMBERSHIP . NEVER IS ONE VOICE THE DETERMINING FACTOR NOR ONE BOARD OR COMMITTEE. ALL IS POSTED AND ASKED FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT AND DECISIONS ARE BASED TOTALLY ON THAT COUNT ! HOWEVER ANYONE MAY COMMENT FOR OR AGAINST IT AND THEIR VIEW WILL ALSO BE HEARD!

I have forwarded many comments against what I felt but it was majority and some against me, personally, which I forw as that is the nature of CORE. Usually when one says, it goes against CORE so it raises anger or is met with dismissal, it is because theirs is a lone view (I have been in that position many times as one who put themself out there for ORTA) and simply not met with majority agreement. BUT NO ONE CAN HONESTLY SAY THEY HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD! It may be they are just not agreed with and that brings quick responses. I have been on the receiving end as have any of us who put forth statements at times not well received.

BUT ALL DO HAVE RECOURSE TO SPEAK AND PUT THEIR VIEW ON LINE OR STATE IT AT MEETINGS! AS I SAID: RICHARD YOU HAVE SEEN THIS FOR YOURSELF AND IT IS NOT ALWAYS AN EASY DISCUSSION BUT IT IS HONEST AND REPRESENTATIVE OF VOICES BACK HOME NOT ABLE TO ATTEND. ALL ARE WELCOME ALWAYS TO BE PART! NO predetermined decisions are made until open discussion and debate and vote. NO by laws so decisions can change WITH THE NEW TIMES AND INFO AND NEW PRESENTATIONS OF FACTS! WE ARE NOT STUCK WITH ANY OF THAT!

WE LOOK AT ACTION NOT TIRED RHETORIC AND ENDLESS "BE PATIENT" STATEMENTS! WE ARE ACTION ORIENTED TO GET THE MOST DONE IN THE LEAST TIME EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY! AS SCHURING SAID: "DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH YOU HAVE ACCOMPLISHED IN ONE YEAR?" We have been told it takes a decade to accomplish this much.

We have been told CORE IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR: -Dyer's stepping down -changes in spending at STRS -SB133 (which suddenly it SEEMS ORTA does not like so much; hope I am wrong):
*removal of ACTIVE CONTROL ON THE STRS BOARD
*gaining a retiree on the board
*oversight of investments by investment experts VS STRS EDUCATORS
*not allowing any board member who overspent members' money to EVER SIT ON THE BOARD AGAIN

-child care, gym, cafeteria - cost neutral -discontinued car, credit card and entertainment on our dime -fewer trips and less lavish

AND ON AND ON!

WHAT IS IT ORTA DOES NOT LIKE ABOUT THIS AND WHAT HAND DID ORTA HAVE IN ACCOMPLISHING ANY OF THIS?

So while all are heard, some may not like the responses to their opinion is all. WE WILL NOT CHANGE THE MAJORITY OPINION THO AS THAT IS A PREMISE OF CORE: EVERY VOICE IS HEARD! THEN DECISIONS ARE VOTED UPON BY ANY WHO CHOOSE TO VOTE! AND THAT IS WHAT RULES! NOT DECISIONS BY A FEW FOLLOWING OLD BY LAWS NEEDING CHANGE.

ANSWERS CORE WISHES : A COMPARISON OF LEONE AND JOHNSON: where has Johnson been the past 2 yrs during this fight for retirees? what are his involvements with media, legislators, speaking to RTA's thruout the state, and all other questions which have been presented to you.

Let's get the specifics and real compariosn of qualifications. Not, he was seen as more qualified.

FLASHBACK 1 Year Ago: 'Which is it, Mr. Allen?' or '17 months PLUS 12 MORE equals 29 months'

[Note: The following is a copy of a memo provided to me on December 31, 2004 by Dennis Leone; he had originally sent it to all Ohio superintendents and principals on August 8, 2003. KBB]

From: Dennis Leone
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004
Subject: Fw: Conflicting OEA Statements Regarding STRS

Thought you might find of interest this 17-month old e-mail I sent out to all 900 principals and all 600 supts in Ohio. Of course, Allen had no response.

Dennis Leone

From: Dennis Leone
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003
Subject: Conflicting OEA Statements Regarding STRS

As you know, I presented a 13-page position paper to the STRS Board on May 16, 2003 that summarized a number of things about inappropriate spending practices at STRS. The report contained several recommendations that called for the STRS Board members and STRS Administrators to change their spending practices, realign numerous policies, and better represent the entire STRS membership. Many things have happened since May 16, and I really do believe the STRS Board and staff soon will be getting on the right track.

On June 5, 2003 -- one week after I shared a copy of my position paper with principals and superintendents (I didn't even give it to the news media) -- OEA President Gary Allen criticized me heavily with a letter to all OEA-affiliate local presidents, OEA "District Leaders," the OEA Retirement Advisory Council, and the STRS Board members.

In his June 5 letter, Allen wrote that my report of 5-16-03 was "destructive" and that I was communicating "misrepresentations." He described my findings (which were based totally on data provided to me by STRS) as merely "allegations" and accused me directly of attempting to "discredit the STRS management." He wrote: "His motives are unclear" and "his logic is hard to follow." He said: "Many of the incidents he wants corrected occurred in the past and cannot be changed.....the context in which he addresses these issues appears to be of his own creation." (What the heck does that mean?) He wrote further: "We believe in the integrity of STRS and the individuals on the Board." And he also wrote: "Some recipients (of my findings) have elected to indiscriminately broadcast the report." (I guess that means some of you.) He was quoted in a northern Ohio newspaper saying that the spending practices of the STRS Board represented "old news."

Then -- on July 28, 2003 -- Allen sent his constituents a different kind of a letter. In this one, he wrote: "OEA leadership shares the concerns expressed by members in regard to STRS operations......we have communicated those concerns to the STRS Board members and have asked them to move quickly to make appropriate changes and to address member concerns." (That's interesting !) He wrote further: "OEA supports an independent fiduciary audit of STRS.....taking decisive action and making proactive improvements are necessary to re-establish the system's credibility with its members, state officials, and with the public at large."

Allen also said in his July 28 letter: "If STRS reaches out to its members, listens to their concerns, and acts in response to those concerns, it will be possible to restore credibility of the system......restoring this credibility is essential."

Does anyone know how Allen, on July 28, suddenly could be concerned about the same STRS issues that he criticized me for being concerned about on June 5 (which were the issues addressed in my May 16 position paper)?

At the end of Allen's July 28 letter, he explains that "false reports have surfaced" regarding his personal opposition to House Bill 227, which is designed to increase one retiree member on the STRS Board and decrease one active teacher member. One sentence later in the same letter, he wrote that he has, in fact, expressed his opposition to H.B. 227 -- but only did so on behalf OEA since the union has a long standing policy stating that a majority of STRS Board members needs to be teachers.

I do not think Gary Allen really gets it. It matters not what the OEA bylaws say. The real issue is that the STRS Board has been a dismal failure in recent years, and that STRS membership money has been wasted and spent inappropriately. But OEA, with its ugly June 5 knee-jerk reaction reaction to my first report, decided to go to bat for the OEA members on the STRS Board and criticize my desire to bring out the truth. OEA was out-of-touch, without even knowing it, with how outraged Ohio's active teachers and retired teachers really were about these issues. The Canton Repository newspaper printed an editorial on June 16 about OEA's position that was entitled: "OEA President Out-of-Step With STRS Pension Woes."

As noted above, Allen wrote on June 5 that what I desired to be corrected "occurred in the past and cannot be changed." I wonder if he still feels that way, given all that has happened in Ohio in the past eight weeks, and given his own revised position on July 28 which asked the STRS Board "to move quickly to make appropriate changes and address member concerns." Which is it Mr. Allen?

Dennis Leone, Supt.
Chillicothe City Schools

Tom Curtis to Paul Boyer: Shabby treatment for Dennis and John by other STRS Board members and other issues

From Tom Curtis
December 29, 2005

Hello Paul,

Thank you once again for your continued support. I hope my anger was not as apparent, as it has been in my past correspondence to Damon. I attempted to only state facts and not get to personal, as I have in the past. I simply intend to keep the pressure on all of them. They must never again get a feeling that they can do as they please and be unnoticed.

In my opinion, we still have many changes that have been discussed, but no change has taken place to date. I think that is Damon’s fault in some respects, but maybe not. I am referring to things such as the 37-1/2 hour workweek and payments to those who would adopt a child. I believe these two issues still stand unchanged, but I have not confirmed such.

I am saddened to say, but after attending all but one board meeting, since Dennis came on the board, I find Dennis is treated just as poorly by most of the other board members, as has been John Lazares over the past year. Some make every attempt to silence him and have offered no apologies when they are dead wrong for having done such. I will address this issue when I present my 3-minute speech this coming month, along with the non-responsiveness of many board members. It clearly appears that most board members do not want our input and this is becoming an issue with me. They are there to represent us, how can they possibly do such when they are unwilling to correspond with us. If they are not willing to do such, then they have no business being on the board. Paul, am I wrong or slightly off track in thinking this way?

Bob Brown is pathetic as chairman of the board. He has no right being such, as he fiddles around and cannot put his comments together and then often does not even complete what he started to say. I believe he loses his thought. This is very disturbing to me. He has little real knowledge of board policies and procedures, which is to be expected, as he has less then two years on the board. But, when he calls another board member out of order, when he is not out of order, this is a real problem. Further, he has made no apology for doing such. This is dead wrong! Again, this why I have stated that Mike Billirakis is the logical and rightful person to be the board chair and John Lazares should have been the co-chair. They are the only two that qualify as elected board members and had time on the board prior to the election of such. Bob Brown and Conni Ramser were appointed to the board, by the prior board, they were not elected by the membership and as such, should not qualify for the positions they hold. I want a legal opinion on this and I believe Petro’s office is the one that must make that decision. I will soon file a complaint with the State Attorney General’s office. It is time to find out just what SB 133 mandates.

The strong OEA leadership influence still lingers and we must snuff that out, as those people have an attitude that they are in charge, no matter what. They do not listen to anyone else; they rarely respond to correspondence to them; and when they do, they are always right.

I have little faith that Damon either can or will attempt to do much to bring about change. We were all told long ago by those that work under him at Worthington that he was a staff builder. He is definitely not a guy that rocks the boat. In my opinion, he is just treading water until his contract expires. My only fear is that he may decide he wants to be considered for another contract and this board just might be silly enough to grant him one. Maybe this is a question you might ask him at some point. He may respond more openly to you then me, as to whether he desires to continue as the executive director at the end of his contract in February 2007.

Take care,

Tom Curtis

From: Paul Boyer
To: Thomas Curtis
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005
Subject: letter

Wow, Tom, you must have had typist's cramp or whatever it might be called after typing that long letter to Damon which I read on Kathie's blog. It took eight pages to print it out. I have been having some trouble with my eyes if I try to read too much from the screen so I print out longer letters.

I am going to write to Damon and tell him that I agree with all that you have said.

Have a Happy New Year.

Paul

Mike Billirakis: a teacher in Perry Schools (??) when he lives in Columbus (??) and serves STRS Board (??) and works for $$$$$ for NEA ???

Published 07/24/2003 News-Herald.com, serving Northeast Ohio District ties in question by Roger Doan, Correspondent Township man wonders why STRS board member is considered teacher for Perry Schools A Perry Township resident is questioning the propriety of contractual ties between the Perry School District and a member of the Ohio State Teachers' Retirement System Board. Russell C. Pletcher of Mill Pond Circle is asking the district to explain its relationship with recently elected STRS board member Michael Billirakis in light of news reports concerning mishandling of the state teachers' retirement fund money. Billirakis is listed as an active teacher and employee of the Perry School District. His salary is paid by the National Education Association, a teachers' union that works closely with the Ohio Education Association. "From the reports in the papers, it appears to me that the (STRS) board is quite arrogant in its consideration of the retirement money as theirs, as opposed to the teachers who serve our students," Pletcher said. "I have to wonder if we aren't fostering that arrogant attitude by putting someone on contract that really isn't a day-to-day teacher." Pletcher said Billirakis' campaign literature, in his run for the STRS board position he won in May with 19,945 votes, claimed he works for the Perry School District. "Isn't it rather misleading when he runs for a position on a board representing teachers, and he really isn't a classroom teacher here?" Pletcher asked at a school board meeting Tuesday. Members of the Ohio STRS voted in the election. In response, Perry District Superintendent Timothy Berkey acknowledged Billirakis is not actively employed in the district. But Berkey defended the decision to authorize the Billirakis teaching contract on the basis of Billirakis' ability to influence federal legislation on the district's behalf. "Mr. Billirakis is technically an employee of the district, but his salary is paid by the National Education Association, and not by the STRS," Berkey said. "His work is really out of Washington, D.C., and it is of no cost at all to the district. His work on the STRS board is separate, and not at all a part of that." State legislators recently criticized the STRS board leadership. That was after news reports retirement fund overseers had given $16.1 million in bonuses to employees since August 2000 and spent $869,000 on artwork to decorate the board's offices. This came during a period in which the fund's assets declined by $12.3 billion. Teachers in Ohio contribute as much as 10 percent of their salaries in order to obtain retirement benefits. Rick C. Amos, a Perry School Board member, compared the Billirakis contract situation to candidates for other political offices who reference institutional ties to inflate their resumes. "It's like the guy running for president of the truckers' union who hasn't driven a truck in years," Amos said. "There are a lot of people in the teachers' union who are active in leadership positions, and who haven't taught for years, but are required to have some status as a teacher. "We got caught up in it because (Billirakis) needed a place to call his home. We felt it would be advantageous to have some ties to someone who could maybe make a strong case for us where we might need it someday." Noting that Billirakis had been employed for years by school districts in southern Ohio, Pletcher asked why Billirakis did not maintain his ties to those districts. "I'm sure there was some financial advantage for him to do that," Amos said. "But from our perspective, it will be the people who pay his salary in Washington who will deal with that." Unsatisfied with the board's explanations, Pletcher said after the meeting that he still thinks Billirakis obtained union votes by sham, because STRS rules require up to five positions on the board be filled by active teachers. "There have been other school districts in Ohio that have been asked to do these 'pass-through' salary contracts, but have declined," Pletcher said. "I don't see why, as Rick Amos said, Mr. Billirakis needed to be given a home in Perry."

©The News-Herald 2003

Reader Opinions

Name: John Curry
Date: Jul, 24 2003
Let Billirakis find a "home school" in Franklin Co. where he lives. By being in your school system he will be padding his "best 3 years" so that his final average salary upon retirement will be very sweet. This deal is unethical at best. John Curry

Tom Curtis: Correction to 12/28/05 letter to Damon Asbury

Hello Everyone,

It has been brought to my attention that in my letter to Damon Asbury of yesterday, I identified the wrong Perry Local School district that lists Mike Billirakis as a social studies teacher since I believe 2000 or 2001. I indicated that it was in southern Ohio, when it is not.

The Perry Local School System that has and I believe currently does list Mike Billirakis as a social studies teacher, is in Lake County in the northeastern part of the state. This is a very wealthy school system.

To my knowledge Mike Billirakis has never lived in the Perry Local school district or even close by. He has lived in the Columbus area during the entire time he has been listed as an employee of that system and has never taught one day in that school system.

He has not been in the classroom since the 1980's. His contract was passed to this wealthy school system from a poorer school system in Portage County, where he actually did teach years ago. How this was possible and ethical is beyond my knowledge. It does not appear to be a problem with the Auditor of State, Betty Montgomery, as she has been notified of such and was not willing to take any action against this irregular situation.

Even if the NEA pays his entire salary of $149,550, one would think there would still be other expenses the Perry Local school system would incur for listing him as an employee. I wonder who provides for his health care coverage and life insurance. Even if all of the costs are paid by the OEA, then what benefit did he receive for moving his contract from Field Local in Portage County to Perry Local in Lake County? Go figure? Is this just another example of pay to play in Ohio? Do the educators and residents of Lake County know about this and agree with it?

Take care,

Tom Curtis

Tom Curtis to Avanelle Oberlin: Upcoming Buck Report to show effects of SB 190 on retirement system

From Tom Curtis, 12/29/05

Thank you Avanelle,

Your support is greatly appreciated and needed by CORE. We will have to be ever vigilant if we are to keep our benefits for the rest of our years.

FYI, there will be a report at the January 19th board meeting from Buck Consultants, concerning the effects of SB190 on the retirement system, since it went into effect in January of 2000. This legislation increased the payment percentages for all retirees, but much more so for those retiring with 30+ years after 1999. This is a much-awaited report and I thought you might desire someone from your county to attend.

Take care, Tom Curtis

From: Avanelle Oberlin
December 29, 2005
Subject: Re: 122805 Canton Rep, We're Not Prepared For Boomer Retirement, Curry

Dear Tom:

Thanks for this email. I enjoyed reading it and appreciated the information you brought as well as the feeling you expressed. So true!

Avanelle Oberlin

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

Dennis Leone to Sen. Marc Dann: ORC 3307.15

From: Dennis Leone
To: Sen. Marc Dann
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Subject: ORC 3307.15
Dear Senator Dann --
I, like John Curry, hope you are elected as AG. I hope, when you have a minute, that you review 2 things: (1) ORC 3307.15, which lists the statutory responsibility of all STRS Board members to make decisions that are only in the best interest of STRS members and their beneficiaries; and (2) The new pension reform language contained SB 133 -- passed on June 16, 2004 -- which mandates that the AG to enforce ORC 3307.15, and pursue civil charges, removal, and restitution against pension board members who engage in misconduct.
I am the person who (in May of 2003) discovered and published the terrible misspending practices of the former STRS executive director and former STRS Board members. At the urging of retirees, I ran for the STRS Board and was elected on May 7, 2005. It bothered me greatly in 2003 and 2004 when neither Betty Montgomery or Jim Petro had the fortitude to enforce the spirit of 3307.15. They wouldn't do it, simply put, because they were part of the Board that was engaged in misconduct. SB 133 removed them from the Board, which has eliminated the ridiculous conflict of interest that existed.
I look forward to working with you.
Dennis Leone

Article: Poor, middle class lost out to special interests in budget bill

From John Curry

Subject: Sleep soundly tonight, your Congress is busy screw...Oops, I mean saving you!

Columbus Dispatch, Wednesday, December 28, 2005

E.J. DIONNE

With indicted super lobbyist Jack Abramoff said to be ready to cooperate with prosecutors and his partner, Michael Scanlon, already singing, 2006 is expected to be the year of congressional scandals.

Lord knows, a housecleaning in the Capitol is in order. But the Abramoff scandal is just part of the corruption of our political system. There is another level of specialinterest influence that cannot be handled by prosecutors: Only the voters can render a judgment on a politics of favoritism that has created a new Gilded Age. It’s clear that the national government has placed itself squarely on the side of the wealthy, the privileged and the connected.

Rarely does a single action serve as so powerful an example of how the system is working. The recent budget bill, which squeaked through the House and the Senate just before Christmas, is a road map of insider dealing. It shows that when choices have to be made, the interests of the poor and the middle class fall before the wishes of interest groups with powerful lobbies and piles of campaign money to distribute.

GOP majorities in the Senate and the House insisted that they wanted to cut the federal budget. But the Senate and House offered competing plans for achieving savings. When it came time to meld the proposals, almost every choice congressional leaders made favored the interest groups.

Consider health programs. The House bill proposed substantial cuts for Medicaid beneficiaries, but the Senate bill – partly because of pressure from moderate Republicans – did not include them. Instead, the Senate proposed to save taxpayer money by eliminating a $10 billion fund to encourage regional Preferred Provider Organizations, known as PPOs, to participate in the Medicare program. It also sought more rebates to the federal government from drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid.

Note the difference: Instead of imposing cuts on the poor, the Senate sought savings from corporate interests. Surprise: The final bill dropped the $10 billion cut to the PPOs, and also dropped most of the rebate demands on drug manufacturers. Instead, the agreement hammered Medicaid recipients with $16 billion in gross cuts over the next decade. The net cuts are lower because of new Medicaid spending, partly to help cover Hurricane Katrina’s victims.

The Medicaid cuts include increased co-payments and premiums on lowincome Americans, and the budget assumes savings because fewer poor people will visit the doctor. As Kevin Freking of the Associated Press reported: "The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that such increases would lead many poor people to forgo health care or not to enroll in Medicaid at all – contributing to some of the $4.8 billion in Medicaid savings envisioned over the next five years."

Ah, say their defenders, but these cuts will be good for poor people. According to The New York Times, Rep. Joe L. Barton, R-Texas, an architect of the Medicaid proposals, said the higher copayments were needed to "encourage personal responsibility" among lowincome people. Spoken like a man who never has to worry about taxpayerprovided coverage.

And that is just one instance among many of where corporate interests were shielded from cuts, while child-support enforcement and foster-care programs were sliced. Shortly before the bill came to the House floor, Republicans leaders, at the insistence of a group of Ohio GOP members, dropped a $1.9 billion cut that would have changed Medicare payments to oxygen manufacturers. The main beneficiary was the Invacare Corp. of Elyria.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., opposed the original, milder Senate budget bill but turned around and voted for the final harsher bill. According to Congress Daily, Coleman backed the final budget "after negotiators took out cuts affecting his state’s sugar beet growers." Coleman told the paper: "Karl Rove called me and asked what I wanted. A few hours later it was out of the bill."

The good news is that this budget is not law yet. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., used a clever procedural maneuver to force it back to the House for one more vote next year.

When this 774-page behemoth hit the House floor shortly after 1 a.m. on Dec. 19, many members were not fully aware of what was in it. Now that they know, maybe some of the moderate Republicans who caved to their leaders will save their party’s honor by killing this special-interest mess. If I may borrow from Barton, doing so would definitely "encourage personal responsibility" among Republican leaders.

E.J. Dionne writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

Flashback --1 year ago --failed ORTA initiatives from an insider

From: Cathy Burner
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Subject: Re: What about Delaware Co.?

Hi Beverly,
When I was with ORTA as the Assistant Executive Director I had a drawer full of records of past actions from Joe Endry and Dave Travis trying to get a second retired teacher on the STRS board. They came close one year and the legislature pulled a fast one and tried to change the STRS board to 13 members. Dr. Leone has been quite successful in getting a second retired teacher on the STRS Board and the board only grew to 11 members. Retired teachers of Ohio need to remember the past action of ORTA and then see the results of Dr. Leone who was relentless in working for our future and the solvency of STRS.
Beverly, thank you for your hours of sending e-mail to the retired teachers in Delaware County. I have a petition for Dr. Leone please let me know if you have retired teachers who would like to sign to sponsor Dr. Leone on the STRS ballot.
Cathy Burner

Article: Medco and the Ohio court ruling

Note from John: months ago, fellow CORE member John Bos met with Dr. Buser and presented a "reverse bid" procedure to several high ranking STRS associates re. a procedure to procure a pharmacy benefits manager by a bidding procedure rather than the current practice of Damon Asbury choosing a PBM. This current procurement procedure leaves too much to the imagination, doesn't it? To date, John has had no reply from STRS concerning his time and efforts. Why am I not surprised? John Curry

Health Care
For PBMs, the Legal Moat Gets Narrower
By Melissa Davis
Senior Writer
12/28/2005 7:15 AM EST
URL: http://www.thestreet.com/stocks/healthcare/10259159.html

Get Jim Cramer's picks for 2006.

Pharmacy benefit managers have seen their once powerful immune systems weakened over the past year.

This month, they suffered an especially painful blow when a jury ruled that Medco (MHS:NYSE) -- the largest PBM -- has a fiduciary duty to a client for which it bought drugs. Medco must now pay $7.8 million to a relatively small health plan in Ohio for allegedly breaching that duty and committing "constructive fraud" in the process. The company plans to appeal but still faces the possibility of punitive damages as well.

Moreover, it could find itself battling far bigger clients going forward.

Derek Brandt, a legal expert who assists PBM clients, says his phone started ringing as soon as the Ohio jury returned with its landmark decision against Medco. He counts a Fortune 50 company, which he portrays as a "flagship" client, among those callers.

"I had clients on the phone who realized immediately, 'Hey, this is a big deal,'" says Brandt, a lawyer at SimmonsCooper in Chicago. "They're wondering, 'What do (the PBMs) owe us?'"

A.G. Edwards analyst Andrew Speller recently fretted over just this sort of risk.

"If this verdict is not overturned on appeal, it leaves the door wide open for additional civil legal action," wrote Speller, who has a hold recommendation on Medco's stock. "That prospect could have a negative effect not only on Medco's valuation but on valuation for the entire sector."

PBMs have always insisted that they should not be classified as fiduciaries. By definition, fiduciaries hold the power to make financial decisions for the clients that they serve. As such, they must abide by stringent rules that require them to place their clients' -- rather than their own -- interests first.

Some claim that PBMs, which negotiate drug discounts for big employers and health insurance plans, qualify as fiduciaries and should be held to strict standards as a result.

By now, PBMs have long been accused of relying on secret deals to boost their profits and save their clients less money than they should. The PBMs themselves have denied any wrongdoing.

Still, the industry has weathered some clear setbacks -- beyond the Medco ruling -- over the past year. Notably, a federal appeals court recently upheld a hotly contested law allowing Maine to regulate PBMs and force them to operate as fiduciaries in that state. The ruling could set a precedent for other states seeking the same power.

Meanwhile, some big companies have grown so tired of waiting for industry reforms that they have stopped doing business with the "Big Three" -- Medco, Caremark (CMX:NYSE) and Express Scripts (ESRX:Nasdaq) . They have insisted on hiring more transparent PBMs instead.

Nevertheless, PBM stocks have enjoyed a banner 2005. Both Medco and Caremark have risen at least 30%, and Express Scripts has more than doubled over the past 12 months.

'Positive Spin'

For its part, Medco has downplayed the Ohio jury ruling.

Indeed, the company still maintains that it is not a fiduciary at all. And it points to past court decisions -- including one that the industry actually lost -- as evidence.

When upholding Maine's PBM law, Medco says, the federal court specifically stated that PBMs are not considered fiduciaries under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. In contrast, it says, the Ohio court ruling has no impact on ERISA matters but instead represents nothing more than "one jury's decision in a unique contractual dispute."

Yet Brandt clearly feels otherwise.

"Medco keeps getting slammed on a number of different fronts, and they keep trying to put a positive spin on everything," he says. "But I'm not sure it all plays out the way they want in the end."

Rather, he suspects, PBMs will be forced to uphold fiduciary duties to their clients -- and lose one of their biggest battles overall.

"If you have a fiduciary duty, you need to disclose any potential conflicts that exist," he explains. "You can't profit on clients' backs, especially without telling them. ... That's exactly the reason why PBMs are fighting this so hard. Their very business model is at stake."

Target Practice

That model, while still embraced by Wall Street, has come under heavy fire by industry critics.

Federal prosecutor James Sheehan has taken perhaps the most powerful shot at the group. Sheehan has spent years investigating industry giant Medco, and even after a partial settlement that forced the PBM to change some of its business practices, continues to seek big monetary damages from the company. The case is set to go to trial next year.

Meanwhile, Maine has played a leading role in pushing for industry reforms at the state level. In a hard-fought legal battle, Maine recently managed to shoot down arguments by the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association -- a powerful PBM trade group -- and win a big courtroom victory that could help other states seeking to pass PBM regulation laws as well.

In the past, PCMA has successfully blocked similar measures by insisting that they violate PBM rights and actually push drug prices higher. But the group failed to win over any of the judges this time around.

"In the conclusion of the [Maine] opinion," the National Conference of State Legislatures recently noted, "the court stated that if the PBMs truly assumed they would be free from disclosure requirements of the sort set forth in the Maine law, this would be more wishful thinking than reasonable expectation."

Washington, D.C., is hoping for a similar decision next year.

Fighting Force

In the meantime, dozens of giant employers -- frustrated by spiraling drug costs -- have taken matters into their own hands.

Last year, some 52 companies joined forces to create their own drug-buying coalition. The coalition, organized by the HR Policy Association, sought bids from PBMs willing to offer full transparency about the prices they pay for prescription drugs. Several large PBMs -- but none of the official Big Three -- responded to that call this year.

"These huge employers finally said, 'Enough is enough; here are the terms under which we will operate,'" Brandt says. "And Medco, Caremark and Express Scripts all dropped out" of the bidding process.

The PBMs turned their backs on the opportunity to serve 5 million employees, who spend nearly $4 billion annually on prescription drugs, in the process. Moreover, they could keep losing business if the push for PBM transparency continues to build.

Certainly, coalition members like IBM (IBM:NYSE) hope it's a growing trend.

"Through the coalition, we are working toward lowering health care costs while improving the quality of care that patients receive," says J. Randall MacDonald, senior vice president of human resources for IBM and chairman of the HR Policy's health care policy roundtable. "If our efforts move the market toward our principles of transparency, we have helped employees and employers, as well as all health care consumers."

Not STRS related, but still a reflection of a failed Buckeye government; Report: Transportation employees failed to keep up rest stops?

Was it lower level employees or does the problem rest with their superiors?

December 28, 2005, Associated Press

CLEVELAND - Ohio Department of Transportation employees ignored problems at nine highway rest areas in northwest Ohio until they were closed because of odors from sewage overflows, an investigation has found.

A transportation department probe found a breakdown in maintenance at rest stops in Allen, Hancock, Paulding, Van Wert and Wyandot counties.

If the employees had inspected the rest stops properly, "motors would not have been without belts for three years, air filters would not have been detached for years, tanks would not have been filled with sludge, and sand filters would not have been plugged and overflowing raw sewage onto public access or private property for years," investigator John Shore wrote.

Shore wrote that he found nine unopened letters from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency on the desk of Todd Newman, 46, a treatment plant coordinator in Lima. Some of the letters, which each cited the department for violations, dated to 2003.

The state EPA has cited the department more than 2,000 times for the facilities, resulting in a $110,400 fine.

Newman, who is paid $43,035 a year, received most of the blame in the report, along with his aide, George Groves, 65, who is paid $34,860.

Newman filled out daily EPA pollution logs without knowing what his entries meant, the report said.

Newman told Shore that he was overworked and that the Lima district's building maintenance superintendent, Theodore "Ted" Kaser, and Marvin Kromer, acting business and human resources administrator, would not free him up to complete all aspects of his job.

Groves said he did everything he was told to do.

Newman and Groves have been on paid leave since Oct. 14, when the rest stops were closed.

The report also places blame on Kaser, 44, and Kromer, 51, who say that Newman trivialized the violations. Kaser is paid $52,686 a year, and Kromer, $77,979.

Article: We're Not Prepared for Boomer Retirement

By Stan Hinden The Washington Post, December 28, 2005

I'm glad I'm not a baby boomer. Not that I wouldn't like to be 58 again, instead of 78. It would take me back to the days before I had to learn about heart surgery, arthritis and hearing aids. But the truth is, I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of any one of those 78 million baby boomers who are fast approaching retirement.

I know several boomers well--my three children, aged 51, 49 and 45. From what I can see, they and their peers are not going to have an easy time when they retire. The seeds of their distress are already planted. As my kids look ahead, they see an uncertain future for Social Security, soaring health and Medicare costs, broken pension promises and the loss of many of their investment dollars to corporate corruption.

When the oldest boomers retire, the federal government, with its huge deficits, will be gushing red ink. That, in turn, will put the squeeze on social programs that aid many older Americans, especially low-income individuals. Worse yet, many boomers will go into retirement with only modest savings. According to a recent study, half of American workers over the age of 55 have saved less than $50,000.

I encountered these concerns--and others--at the recent White House Conference on Aging, which is held every 10 years. The goal of the 2005 conference was developing policy recommendations to help the country prepare for what's been called a ``demographic tidal wave.'' I went to the conference to see whether I could discern any sign of a master plan for coping with the vast health and social needs of the boomers--those born between 1946 and 1964. On Jan. 1, the first of the boomers will turn 60--bringing them within two years of retirement, since they can start taking Social Security at 62.

I did not find a master plan. If there was one, it was in a thousand pieces waiting to be stapled together. I watched as the 1,200 delegates--men and women from all over the country and all walks of life--attached individual recommendations to 50 resolutions. Among the key topics addressed were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act (OAA),long-term care, medical education, transportation and senior centers.

Not surprisingly, many of the delegates' recommendations called for additional federal spending for existing programs and included ideas for new services and programs. There were no price tags attached to the wish lists. But it was clear that delegates were asking for a considerable amount of new money at a time when Congress is cutting some $40 billion from the federal budget by reducing spending on Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and other programs. So there was a curious disparity between what was happening at the conference and what was taking place on Capitol Hill.

On the second day of the conference, Congress eliminated $31.5 million in funding for three programs to train doctors and health care workers in geriatrics--just as delegates were voting in favor of two resolutions to expand geriatric education. A chagrined Robert N. Butler, a physician who is president of the International Longevity Center USA in New York, broke the bad news. A pioneer in the field of aging, Butler believes that doctors who treat older people should have special training because the symptoms that older patients display often cloak their real conditions. ``Just as we have pediatrics,'' Butler said, ``we must have geriatrics.''

Unfortunately, most doctors aren't interested in geriatrics, which requires extra training but offers no extra money. We currently have only 6,600 certified geriatricians, or less than 1 percent of the approximately 700,000 physicians in the country; by 2030, it's estimated that we'll need 36,000. A boost in Medicare reimbursements for geriatric specialists would be a good start in attracting more people to the field. A national effort to train geriatricians should follow.

Beyond the question of whether boomers will have enough doctors is the question of what will happen to Medicare. The key question is: Can the country afford to put 78 million boomers on Medicare--even if it happens over an 18-year-period?

I thought U.S. Comptroller General David Walker came close to answering that unasked question when he described the deep financial hole in which we find ourselves. Walker, a 54-year-old boomer himself, left no doubt in my mind that Medicare is not going to be affordable in the future unless it is revamped. More bad news for the boomers. ``If there is one thing that could bankrupt America,'' he said, ``it is health care. And it is out of control.''

The nation, it seems, is also unprepared for the boomers on another front: finding jobs for older workers. Falling birth rates are causing a steady decline in the size of the U.S. workforce, and experts predict that the shortage of workers will cause employers to keep older workers on the job or bring them back after retirement.

But up to now, Walker noted, the drive to hire older workers has been mostly talk. Among the reasons he cited for why Americans don't work longer: Social Security and many private pensions permit retirement at 62; few older workers feel they have opportunities for part-time employment or phased retirement; few employers, while saying they are willing to recruit and retain older workers, do so, citing barriers such as federal pension rules. Age discrimination may be another factor. From 2000 through 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received more than 90,000 complaints of age discrimination in the workplace.

The end of the conference marked the beginning of a new chapter in the ``politics of aging'' in Washington. One immediate goal of senior advocates is reauthorization of the OAA, which became law in 1965. It created the Administration on Aging, which is home to vital programs dealing with nutrition, health services, volunteerism and support for family caregivers. The agency is the focal point for the nation's efforts to provide home and community-based care to millions of older persons and their caregivers. While broad-based support for renewing the OAA is expected, the level of funding for its programs is considered uncertain--especially in the current negative fiscal climate. In time, however, the agency will have to serve a much larger number of people than it serves today.

Progress on aging issues does happen. Robert B. Blancato, executive director of the 1995 conference, told me that two things emerged from that meeting: A major expansion of the federal commitment to Alzheimer's disease research and the establishment of the National Family Caregiver Support Program in 2000.

That session also created interest in the subject of elder abuse. Blancato, who is national coordinator of the Elder Justice Coalition, said he expects passage next year of the Elder Justice Act, with $3.9 billion in funding for seven years. It would create federal offices of elder justice in the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. Invisible for a long time, the abuse of older persons--which can be physical, emotional or financial--is now attracting wide attention. As the number of older persons grows, so will this problem, unless efforts are made to curb it.

Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the 2005 conference was built around a slogan: ``The Booming Dynamics of Aging: From Awareness to Action.'' It was used to create an upbeat mood for the conclave, which issued a steady flow of predictions that boomers will lead longer, healthier lives than their parents and will change the nature of retirement. As the parent of several boomers, I hope it all turns out to be true. But as an older person, I would have voted for a resolution that said: ``Resolved: We will not romanticize old age.''

Because there is really nothing romantic about it. At 78, I have arrived at the ``danger zone'' of life, a stage that is quite familiar to millions of Americans in their late seventies, eighties and even nineties. It is a time of life when we are most at risk for serious illness and infirmity. As any resident of my retirement community will tell you, the so-called ``golden years'' can quickly turn into the ``rusty years,'' complete with endless visits to doctors, hospitals and imaging centers. (That's the downside of advances in medical science that have increased our chances of living 30 or 40 years past retirement.)

You know, on second thought, maybe I would like to be a boomer after all.

Stan Hinden, a former Washington Post reporter, wrote the Retirement Journal column for the newspaper from 1997 to 2004. He is the author of ``How to Retire Happy: The 12 Most Important Decisions You Must Make Before You Retire'' (McGraw-Hill).

John Curry: A brief and open letter to Sen. Marc Dann re: Youngstown news; response from Sen. Dann

From Sen. Marc Dann, 12/28/05

thanks john. We are totally failing to maximize value for the positions we hold in the public pensions. It will be a priority if I am elected. keep the pressure on.

From John Curry, 12/28/05
Subject: RE: A brief and open letter to Sen. Marc Dann re. a Youngstown news
release

Sen. Dann,

After reading this article from your area, I was almost ready to lose my lunch. Jim Petro won nothing for STRS retirees. Stan Chesley, and his law firm that Petro "farmed out" this case to, won the 7.8 mil. What a farce!! And Petro wants to be Ohio's next governor? Petro takes the fame, Chesley did the work, and STRS gets a legal bill from Petro. Spare me!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder why the article didn't mention that Jim Petro was on the STRS board during the period of time that STRS contracted with Medco and this was happening right under Petro's nose-where was Jimmy then? Please let the good people of Youngstown know the truth about this political spin.
I wish you God's speed in winning the next AG's position - it can't come any time too soon.

John Curry - a Proud CORE (Concerned Ohio Retired Educator) member

Merck, Medco to Pay $7.8M to Ohio STRS

Dec 27, 2005 10:26 a.m.

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- State Atty. Gen. Jim Petro has won a $7.8 million award from a Hamilton County jury against pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck and former Merck subsidiary Medco Health Solutions Inc. for defrauding and violating its legal duties to the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio. Petro sued Medco in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court for overcharging the teachers’ pension fund. The verdict is the first time a U.S. jury has recognized that a company managing pharmacy benefits has a legal duty to act in the best interest of retirees and pensioners, and it is likely to have repercussions for the entire pharmacy benefit manager industry, Petro said. Medco is among the largest PBMs in the industry and the verdict is the largest in favor of a single state against Medco, he added. Petro sued in 2003 to recover damages from the company for overcharging STRS for certain prescription drugs and mail-order dispensing fees, and for wrongfully withholding drug makers' rebates from STRS. The jury found that Medco owed a fiduciary duty to STRS Ohio and breached that duty in the amount of $915,000; that Medco is liable for constructive fraud, awarding damages in the amount of $6.9 million; and that Merck is jointly liable for the actions of Medco but did not tortiously interfere with the contract or business relationship between STRS and Medco. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on whether Merck and Medco should be forced to pay punitive damages to STRS for misconduct, Petro said, noting that the issue will be the subject of another trial that has yet to be scheduled.