Tom Curtis to Conni Ramser: Your responsibilities as a Board member

Tom Curtis to Conni Ramser, February 5, 2006

Hello Conni,

I hope you had a safe trip home after Friday's meeting. I found the retreat to be a very worthwhile and insightful three-day event. I complimented Craig for his skill in facilitating the three-day retreat and found him to be an asset to the program. I am sure Damon Asbury, Dr. Brown and yourself had been desirous of such, when you decided to hire him in December 2005.

However, as was indicated by John Lazares, I feel you and Dr. Brown should have informed the other board members of the use of a facilitator and not simply surprised them with this decision just prior to the retreat. This hidden action does not show your consideration for your fellow board members and should be considered the next time you plan something for the entire board. I would like to know your reason for keeping this from the other board members. This is not an example of good leadership on your part.

It is evident that the facilitator generated a plethora of information for board members to review and issues that need to be addressed. The Chair and Vice-Chair are responsible for following up on the issues this program generated. I look forward to seeing evidence of such in your planning of board agendas in the months to come. I am interested in discussing some of these issues with you.

Listening to board members respond to questions and issues other then those discussed at the regularly scheduled monthly board meetings was most interesting. Board members that have had little to say during board meetings to date, because of various reasons, showed that they had a great deal of insight concerning the operation of the new board and future policy making.

I had an opportunity to talk briefly with most of the board members during the three days. I wanted to talk with you, but you were very distant during the retreat and attempted not to make eye contact with me. Consequently, I did not force the issue. Because you and I live in the same county, I figured we could talk at another time. I will contact you later this week to set a time to meet with you again to discuss STRS issues.

On Thursday, I provided you with copies of Dr. Leone's two papers that were presented to the STRS board on May 16, 2003 and August 8, 2003. There is a great deal in both papers that is still relevant and needs to be reviewed and addressed. I have asked the board before and I am asking again that the board reviews these two documents and decide, if there are issues yet to be addressed. After doing such, if the board determines there are no relevant issues still remaining, I will stop attempting to bring this about. This is old business, not old dead business, as you seem to feel. Of course, since you have not read these papers, how could you possibly know that?

Your claim to have not read these documents is disconcerting to many others and me. You seem to be so willingly naive about what has taken place over the past three years. Your statements, when asked specific questions offer no one any knowledge or understanding that you are aware of what issues need to be addressed. Simply identifying pension and health care issues, as your only concern does not show your ability to be open-minded and diverse in your thinking. That was one of the failures of the past board and I do not want a repeat of such.

This is why CORE and I have been so actively involved in seeking out board candidates. We desire to find out how knowledgeable, open-minded and willing to look at most all legitimate issues, each candidate truly seems to be.

CORE no longer desires the leadership sheep the OEA puts forward. The OEA used to simply rely on placing the name of the person(s) that agreed to abide by the OEA values and by-laws in the "Ohio Schools" magazine and figured everyone would simply vote for that person. Times have changed, Conni. That will no longer get you elected, as has been evidenced by the OEA spending over $150,000 the past two years, yet not being successful in placing anyone on the board.

I know the incumbent usually has the benefit, but then you were not elected by the membership in the first place, so that may not apply for you. Someone that has something to offer the board and is willing to speak up and discuss issues, rather then deny knowing about them must win an STRS board seat.

How can you possibly do a good job as a board member, when you are unwilling to address issues you chose to be ignorant of?

You are one of my five representatives as an active member of the STRS. You are ending the term you were appointed to complete for Jack Chapman, by the prior board.

To continue as a board member, you must be elected by the membership this spring. Thus, as a board member you are charged with many tasks, according to ORC 3307.15. This section of the Ohio Revised Code states, as a fiduciary you are to defray reasonable expenses of administering the system; with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with these matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims; and by diversifying the investments of the system so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so.

If you are to abide by this mandate, you must know where the STRS has been, where the STRS is today, in order to decide where the STRS must go in the future. If you do not feel this is true, you do not belong on the STRS board. Yes, there are tough questions to be answered. Your attempts to deny the past are ridiculous. As a fiduciary, you owe every member of the STRS this responsibility.

I hope you have read and will respond to my letter of 1.29.06, as well.

Active member,

Tom Curtis

CORE Advisory Committee Member