Tom Curtis' speech to STRS Board, May 18, 2006

Good afternoon board members, executive staff and guests. My name is Thomas Curtis. I am speaking today on my own behalf. I am an STRS disability retiree with 27 years of service.

May I first congratulate Connie Ramser and Mark Meuser for their victory in the recent STRS election? It is my sincere hope they will represent the membership to the best of their ability and follow the true spirit of ORC 3307.15.

Next, I wish to again commend the board for the countless hours you devote each month to the enormous amount of business at hand. I do realize this is a daunting task and appreciate your efforts.

This is nearly the 30^th time I have addressed the board from this podium since June of 2003. I know each of you has a very busy schedule, but with all due respect I will tell you I have received very little response from board members to requests made during previous presentations, and have seen even far less action on those requests. Can this somehow be addressed?

In March of 2004, after one of the monthly CORE/STRS meetings we were holding with the executive staff at that time, I met in private with former board member Joe Endry. During that meeting, Joe very seriously asked me why we retirees keep coming to the board meetings and keep asking the same questions?

That stunned me, because the answer was and still is so obvious. We feel no one is listening to many of the legitimate concerns voiced by retirees. We feel we are repeatedly and continually ignored! This in itself is a grave issue with retirees.

It has been documented that the Board can agree by majority vote, to pay consulting firms to justify almost any expense that would benefit individual board members or employees of the STRS. However, you do not agree to do the same for the membership. Actually, you have agreed by majority vote to take away from the membership. In my opinion, this is because your monthly agenda is most often driven by staff concerns and does not permit time for membership concerns. Please review your past agendas and find where you have dealt with retiree requests. My hunch is that you will find few instances of such. Please correct me if I am wrong.

As stipulated by SB133, less then 20% of the board represent the retiree, and greater then 50% of the board represent the active teacher. This is out of proportion considering the true make-up of the membership. The active teacher leadership would argue that active teachers make up the majority of the membership and should be represented by at least 50%. Now I ask you, is that truly the case? Please look at the various classifications of members and the numbers of each? I do not find that to be true, if you consider only those who are active teachers and are paying into this system; disallow all others. This does not justify the high ratio of active teacher seats. This issue needs to be addressed and changed.

Example: The OSBA has strongly objected to any increase in employer contributions. Ohio school boards pay in the greatest percentage of money to this system, yet are not represented on this board. Is it any wonder the OSBA does not understand why the employer contribution rate needs to be increased after 20 years at the same rate? This board is not truly representative of those contributing to the system. Please show me a study that identifies equal representation of all parties paying into this system. The structure of this board does not represent fairly all parties paying into the STRS. That should be reconciled. This is only one issue that needs to be addressed.

Next, would you please find a space within your meeting agenda to address the retirees’ concerns? In my opinion, once this starts happening, far fewer of us would show up each month to complain to the board. A much greater number might show up and praise the board, as we would like to do.

Last month I requested a review by each Board member of Dr. Leone’s two position papers from 2003. It is my understanding that each of you now has copies of both in hand.

To date, I have received only one response. The rest of you have again ignored my request for a response to a legitimate issue. Is this how it is always going to be? If the requests of the STRS retirees are not considered legitimate, then perhaps it is time you tell us why?

Thank you for time to speak today.