From Ryan Holderman, June 29, 2006 Subject: Important information about recent STRS board action...or lack thereof!
Dear fellow educators:
As many of you know, I have, since 2003, been active in Concerned Ohio Retired Educators and have attended the STRS Board meetings on a regular basis. Thanks to the reform movement lead by Dennis Leone and John Lazares there have been many positive changes in the way STRS functions.
Dr. Leone, in April of this year, made the following motion:
"Board votes will not occur in the future on items like settlement agreements and/or vendor contracts without the board having said documents at the meeting when the vote is under consideration."
Here is Dennis' account of the events that followed:
"I first presented my proposal for discussion on April 21, 2006. The precise wording was:
"Board votes will not occur in the future on items like settlement agreements and/or vendor contracts without the board having said documents at the meeting when the vote is under consideration."
On May 19, I formally made a motion for the above to be approved. The motion was seconded by John Lazares. After John seconded the motion, I said it even would be fine with me if someone wanted to amend the motion by adding the words "or a summary of said documents" after the words "said documents." I also made it very, very clear that my motion was NOT suggesting that ALL vendor contracts come to the Board for a vote. The words "Board votes will not occur" specified that I was only talking about items that Damon puts on the agenda for a formal board vote. I repeatedly said: "How can I possibly vote on a contract without knowing, even generally, what's in the contract and how much it will cost?" The motion failed 8-2 (Meyers was absent).
In the month following this vote, Steve Puckett said to me that board members likely voted no because they felt I was suggesting that all contracts come to the board for a vote. This is very distressing for me to hear given the fact that I could not have made it more clear (for three months) that I am only talking about proposed actions that Damon places on the agenda.
After the June STRS Board meeting, Conni Ramser asked me this question: Since the Board voted 5-4 on June 16 to limit Damon's spending authority (another proposal that was initially defeated 8-2 on May 19), does this eliminate the need for my other motion? I believe that while the 5-4 vote certainly will now require formal Board votes on things like the bonus check settlement agreement, the big Vitech contract, and the Russell Company contract, I still feel the second motion needs to be put back on the table. My reason is that as a matter of principle, the STRS executive director needs to understand that NO contract vote (regardless of how small) should be put on the agenda unless the Board members have the related documentation in advance. It could be possible, for example, that he wishes for the board -- through a formal vote -- to amend an existing contract. Shouldn't I know the details, even if the amount is less than $100,000. I think so.
To Conni Ramser's credit, she did tell me that she would support additional discussion on this proposal. Even Mary Ann Flannagan, who was adamantly against it, said she feels it should be revisited. Maybe it will pass........I don't know." [End of quote]
I was simply stunned that our STRS Board members failed to see the importance of this motion. Most folks carefully examine any contracts or agreements before they sign them. Certainly a board member charged with the responsibility for a fund as large as our pension system's should do the same! I personally asked Jeff Chapman, Conni Ramseur, and Mary Ann Flannagan to revisit that motion. I told them that the retirees and actives with whom I have contact are incredulous that they would approve such business without seeing what was involved. I intended to button-hole the other board members with the same message but they zipped around the corner before I could shanghai them!
I believe that STRS Board members are more sensitive to input from their constituents, both active and retired, and need to hear from us on this matter. Please take the time to let your feelings be known.
Sincerely,
Ryan Holderman
* * * * *
Here are some E-mail addresses to use:
<< Home