Posts from July 14, 2006
From Lenora Wood, July 14, 2006
CORE Leaders and others
Dean is my son-in-law, retired supt. and retired assistant sjupt.
From: Dean Werstler
Subject: Potential STRS News Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:06:10 -0700
Hi,
Hope things are going well in Akron.
I received a letter from the Buckeye Association of School Administrators recently that I find very encouraging. It appears that BASA, the Alliance, CORAS, and the E&A Coalition (and a total of nine statewide organizations) are working together to resolve the school-funding dilemma in Ohio. It appears that they are spearheading an effort to amend the Ohio Constitution to solve the school funding problem. All other efforts have failed, hopefully, this one will finally bring a long term solution. This effort will require a massive undertaking in all communities to gain the support of the public.
It might benefit CORE to approach this group and explore mutual concerns. Perhaps there is a way to solve the school funding problem and provide a secure retirement system including monthly benefits and appropriate affordable health care to retirees. This opportunity to amend the constitution only comes around about every 50 years.
Dean
_______
Canton Repository, June 30, 2006
What if kids could go to school anywhere?by PAUL E. KOSTYU COPLEY COLUMBUS BUREAU CHIEFCOLUMBUS - In addition to carrying books, a child’s school backpack will be filled with cash, at least figuratively, under a plan backed by a Washington think tank with Ohio ties. That has political conservatives criticizing each other over competing school funding plans.
In an op-ed piece in the New York Times this week, former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige suggested each school child receive “a ‘backpack’ of financing that travels with him to the public school of his family’s choice.”
The proposal, called the 100 Percent Solution, is backed by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and its foundation, which were founded in Dayton but are now based in Washington, D.C. Paige is a trustee of the institute, which is a charter-school sponsor in Ohio.
PLAYING THE PERCENTAGES
The 100 Percent Solution would allow a student to use the money at a traditional public school or a charter school. The proposal also would weight the allocation based on a student’s needs or circumstances. For example, children with special needs, from low-income families or poor school districts would have a higher allocation. And the proposal gives flexibility to schools buildings, not necessarily districts, to use the money as needed with an emphasis on results.
The Fordham proposal is not to be confused with the 65 Percent Solution, which was announced in September 2005 by now gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell and a group called First Class Education, which is backed by Patrick Byrne, the founder and president of Overstock.com, an Internet retailer.
The 65 Percent Solution would require 65 cents of every education dollar be used on classroom instruction, which includes costs for teachers, instructional supplies and aides, field trips, athletics, music, arts and special-needs instruction. The remaining 35 cents of the dollar could be used for administration, plant operations, maintenance, food services and transportation.
Paige, a political conservative, criticized other conservatives for supporting the 65 Percent Solution, calling it “one of the worst ideas in education.”
“The 65 Percent Solution is a gimmick that doesn’t begin to solve the biggest problems in school funding, much less education at large,” said Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Fordham Institute and an assistant secretary of education for President Reagan. “Weighted student funding isn’t a complete answer to every challenge that public schools face, but it will eliminate the biggest funding disparities, foster equity, empower school leaders and catalyze school choice.”
Paige said that the 65 percent plan ties administrators’ hands when “they need more freedom to innovate.”
FLEXIBILITY AND INNOVATION
David Brennan, owner of Akron-based White Hat Management, the largest operator of private charter schools in Ohio, liked the Fordham proposal but thinks it needs to allow for private schools such as his, as well.
“The point he’s (Paige) making is don’t tell the schools how to spend the money,” Brennan said. “The future of education is innovation.”
Brennan said the most successful government programs are those that let consumers decide how to spend money. For example, he said, food stamps are the “most successful program for the poorest people” because they decide how to spend their allocation.
Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for Blackwell, said he didn’t know if Blackwell would agree with the 100 Percent plan, but he continues to back the 65 Percent proposal.
“We’re spending a lot of money on public education,” LoParo said. “The problem is the money doesn’t go to the classroom.”
LoParo said Blackwell supports privatizing school food services and transportation to control costs, similar to what colleges and universities have done.
“There may be a better way to do it,” he said. “The highest-achieving school systems within Ohio and the nation are close to or exceed the 65 percent in classroom funding.”
Democrat Ted Strickland, Blackwell’s opponent in November, said Paige’s proposal “has some merit ... and holds real promise.” Strickland said he supports allocating money based on individual student needs and fostering competition between public schools. He said he opposes using public money for charter or private schools.
Strickland said Blackwell’s 65 Percent Solution is a government mandate that would take away local control.
LEGISLATIVE PLANS
House Speaker Jon Husted, R-Kettering, has long backed charter schools and school choice, but has not examined the Fordham proposal, said spokeswoman Karen Tabor. Husted supports the 65 Percent plan “in concept,” she said, as well as “reasonable options.”
“We expect to continue to examine the education issue over the next couple of months,” she said.
State Sen. Kirk Schuring, R-Jackson Township, has been working since March on a school funding plan he proposed that would partner businesses with education. He said parts of the 100 Percent plan are “intriguing to me,” but he’s not sure either “solution” solves the problem.
“We need to change funding in Ohio and across the nation,” he said. “The global economy demands it. We need future intellectual resources to allow our economy to grow. ... The business community has to become a partner in the process.
“Education is the factory that produces the product,” he said. “Businesses are the customers who buy the product. Using any cookie-cutter formula will not be responsive to current needs.”
The Legislature’s term ends in December and school funding may have to wait for a new governor and Legislature next year.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
William L. Phillis, executive director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Advocacy of School Funding, has been pushing for changes in education funding for more than a dozen years. His group’s lawsuits led to four Ohio Supreme Court rulings that said the current funding system — with its heavy reliance on property taxes — is unconstitutional because it’s neither equal nor adequate.
Though unfamiliar with the 100 Percent Solution, Phillis said he’s worried that it would lead to public funding of private and home schools.
“I’m not opposed to private education,” said Phillis, who sits on governing boards for a private elementary school and a college. But “if we use public money to fund private schools, there are some constitutional questions.”
Noting that Paige was secretary of education under President Bush, Phillis said the 100 Percent plan sounds like “their way of getting charter school funding to a higher level. Bush would not be adverse to privatizing all education.”
“It’s a small step to let the money follow the student to a public school, then to a charter school and then a private school.”
Phillis said the result will be schools segregated by culture, language and income. “The common public school is where kids get together and learn to be Americans,” he said. “Historically, [the public school] is where they have been socialized and Americanized. Paige’s plan would fracture society.”
Phillis also doesn’t like the 65 Percent plan, because it would treat all districts the same, while their needs differ.
Reach Copley Columbus Bureau Chief Paul E. Kostyu at (614) 222-8901 or e-mail paul.kostyu@cantonrep.com.
_______
Article published August 1, 2005 (Flashback)Noe used influence to select trusteeE-mails show how Hicks made changeBy JOSHUA BOAKBLADE STAFF WRITER
COLUMBUS - When it came to appointing a new trustee to the board of the Medical University of Ohio in 2003, the governor's office ignored doctor's orders and followed the advice of coin dealer and political confidante Tom Noe.At the time, the choice of the school's acting president, Dr. Amira Gohara, was Geoffrey Meyers, an executive with Manor Care, a national nursing home company with headquarters in Toledo.In a letter to Gov. Bob Taft on May 29, 2003, Dr. Gohara and William Connelly, MUO's general counsel, endorsed Mr. Meyers, saying he would bring "welcome expertise" in finance and reimbursement to the medical college.But then Mr. Noe got involved, registering a complaint with Brian Hicks, Gov. Bob Taft's chief of staff in July.Within a month, Mr. Meyers was out of the picture and one of Mr. Noe's friends, Carroll Ashley, was in.
When Mr. Ashley became a trustee that August, he was completely unaware of the machinations that took place on his behalf for the unpaid position.
"I didn't know that there was a second candidate considered," he said. "That's news to me."
Catherine Turcer, legislative director for Ohio Citizen Action, a government watchdog group, questioned Mr. Noe's backroom approach for a relatively minor appointment.
"If he was doing this for something without a paycheck attached to it, what would he do for something with a profit margin?" she said.
"It takes nepotism to a really different level."
Mr. Noe and Mr. Hicks could not be reached for comment, nor could Mr. Meyers, the executive vice president and chief financial officer of Manor Care who was away on vacation.
Friends for years
But one brief e-mail, part of more than 35,000 released last week by the governor's office, shows the depth of the relationship between Mr. Noe and Mr. Hicks, considered the most powerful nonelected official in Ohio.
The two had been friends for years; Governor Taft, like his predecessor, had appointed Mr. Noe to high-profile boards: the Ohio Board of Regents and the Ohio Turnpike Commission.
But in July, 2003, Mr. Noe's focus was on the MUO position.
After learning that Mr. Meyers was in the running, Mr. Noe contacted Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Noe wanted the governor's office to consider Mr. Ashley, a long-time hospital executive who now works in the insurance industry. The conversation left an impression, with Mr. Hicks sending an e-mail to a colleague who was working on gubernatorial appointments.
"I got an earful from Tom and Bernadette Noe on the MCO appointment," Mr. Hicks wrote in a July 16, 2003, e-mail to David Payne, the governor's director of boards and commissions.
"Are we so far down the track that we couldn't reverse course? Can you send me resumes of both candidates we're looking at?"
A month later, Mr. Ashley got the appointment.
Currently being investigated for possibly laundering campaign donations to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign and under civil and criminal investigation for his role with a failed rare-coin investment with state money, Mr. Noe's friendship has become a liability for many people.
Pair fined $1,000 each
Mr. Hicks was fined $1,000 last week for neglecting to properly disclose two vacations at Mr. Noe's Florida Keys residence. Mr. Hicks' long-time assistant, Cherie Carroll, was also fined $1,000 for an ethics violation because she accepted expensive meals paid for by Mr. Noe.
While those affected by the coin-fund scandal have recently distanced themselves from the Noes, Mr. Ashley defended the couple's years of work in the public arena.
"In spite of some of the allegations and charges that have been made, they've done a lot of good things for the community," Mr. Ashley said. "I'm certainly disappointed with some of the things I've read, but I still consider them friends."
Mr. Ashley discussed the MUO position with Mrs. Noe in June, 2003. Later that month, he sent his resume to Mr. Payne.
It was an impressive resume. The University of Toledo graduate was president of Riverside Hospital from 1983 to 1994, before leaving to work in the insurance industry. Since 2002, Mr. Ashley has been the principal in the Ashley Insurance Group.
$9,000 to candidates
Mr. Ashley also chaired the Toledo Cultural Arts Commission and the World Cup Wrestling Tournament. He was a member of several political campaign committees and has given $9,000 to mostly Republican candidates during the past 13 years.
In comparison, Mr. Meyers has contributed $2,100 to Ohio Republicans, all of it last year, well after the decision was made.
During the vetting process for the MUO board, Mr. Payne received letters supporting Mr. Ashley from state Auditor Betty Montgomery and then-state representative Lynn Olman, a Republican from Maumee who recently bought the Noes $500,000 condominium.
MUO officials say they consider Mr. Ashley a valued member of the board.
"Mr. Ashley has done an outstanding job while he's been on the board and has been a big contributor," said Alfred A. Baker, a veteran board member and vice president for labor and employee relations at Owens-Illinois Inc.
"The Noes haven't been involved with Medical University affairs to my knowledge," said MUO President Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, who added that his own interactions with Mr. Noe were limited to regent business.
Mr. Ashley currently chairs the board's audit committee. He estimates that the board consumes 8 to 10 hours of his time each month. He views that time as helping to improve Toledo, not as a political prize.
"To be honest, I didn't know it was a position you competed for," he said.
Ms. Turcer said the exchange between Mr. Noe and Mr. Hicks and the resulting appointment continues to raise concerns about how business is done in Columbus.
"A lot of times we think, someone is trying to get a job for their kid or a second cousin," she said. "But what we're really talking about is the old boys' club, or to be politically correct, 'the old boys' and girls' club.' "
Contact Joshua Boak at: jboak@theblade.com or 419-724-6050.
_______
____________
Flashback, July 13, 2003 (Canton Repository)
Controversy surrounds STRS’s awarding of bonuses
By PAUL E. KOSTYU Copley Columbus Bureau chiefCOLUMBUS — The people who run the pension system for Ohio’s teachers got millions in bonuses for attending workshops, talking to parents and keeping spreadsheets of expenses.
The bonuses are just one of the controversies swirling around spending by the State Teachers Retirement System. Critics blast the payments as an example of excessive spending. The system paid nearly $19 million in bonuses to its investment and non-investment staff from 2000 to 2003. During that same period, health care costs for retired teachers skyrocketed, and the pension fund’s portfolio plummeted.
By comparison, the larger Ohio Public Employees Retirement System gives only its investment staff bonuses, and those bonuses totaled just $2.06 million from 2000 through 2002.
The controversy about the teachers system’s spending has led nearly 80 percent of Ohio lawmakers and Ohio Auditor Betty Montgomery to call for Executive Director Herbert Dyer to resign. The system’s board met for nearly five hours behind closed doors Thursday to talk about “staff performance, compensation and other terms and conditions of employment;” many think the discussion focused on the terms under which Dyer will leave.
Meanwhile, the teachers pension board has temporarily suspended all bonuses as it reconsiders its policy.
Documents from the last full year for which bonuses were paid — the fiscal year that ended in June 2002 — showed at least 42 supervisors reached 100 percent of their bonus goals. Records for another eight employees did not make it clear if goals were met.
Of the 15 who did not meet all their goals, 10 were in the 90 to 96 percent range. For example, Damon Asbury, deputy executive director of administration, reached 96 percent of his goals and got a $49,728 bonus. That was on top of his $148,000 salary.
Shun Koizumi, supervisor of the copy center, was the least successful at reaching planned goals, 60 percent, but that was good enough for a $1,367 bonus tacked onto a $45,580 salary.
According to retirement system officials, the performance-based incentive program was set up so organizational goals could be achieved cost effectively.
“The goals are to expand beyond the associate’s regular assignments, representing additional initiatives and increased workload outside the normal scope of responsibility,” says one document.
Each employee develops and assigns a weight to his or her own goals. They’re approved by the employee’s immediate supervisor, the deputy executive director overseeing that department and Dyer.
At the end of the year, the employee reports whether he or she met the goals and by what percentage. That assessment is approved by the same three officers.
Teachers retirement system officials say the program is one reason member satisfaction with their pension system exceeds 95 percent.
What are some of the bonus goals that were above regular assignments and workload?
• Fifteen percent of Jodi L. Wells’ goals as director of the system’s child care center was to “continue to maintain open communication between parents and staff.”
She also was supposed to “stay abreast of latest research dealing with the Information Technology field as it relates to children’s use.” In other words, she read about Internet filters and talked to parents and staff about them.
Wells also was to “maintain awareness of budget and continue to explore options to increase efficiency.” To reach that goal, she created spreadsheets and monitored monthly spending.
All told, Wells achieved 93.8 percent of her goals and got an $8,639 bonus on top of her $61,400 salary.
• Carol Hamilton, supervisor of food services, achieved 100 percent of her goals in 2001-2002 and received a $1,965 bonus. Her goals for 2002-2003 were nearly identical. For example, in both years, four of her six goals were maintaining her dietary manager’s certification, performing employee safety training, assuring technical training for the food service staff, and making sure the staff was certified.
• To help earn his $13,462 bonus as the supervisor of business systems analysis, David Donithen participated in “a minimum of three formal activities to enhance technology and/or investments related knowledge.” In doing so, he met 20 percent of his incentives for the 2001-2002 fiscal year.
For the fiscal year that ended June 30, Donithen proposed going to two formal activities, counting toward 15 percent of his bonus.
Not reaching the goals has no effect on regular salaries or cost-of-living raises that supervisory staff receive.
According to the system’s spokeswoman, Laura Ecklar, any employee who gets a negative annual review or a “needs improvement” notation is not eligible for a bonus.
The number of non-investment employees eligible for bonuses increased from 46 in 2000 to 66 this year.
Retirement system officials and their consultants defended the incentive plan to the Ohio Retirement Study Council last week.
Lawmakers questioned why the STRS bonuses are “so vastly different” than those at the state’s four other pension funds.
Deborah Scott, chairwoman of the teachers’ board, said the program is based on the advice of consultants, Dyer and staff, who said the bonuses generally follow those at similarly sized pension funds in other states.
But council Chairman Sen. Lynn Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, called the bonuses “extraordinary” and said he was “extremely upset” by “a lot of misjudgment.”
“Help me out here,” said Rep. John Boccieri, D-New Middletown, addressing Peter Gundy with Buck Consultants, who was hired by the pension fund. “How do you justify bonuses for the copy center supervisor, the day care director and the maintenance supervisor?”
Gundy said his firm did not address incentives for those positions when it advised the board.
Boccieri asked if his firm consulted the retirement system members about the bonus policy.
“No,” Gundy responded.
You can reach Copley Columbus Bureau chief Paul E. Kostyu at (614) 222-8901 or e-mail:
paul.kostyu@cantonrep.com
CORE Leaders and others
Dean is my son-in-law, retired supt. and retired assistant sjupt.
From: Dean Werstler
Subject: Potential STRS News Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:06:10 -0700
Hi,
Hope things are going well in Akron.
I received a letter from the Buckeye Association of School Administrators recently that I find very encouraging. It appears that BASA, the Alliance, CORAS, and the E&A Coalition (and a total of nine statewide organizations) are working together to resolve the school-funding dilemma in Ohio. It appears that they are spearheading an effort to amend the Ohio Constitution to solve the school funding problem. All other efforts have failed, hopefully, this one will finally bring a long term solution. This effort will require a massive undertaking in all communities to gain the support of the public.
It might benefit CORE to approach this group and explore mutual concerns. Perhaps there is a way to solve the school funding problem and provide a secure retirement system including monthly benefits and appropriate affordable health care to retirees. This opportunity to amend the constitution only comes around about every 50 years.
Dean
_______
Canton Repository, June 30, 2006
What if kids could go to school anywhere?by PAUL E. KOSTYU COPLEY COLUMBUS BUREAU CHIEFCOLUMBUS - In addition to carrying books, a child’s school backpack will be filled with cash, at least figuratively, under a plan backed by a Washington think tank with Ohio ties. That has political conservatives criticizing each other over competing school funding plans.
In an op-ed piece in the New York Times this week, former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige suggested each school child receive “a ‘backpack’ of financing that travels with him to the public school of his family’s choice.”
The proposal, called the 100 Percent Solution, is backed by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and its foundation, which were founded in Dayton but are now based in Washington, D.C. Paige is a trustee of the institute, which is a charter-school sponsor in Ohio.
PLAYING THE PERCENTAGES
The 100 Percent Solution would allow a student to use the money at a traditional public school or a charter school. The proposal also would weight the allocation based on a student’s needs or circumstances. For example, children with special needs, from low-income families or poor school districts would have a higher allocation. And the proposal gives flexibility to schools buildings, not necessarily districts, to use the money as needed with an emphasis on results.
The Fordham proposal is not to be confused with the 65 Percent Solution, which was announced in September 2005 by now gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell and a group called First Class Education, which is backed by Patrick Byrne, the founder and president of Overstock.com, an Internet retailer.
The 65 Percent Solution would require 65 cents of every education dollar be used on classroom instruction, which includes costs for teachers, instructional supplies and aides, field trips, athletics, music, arts and special-needs instruction. The remaining 35 cents of the dollar could be used for administration, plant operations, maintenance, food services and transportation.
Paige, a political conservative, criticized other conservatives for supporting the 65 Percent Solution, calling it “one of the worst ideas in education.”
“The 65 Percent Solution is a gimmick that doesn’t begin to solve the biggest problems in school funding, much less education at large,” said Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Fordham Institute and an assistant secretary of education for President Reagan. “Weighted student funding isn’t a complete answer to every challenge that public schools face, but it will eliminate the biggest funding disparities, foster equity, empower school leaders and catalyze school choice.”
Paige said that the 65 percent plan ties administrators’ hands when “they need more freedom to innovate.”
FLEXIBILITY AND INNOVATION
David Brennan, owner of Akron-based White Hat Management, the largest operator of private charter schools in Ohio, liked the Fordham proposal but thinks it needs to allow for private schools such as his, as well.
“The point he’s (Paige) making is don’t tell the schools how to spend the money,” Brennan said. “The future of education is innovation.”
Brennan said the most successful government programs are those that let consumers decide how to spend money. For example, he said, food stamps are the “most successful program for the poorest people” because they decide how to spend their allocation.
Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for Blackwell, said he didn’t know if Blackwell would agree with the 100 Percent plan, but he continues to back the 65 Percent proposal.
“We’re spending a lot of money on public education,” LoParo said. “The problem is the money doesn’t go to the classroom.”
LoParo said Blackwell supports privatizing school food services and transportation to control costs, similar to what colleges and universities have done.
“There may be a better way to do it,” he said. “The highest-achieving school systems within Ohio and the nation are close to or exceed the 65 percent in classroom funding.”
Democrat Ted Strickland, Blackwell’s opponent in November, said Paige’s proposal “has some merit ... and holds real promise.” Strickland said he supports allocating money based on individual student needs and fostering competition between public schools. He said he opposes using public money for charter or private schools.
Strickland said Blackwell’s 65 Percent Solution is a government mandate that would take away local control.
LEGISLATIVE PLANS
House Speaker Jon Husted, R-Kettering, has long backed charter schools and school choice, but has not examined the Fordham proposal, said spokeswoman Karen Tabor. Husted supports the 65 Percent plan “in concept,” she said, as well as “reasonable options.”
“We expect to continue to examine the education issue over the next couple of months,” she said.
State Sen. Kirk Schuring, R-Jackson Township, has been working since March on a school funding plan he proposed that would partner businesses with education. He said parts of the 100 Percent plan are “intriguing to me,” but he’s not sure either “solution” solves the problem.
“We need to change funding in Ohio and across the nation,” he said. “The global economy demands it. We need future intellectual resources to allow our economy to grow. ... The business community has to become a partner in the process.
“Education is the factory that produces the product,” he said. “Businesses are the customers who buy the product. Using any cookie-cutter formula will not be responsive to current needs.”
The Legislature’s term ends in December and school funding may have to wait for a new governor and Legislature next year.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
William L. Phillis, executive director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Advocacy of School Funding, has been pushing for changes in education funding for more than a dozen years. His group’s lawsuits led to four Ohio Supreme Court rulings that said the current funding system — with its heavy reliance on property taxes — is unconstitutional because it’s neither equal nor adequate.
Though unfamiliar with the 100 Percent Solution, Phillis said he’s worried that it would lead to public funding of private and home schools.
“I’m not opposed to private education,” said Phillis, who sits on governing boards for a private elementary school and a college. But “if we use public money to fund private schools, there are some constitutional questions.”
Noting that Paige was secretary of education under President Bush, Phillis said the 100 Percent plan sounds like “their way of getting charter school funding to a higher level. Bush would not be adverse to privatizing all education.”
“It’s a small step to let the money follow the student to a public school, then to a charter school and then a private school.”
Phillis said the result will be schools segregated by culture, language and income. “The common public school is where kids get together and learn to be Americans,” he said. “Historically, [the public school] is where they have been socialized and Americanized. Paige’s plan would fracture society.”
Phillis also doesn’t like the 65 Percent plan, because it would treat all districts the same, while their needs differ.
Reach Copley Columbus Bureau Chief Paul E. Kostyu at (614) 222-8901 or e-mail paul.kostyu@cantonrep.com.
_______
Article published August 1, 2005 (Flashback)Noe used influence to select trusteeE-mails show how Hicks made changeBy JOSHUA BOAKBLADE STAFF WRITER
COLUMBUS - When it came to appointing a new trustee to the board of the Medical University of Ohio in 2003, the governor's office ignored doctor's orders and followed the advice of coin dealer and political confidante Tom Noe.At the time, the choice of the school's acting president, Dr. Amira Gohara, was Geoffrey Meyers, an executive with Manor Care, a national nursing home company with headquarters in Toledo.In a letter to Gov. Bob Taft on May 29, 2003, Dr. Gohara and William Connelly, MUO's general counsel, endorsed Mr. Meyers, saying he would bring "welcome expertise" in finance and reimbursement to the medical college.But then Mr. Noe got involved, registering a complaint with Brian Hicks, Gov. Bob Taft's chief of staff in July.Within a month, Mr. Meyers was out of the picture and one of Mr. Noe's friends, Carroll Ashley, was in.
When Mr. Ashley became a trustee that August, he was completely unaware of the machinations that took place on his behalf for the unpaid position.
"I didn't know that there was a second candidate considered," he said. "That's news to me."
Catherine Turcer, legislative director for Ohio Citizen Action, a government watchdog group, questioned Mr. Noe's backroom approach for a relatively minor appointment.
"If he was doing this for something without a paycheck attached to it, what would he do for something with a profit margin?" she said.
"It takes nepotism to a really different level."
Mr. Noe and Mr. Hicks could not be reached for comment, nor could Mr. Meyers, the executive vice president and chief financial officer of Manor Care who was away on vacation.
Friends for years
But one brief e-mail, part of more than 35,000 released last week by the governor's office, shows the depth of the relationship between Mr. Noe and Mr. Hicks, considered the most powerful nonelected official in Ohio.
The two had been friends for years; Governor Taft, like his predecessor, had appointed Mr. Noe to high-profile boards: the Ohio Board of Regents and the Ohio Turnpike Commission.
But in July, 2003, Mr. Noe's focus was on the MUO position.
After learning that Mr. Meyers was in the running, Mr. Noe contacted Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Noe wanted the governor's office to consider Mr. Ashley, a long-time hospital executive who now works in the insurance industry. The conversation left an impression, with Mr. Hicks sending an e-mail to a colleague who was working on gubernatorial appointments.
"I got an earful from Tom and Bernadette Noe on the MCO appointment," Mr. Hicks wrote in a July 16, 2003, e-mail to David Payne, the governor's director of boards and commissions.
"Are we so far down the track that we couldn't reverse course? Can you send me resumes of both candidates we're looking at?"
A month later, Mr. Ashley got the appointment.
Currently being investigated for possibly laundering campaign donations to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign and under civil and criminal investigation for his role with a failed rare-coin investment with state money, Mr. Noe's friendship has become a liability for many people.
Pair fined $1,000 each
Mr. Hicks was fined $1,000 last week for neglecting to properly disclose two vacations at Mr. Noe's Florida Keys residence. Mr. Hicks' long-time assistant, Cherie Carroll, was also fined $1,000 for an ethics violation because she accepted expensive meals paid for by Mr. Noe.
While those affected by the coin-fund scandal have recently distanced themselves from the Noes, Mr. Ashley defended the couple's years of work in the public arena.
"In spite of some of the allegations and charges that have been made, they've done a lot of good things for the community," Mr. Ashley said. "I'm certainly disappointed with some of the things I've read, but I still consider them friends."
Mr. Ashley discussed the MUO position with Mrs. Noe in June, 2003. Later that month, he sent his resume to Mr. Payne.
It was an impressive resume. The University of Toledo graduate was president of Riverside Hospital from 1983 to 1994, before leaving to work in the insurance industry. Since 2002, Mr. Ashley has been the principal in the Ashley Insurance Group.
$9,000 to candidates
Mr. Ashley also chaired the Toledo Cultural Arts Commission and the World Cup Wrestling Tournament. He was a member of several political campaign committees and has given $9,000 to mostly Republican candidates during the past 13 years.
In comparison, Mr. Meyers has contributed $2,100 to Ohio Republicans, all of it last year, well after the decision was made.
During the vetting process for the MUO board, Mr. Payne received letters supporting Mr. Ashley from state Auditor Betty Montgomery and then-state representative Lynn Olman, a Republican from Maumee who recently bought the Noes $500,000 condominium.
MUO officials say they consider Mr. Ashley a valued member of the board.
"Mr. Ashley has done an outstanding job while he's been on the board and has been a big contributor," said Alfred A. Baker, a veteran board member and vice president for labor and employee relations at Owens-Illinois Inc.
"The Noes haven't been involved with Medical University affairs to my knowledge," said MUO President Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, who added that his own interactions with Mr. Noe were limited to regent business.
Mr. Ashley currently chairs the board's audit committee. He estimates that the board consumes 8 to 10 hours of his time each month. He views that time as helping to improve Toledo, not as a political prize.
"To be honest, I didn't know it was a position you competed for," he said.
Ms. Turcer said the exchange between Mr. Noe and Mr. Hicks and the resulting appointment continues to raise concerns about how business is done in Columbus.
"A lot of times we think, someone is trying to get a job for their kid or a second cousin," she said. "But what we're really talking about is the old boys' club, or to be politically correct, 'the old boys' and girls' club.' "
Contact Joshua Boak at: jboak@theblade.com or 419-724-6050.
_______
____________
Flashback, July 13, 2003 (Canton Repository)
Controversy surrounds STRS’s awarding of bonuses
By PAUL E. KOSTYU Copley Columbus Bureau chiefCOLUMBUS — The people who run the pension system for Ohio’s teachers got millions in bonuses for attending workshops, talking to parents and keeping spreadsheets of expenses.
The bonuses are just one of the controversies swirling around spending by the State Teachers Retirement System. Critics blast the payments as an example of excessive spending. The system paid nearly $19 million in bonuses to its investment and non-investment staff from 2000 to 2003. During that same period, health care costs for retired teachers skyrocketed, and the pension fund’s portfolio plummeted.
By comparison, the larger Ohio Public Employees Retirement System gives only its investment staff bonuses, and those bonuses totaled just $2.06 million from 2000 through 2002.
The controversy about the teachers system’s spending has led nearly 80 percent of Ohio lawmakers and Ohio Auditor Betty Montgomery to call for Executive Director Herbert Dyer to resign. The system’s board met for nearly five hours behind closed doors Thursday to talk about “staff performance, compensation and other terms and conditions of employment;” many think the discussion focused on the terms under which Dyer will leave.
Meanwhile, the teachers pension board has temporarily suspended all bonuses as it reconsiders its policy.
Documents from the last full year for which bonuses were paid — the fiscal year that ended in June 2002 — showed at least 42 supervisors reached 100 percent of their bonus goals. Records for another eight employees did not make it clear if goals were met.
Of the 15 who did not meet all their goals, 10 were in the 90 to 96 percent range. For example, Damon Asbury, deputy executive director of administration, reached 96 percent of his goals and got a $49,728 bonus. That was on top of his $148,000 salary.
Shun Koizumi, supervisor of the copy center, was the least successful at reaching planned goals, 60 percent, but that was good enough for a $1,367 bonus tacked onto a $45,580 salary.
According to retirement system officials, the performance-based incentive program was set up so organizational goals could be achieved cost effectively.
“The goals are to expand beyond the associate’s regular assignments, representing additional initiatives and increased workload outside the normal scope of responsibility,” says one document.
Each employee develops and assigns a weight to his or her own goals. They’re approved by the employee’s immediate supervisor, the deputy executive director overseeing that department and Dyer.
At the end of the year, the employee reports whether he or she met the goals and by what percentage. That assessment is approved by the same three officers.
Teachers retirement system officials say the program is one reason member satisfaction with their pension system exceeds 95 percent.
What are some of the bonus goals that were above regular assignments and workload?
• Fifteen percent of Jodi L. Wells’ goals as director of the system’s child care center was to “continue to maintain open communication between parents and staff.”
She also was supposed to “stay abreast of latest research dealing with the Information Technology field as it relates to children’s use.” In other words, she read about Internet filters and talked to parents and staff about them.
Wells also was to “maintain awareness of budget and continue to explore options to increase efficiency.” To reach that goal, she created spreadsheets and monitored monthly spending.
All told, Wells achieved 93.8 percent of her goals and got an $8,639 bonus on top of her $61,400 salary.
• Carol Hamilton, supervisor of food services, achieved 100 percent of her goals in 2001-2002 and received a $1,965 bonus. Her goals for 2002-2003 were nearly identical. For example, in both years, four of her six goals were maintaining her dietary manager’s certification, performing employee safety training, assuring technical training for the food service staff, and making sure the staff was certified.
• To help earn his $13,462 bonus as the supervisor of business systems analysis, David Donithen participated in “a minimum of three formal activities to enhance technology and/or investments related knowledge.” In doing so, he met 20 percent of his incentives for the 2001-2002 fiscal year.
For the fiscal year that ended June 30, Donithen proposed going to two formal activities, counting toward 15 percent of his bonus.
Not reaching the goals has no effect on regular salaries or cost-of-living raises that supervisory staff receive.
According to the system’s spokeswoman, Laura Ecklar, any employee who gets a negative annual review or a “needs improvement” notation is not eligible for a bonus.
The number of non-investment employees eligible for bonuses increased from 46 in 2000 to 66 this year.
Retirement system officials and their consultants defended the incentive plan to the Ohio Retirement Study Council last week.
Lawmakers questioned why the STRS bonuses are “so vastly different” than those at the state’s four other pension funds.
Deborah Scott, chairwoman of the teachers’ board, said the program is based on the advice of consultants, Dyer and staff, who said the bonuses generally follow those at similarly sized pension funds in other states.
But council Chairman Sen. Lynn Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, called the bonuses “extraordinary” and said he was “extremely upset” by “a lot of misjudgment.”
“Help me out here,” said Rep. John Boccieri, D-New Middletown, addressing Peter Gundy with Buck Consultants, who was hired by the pension fund. “How do you justify bonuses for the copy center supervisor, the day care director and the maintenance supervisor?”
Gundy said his firm did not address incentives for those positions when it advised the board.
Boccieri asked if his firm consulted the retirement system members about the bonus policy.
“No,” Gundy responded.
You can reach Copley Columbus Bureau chief Paul E. Kostyu at (614) 222-8901 or e-mail:
paul.kostyu@cantonrep.com
Labels: Betty Montgomery, bonuses, Damon Asbury, Flashback, Paul Kostyu, STRS
posted by Kathie Bracy at 2:56 PM
<< Home