Dennis Leone: An amendment to 8/20/06 memo to Betty Montgomery re: STRS Board paying private, personal, after-the-fact legal fees for STRS staff

From Dennis Leone

Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006

Subject: Help Needed, Part II

PLEASE HAND-DELIVER THIS TO BETTY MONTGOMERY AND MARY BETH FOLEY.

August 29, 2006

Dear State Auditor Montgomery:

I wish to amend the memo I sent you recently regarding the recent decision of the STRS Board and the STRS Executive Director to pay the private, personal legal fees of certain employees who were subpoenaed to testify in court. There are two additional points I wish to bring to your attention:

1. Imagine for a second an STRS employee coming to the Board saying: "For more personal protection, I wish to purchase a personal liability policy (an umbrella add-on) with my homeowner's insurance plan, and I want the STRS to pay for it." The answer, unquestionably would be a NO (as it would be with every school board in Ohio). The recent payment of private, personal, after-the-fact legal fees of STRS employees -- who did not seek such payment in advance and who did not attempt to utilize the free general legal assistance of STRS legal staff or the State Attorney General's staff -- is essentially the same thing. Since it undeniably would be wrong to pay for one's personal liability insurance protection in advance, how could it possibly be right to pay the legal fees -- after-the-fact -- for someone who went ahead and secured such a policy on his/her own.

2. The fact that the employees involved were asked to testify about matters that occurred during their work hours really has nothing to do with this. It doesn't provide an excuse for an employee to go out, hire someone on their own, and expect a reimbursement later. Having said this, it deserves noting that all 3 employees were worried about whether they were facing criminal charges themselves. This is an absolute fact. THIS IS WHY THEY SECURED THEIR OWN LEGAL ASSISTANCE. In fact, one of the employees was granted immunity by the prosecutor in exchange for her complete testimony. What I am trying to say is that one cannot have it both ways. An employee knows he/she cannot expect any legal help from the Board if he/she is facing criminal charges (which is the same for the former STRS Board members who were criminally charged). So when said employees end up NOT being charged or end up receiving immunity, how can the Board possibly pay for their after-the-fact personal legal representation that was secured privately when they were worried about criminal charges. Something is very, very wrong with this picture.

Dennis Leone