Dennis Leone to Molly Janczyk, September 25, 2006
Subject: Health Insurance and a Contingency Plan
A very well-written summary, Molly, of what was said at the meeting about health insurance. I voted no on the new health care rates because I felt that other spending decisions are still wrong within STRS. I just can't vote yes on health care increases when my peers on the board vote yes on the private legal fees of three employees and a $315,000 headhunter expenditure without even having a clue what's the contract for that amount.
And so you know, I would never support any plan that would prohibit a retiree from enrolling or re-enrolling into the STRS Health Insurance Plan in the event something happened to said retiree that would cause him/her to lose his/her health insurance from another source. The plan that will go into effect on 1-1-09 to prohibit full-time rehired retirees from utilizing STRS health insurance does NOT mean that said rehired retirees will be unable to re-enroll into the STRS health insurance plan at a future date when they no longer have insurance from their rehiring employer.
Further -- while I am the one on the Board who is pushing for the development of a contingency ("Doomsday") plan -- I must say (and this is MY opinion as one board member) that the very LAST two things that can be considered in the event of a national or worldwide catastrophe are a reduction in our pension payment and the reduction of health insurance. There are many, many things in my mind that have to go before anything like that can be considered, including the 88% rule for future retirees. Before adjournment at the last Board meeting, I asked the Board's investment consultant, the Russell Company, to provide us with the company's suggestions on the things we need to do immediately with our investments in the event of a national or worldwide catastrophe. The company representatives said they would prepare such a recommendation. Why, I must ask, am I the very first person at STRS to ask for this?
Dennis Leone
<< Home