Shirlee Zerkel: A few words for Damon

From Shirlee Zerkel, Sept. 2, 2006

Mr. Asbury:

I do have a continued interest in the pension system because I am a retired member who found out in 2003 that all was not well with the system. Many abuses were uncovered, and some positive changes did occur. The positive changes that you mention in the first page of your message have only happened because Dennis Leone, John Lazares and many CORE members forced those changes.

The feeling of entitlement still reigns at STRS. This is evident at almost every STRS meeting especially when members address the board and they are ignored, some never receiving any answer at all, and when two members of the board are treated by the rest of the board as if they are not equal members of that board. That is just because these two members take their position seriously and honestly and do not rubber stamp all STRS suggestions. I also believe the entitlement culture still exists because of recent decisions that you discuss in the message to members that I found on my computer Friday afternoon.

Your message sickened me. I find it alarming that you are trying to confuse other STRS members as to what really happened in the past month concerning two decisions; yes, I did say two of your decisions as Executive Director. You had already signed the contract with the hiring firm and already paid some of those legal fees before consulting the board. Probably most of the board then felt that they had to agree with what was already partly done. No, they did not have to agree and should not have agreed but that was the easiest way to go.

You used one half of your message to set the scene to convince members that STRS is always correct and prudent, then you talked around the two issues that have been recently questioned.

Let's look at your fourth paragraph. Yes, I know that the board authorized the hiring of additional real estate employees in May, but at that time there was no mention of the $315,000 fee to another firm to find these employees for STRS. In June when the Board approved the new procedure that any expenditure over $100,000 had to go for board approval first, you knew then that you had to move fast on hiring this firm. I understand that you signed a contract with this company for this amount. Contracts are binding and you knew that so you spent $315,000 without prior Board approval. Shame on you when you knew that in a few short weeks you would not be able to sign on that big of a contract without the board first voting. That was just one of the expenditures that you decided to cement into reality by starting the process before the Board was informed.

The second expenditure was much smaller in nature but even more sickening! You had already paid two staff members' private legal fees for attorneys hired by staff who had been asked by the OEC and prosecutor's office to testify. If the lawyers were just to help them prepare to testify, why did they not avail themselves of the STRS legal staff. I see no monitoring of expenditures by staff to reduce costs here as you state in paragraph three of your message. This was not brought to the board until after payment for two of the staff members. and then you asked to board to ok those along with a possible additional $6,000 to another staff member. These legal fees were then listed in your 2 month expenditure list and the entire list was voted on in the public meeting. How sneaky! Please tell me how this meets the fiduciary responsibilities of ORC 3307.15? The ORC is the law not just a suggestion or guideline that you only have to follow if it meets your desires.

Your actions speak louder than words. In one session of the August meeting, the rates of health care premiums for members were raised and less than an hour later, you asked the board to approve hiring the firm to find real estate employees. No cost seems too high when it concerns vendors or staff, but when it concerns us, the retirees, everything and anything is too high. Then in executive session you were asking the board to ok what you had already paid in private staff legal fees plus a possible third one. Your loyalties lie with your staff and not the educators who made your position as Executive Director possible. Educators are the reasons STRS exists. Please remember ORC 3307.15 in your decisions. STRS is there on behalf of the teachers not the staff. Those staff member have a paycheck because of us!

I apologize for the bluntness of this message, but you have invited us to share with you our opinions and this is my very straightforward view.

Sincerely,

Shirlee Zerkel

STRS retiree

OEA AND NEA life member

Proud CORE member