Two retired superintendents speak out re: Damon's letter

From Nancy Hamant, Sat., Sept. 2, 2006

Dennis Leone responds to Ralph Roshong regarding Mr. Roshong's thoughts on Damon Asbury's recent STRS email publication. Mr. Roshong hit the nail on the head!

Nancy Hamant

-------

From Dennis Leone, Saturday, Sept. 2, 2006

Nancy -- I saw your reaction to Damon's statement. I also received a call from a retired supt named Ralph Roshong about the same statement. Ralph wanted me to read his reaction letter, which I did as well. I wrote Ralph a few minutes ago, and provided some of my reactions to the concerns you have raised. See below:

Dennis Leone

-------
From: Dennis Leone

To: Ralph Roshong

Date: Saturday, September 02, 2006

Subject: Re: Response to Damon

Ralph -- just got home and heard your message. I read your letter below, and the first time, I read Damon's memo. A few reactions: On the last point, Damon will say that he DID receive board approval to pay the fees. The truth is, however, that he says (and I completely disagree) that a board consensus gave him permission in executive session. As you know, no board vote can be taken in executive session, so Damon determined on his own that since Leone and Lazares were the only board members expressing opposition, he must have had board support. The whole process stinks.

He speaks of some rumor that retirees apparently believe STRS is paying the legal fees of staff members who have been charged. No such rumor exists, because no staff member HAS been charged (not yet). The incredible irony of this whole thing is the fact that the 3 staff members secured their own lawyers for advice because they were worried they MIGHT be charged. In other words, HAD they been charged, STRS could NOT have paid for their legal fees. So how in the world should STRS pay for legal advice they could have received for free when they WEREN'T charged?

Regarding the head hunter hired.........Remember: In May, the board rejected 8-2 a motion by me that would have prohibited any board action on such a contract unless that board first had the contract in hand to know what the heck we were voting on. True to form, the board approved the expenditure in August without having any real idea what we are getting for the $315,000 sticker shock. This is the REAL issue in my mind..........Damon making recommendations and my fellow board members swifly agreeing -- feeling like "the more they know, the more they may be become personally liable. This produces rubber stamp votes with little investigation.

Have a great trip to Alaska. I may go nuts before my 4-year board term in over. You and I, as supts, would have been run out of town long ago for doing what the STRS executive director and the STRS Board have done.

Dennis Leone

-------
Ralph and Lynda Roshong

Sandusky, OH

September 2, 2006

Dr. Damon Asbury

Executive Director STRS

Columbus, OH

Dear Dr. Asbury,

I am writing in response to your email of September 1, 2006 concerning:
1. expenditure of operating funds
2. cap on discretionary spending
3. hiring of a head hunting firm and associated cost
4. reimbursement of personal legal fees

Regarding topic #1, yes, all we retirees “expect the Retirement Board and staff to be prudent managers of system funds”, I don’t think this is any surprise. The surprise has been the lack of that ethic on the part of the Board and Administration over the previous years. This is duly noted in the “reductions in expenditures” over the last two budgets when official’s feet were put to the fire of accountability. If I am not mistaken, you were also part of the culture under Herb Dyer who allowed us to get in the fat condition from which we have now been getting back to a degree of fiscal sanity. Thanks for overseeing this progress.

Regarding topic #2, thank goodness the Board was able to put a $100,000 cap on your discretionary spending. I fail to understand why it was so high. It is amazing what a little sunshine does for producing questions on the relative need for most big ticket items. It also adds some worthwhile incite into whether the expenditure is being made wisely from many facets.

Regarding topic #3, most definitely, $315,000 was “sticker shock”. These top four candidates will evidently be miracle producers at the rate of $75,000 per person. I certainly hope your wisdom is correct. We certainly will expect fantastic results at this cost.

Regarding topic #4, no personal legal costs should have been paid or recommended to be paid unless you had sought and received prior approval to do so. Those persons should have used STRS attorneys from the start and if they did not like that, they were on their own. It is highly confusing that after approving those fees, the Board shut off the spigot. These personal legals fees should not have been paid by STRS.

I and other retirees do thank you for your newsletter with your perspectives. It was not too long. Please remember as you work in a world of billions, that $1,000 is a very large sum to your constituents and deserves every consideration of fiscal responsibility.

Sincerely,

Ralph Roshong