Shirlee Zerkel: Observations by a retiree of the October 19 STRS Board meeting

From Shirlee Zerkel, October 19, 2006

Subject: Observations by a retiree of the Oct 19 board meeting

Dear STRS Board, Mr. Asbury and Ms. Knoesel:

For this afternoon's Board meeting, I, a retiree, was seated in the overflow area. At times it was difficult to hear all of the discussion, but nevertheless, attitudes of some staff and some board members were loud and clear. Such attitudes have been displayed before from accounts by those in attendance at the meetings.

I was sickened by the attitude of Mr. Meyers to another board member, Dr. Leone. Mr. Meyers told Dr. Leone that he, Dr. Leone, was wasting the Board's time. Then Ms. Ramser told Dr. Leone that issues on contracts would be brought up on Friday and so discussion ended on the topic of the search firm for real estate investment personnel.

Dr. Leone was elected to the board to watch out for the interest of the retirees .-- ORC 3307.15. I see why Dr. Leone had questions because each time Dr. Asbury speaks of this issue the answers are different. Now today we hear that the contract with the hiring firm was not signed earlier, yet last month it was explained that it was signed early in September, and not before. What is the true answer, or do most of you really care?

Also concerning the topic brought up by Ms. Hamant of the possible reduction of the Medicare reimbursement to retirees over 65, you can sugarcoat the words any way you want to, but it still is a reduction in health benefits to any retiree over 65. None of us were told in any information that has been sent to retirees, and as I understand it, some of the board did not even know of this vote; yet I was told by an STRS staff member yesterday that my amount would be less in 2007 because of a decision the Board members would make this week. Isn't that getting the cart before the horse? So the staff already knows what the board is to decide on Friday. Interesting, to say the least!

These Medicare-covered retirees are saving STRS money as most of their health benefits will be paid by Medicare and you will only pay some of the 20% left unpaid by Medicare; and Medicare will again be sending STRS a subsidy for drug coverage in 2007.

Let me explain my views: the Medicare covered retiree will experience a small increase their STRS premium, an increase in their Medicare B premium, an increase in drug co-pays, and now the loss of some of their reimbursement to help cover the Medicare B premium. Any way that the retiree looks at it -- IT IS A REDUCTION OF THEIR HEALTH BENEFITS! If this reduction takes place it will some as a complete surprise to most of the over 65 group!

What about the older retirees who may only be receiving a few hundred in pension a month? Those higher costs of premiums and co-pays and lower reimbursement of their higher Medicare premium bills will push them further toward starvation and death. But the thought of some deaths is probably a desirable thought for some of the Board members and staff, as it will save STRS some money. If this is the vote on Friday, just where is that saved money going??

I can also guess why the health care meeting and the discussion on the Board seeing the contracts before voting was delayed until Friday. The staff knew that most of the retirees would not be there on Friday so let's move those to Friday.

I have written to you before, but I again implore you to be more like the two elected members, John Lazares and Dennis Leone -- independent thinking, questioning and at all times keeping in mind 3307.15.

Also, since we retirees are given certain guidelines to abide by when we address the Board, I would like to encourage the Board members to use those same guidelines in addressing each other. All Board members are equal; some should not silence the concern of others who are trying to best of their abilities to follow the ORC 3307.15.

Sincerely,

Shirlee Zerkel

Retiree 2002

Life OEA-NEA and CORE