Tom Cooper's response to Mark Meuser: Please don't be led astray by those who have no interest in doing what is right

From Tom Cooper, October 27, 2006

Subject: Contracts, negotiations, delegations

Hi Mark;

First, I would like to say that while I personally do not accept some of your reasons/explanations as to dealing with the problems/questions cited, I have to tell you that I DO greatly respect, and appreciate the fact that at least you do extend the respect of honoring our questions and comments with plausible responses. You know, the thought occurs to me, that if those people who preceded you on the STRS Board had responded to questions five years ago with the dignity and respect that you do, we might very well not be having a need for these e-mail sessions today.

That being said, I would like to point out why I have a great deal of anguish upon reading some of your responses: First, Let's look at the question of delegation of responsibility and support of the delegate, as described in your example:

"As far as negotiating those contracts is concerned, I have discussed this with a number of people. They feel that any negotiator's position is strengthened if he or she has the authority to hammer out the final details of any contract. As a negotiator for our local teacher association's contract with the board of education, I have found that to be true."

Your position, as stated above, is the IDEAL, but we are not working with ideal conditions, are we? I doubt that your experience as a negotiator with your board had to deal with the problems of ethics violations of board members stealing from teachers funds. And I am sure that if it did, your Association president would have expected, and maybe demanded, a much more restrictive line of communication, and an insistence to know anything "creative", or out of the ordinary game plan laid out before negotiations began.

I too have been party to both having authority delegated to me, and also having to delegate authority. At times, my authority was limited and monitored because of the delicate situation at hand, and while I agree, the eventual agreement on a solution would have been much smoother if I had the right to final approval, I fully understood that because of the circumstances, I did need to check regularly with the source of my authority to make sure there were no gaps or misunderstandings. Considering the events of the past years, and the state of affairs currently at STRS, I don't think that it is asking too much now, for OUR representative Board members to be extra vigilant. If a delegate negotiator doesn't understand that, get a new one that does.

But the details worked out in the "give and take" can mean the difference between a good contract and a great contract. And, yes, board members should be aware of those details.

Here, you seem to acknowledge such, (as stated above), but there is no evidence that this occurs at Board meetings, or in Board minutes, or anywhere.

All participants were randomly selected. I do not have the full survey in front of me. Of course, I was not on the board at the time. I am getting my information, as any member could, from the STRS Ohio News. When the survey was completed, the board and staff then used the results, both positive and negative, to plan and address issues of concern.

With all due respect to your integrity,as you state, you were not on the Board the time of that survey, and it is obvious that not all Board members had the same respect for questions AND the questioner, nor the integrity, that you have shown. That survey was taken during a period of time when members of CORE were being called "malcontents" and trouble makers, and treated rudely and disrespectfully by Board members, some of whom are still on the Board, including the Executive Director.

There is no way I will believe that survey was distributed to "random" samples. I know how "random" samples works. You simply tell the surveyor (in this case Saperstein Associates), that "this" (limited area of the entire population) is the population, now do a "random" sample with this area. Surveys can do one of two things. They can show YOU a true picture of how things are, or they can help you show OTHERS what you want them to see.

The STRS Board, it's Executive Director, the Executive Board of OEA, the "leadership" of ORTA, had ALL ALREADY taken part in bashing members of CORE as a small group of malcontents. Do you really think that AFTER the fact of labeling retirees as malcontents, that the survey was taken to find out if retirees were unhappy? There were plenty of retirees attending meetings to find that out. or do you think the survey was taken to show OTHERS what the Board, et. al. had already decided before the survey, in order to discredit retirees claims?

I think you personally are a good and honest man. But even honest people can be deceived by those who also seem honest, but aren't. Please don't be led astray by those who have no interest in doing what is right.

Tom Cooper