Tom Curtis to Conni Ramser: You are not listening to us
From Tom Curtis, January 10, 2007
Subject: Curtis To Ramser, Re Personal Mtg With You
Hello Conni,
Thank you for your timely response to my email of 1.8.07. I will first answer each of your questions and then offer you some other comments.
Ramser: What is your issue?
Not responding to or acting on issues brought to your attention by the people you are there to represent is not listening. The membership expects far more than your simply hearing what they have to say. They expect results. At the very least, they are entitled to some kind of intelligent, sincere and informed response. This is my biggest issue with your performance on the board thus far. However, please understand that I have many more issues to discuss with you. This has become the case, due to your failure to keep up with providing answers to my questions. I guess given enough time, you can reclassify an issue a non-issue, right?
Conni, I explained to you when we first spoke face to face that many others and I would be watching your performance and responding to such. What did you not understand about that? You promised much better when you were sworn into office, then you have delivered. You have embarrassed yourself and the entire board by going public with negative and childish comments about Dennis Leone, then not being big enough to apologize publicly. Please get with the program, so our pension system does not go into insolvency. You do not hold a candle to the knowledge and experience that either John Lazares or Dennis Leone holds. Yet, you apparently and erroneously believe you do, considering the public comments you have made. If you want to make yourself look better, you need to start treating them with a lot more respect.
Ramser: After all, I spent over 6 hours talking with you when I first came on the board.
Yes you did. Actually, you spent more then 6 hours, but that was part of your job as a board member. If you will kindly remember, we discussed the amount of time you would have available concerning your responsibility to the membership and you assured me that would be no problem. From the questions you raise in your email response of 1.8.07, I would conclude that it is already a problem. Further, as you stated, our prior meetings were right after you came onto the board. I thanked you then and I am still grateful that you did so, but your responsibility to communicate with the membership certainly did not end there, especially now that you are the chairman of the board. I would never have guessed you find that the 6+ hours you have spent talking with me in the past to be exorbitant?
Ramser: Is there something new that we didn't discuss then?
Yes, there are many “new” issues I need to discuss with you. Our last sit-down was in 2005. Do you honestly feel that there is nothing “new” to discuss since 2005? There has been something “new” to discuss after almost every board meeting I have attended. If you are unable to meet with members, then you need to resign your position. Apparently someone gave you a very unrealistic idea of what your responsibility to the membership should be. Maybe I need to contact Marc Dann’s office and request a clarification on that?
Ramser: Is there something that you haven't said during the public speaks session?
Conni, please don’t patronize me. Absolutely there is! I even indicated this in one of my recent public speaks presentations, though apparently, you not remember that. Others and I receive no response from many of our board members after speaking and asking questions. That needs to change. With the exception of a few, you appear to look right through us, as though we were not there, and are quick to shut us up when our 180 seconds have expired. By the way, the time limit per person for the public speaks is another issue that needs to be addressed at the retreat this year. (Please consider this a formal request) If there are 15 speakers, I can see a possible need for it. But when there are only a few – half a dozen, maybe, as is usually the case – there needs to be some leniency, especially considering many people drive great distances at their own expense to be there. I know of one retiree, who slips in on his lunch hour, HOPING for an opportunity to speak, and usually NOT getting it, because the schedule has been delayed due to an executive session. Further, after the public speaks is complete, you usually adjourn the meeting, so what is the rush. Are you all that traumatized about hearing how your membership truly feels? Obviously you are.
Now, am I to assume that because the board was gracious enough to allow me a whole 3 minutes once a month to speak to them, that they believe all I have to say has been said? This is absurd; exactly the type of attitude I find so unacceptable with you and others on the board. Conni, most everyone knows you are not on that board because of your qualifications. I have spoken to this issue as well. You have little to no background in finance and business. You are on that board because the OEA went out and placed your name in front of a much larger group of voters than anyone else was able to do. Purely political - nothing more - nothing less. Had you run for the office without big money backing, you and I and everyone else knows it would be a very different story.
Ramser: Just because we haven't had a face to face doesn't mean I haven't listened to your comments.
As I stated in my first response, hearing, but not responding or acting on something brought to you by the people you are there to represent is not listening. Now stop and ask yourself, what have you done for me lately, concerning any of my requests to you by email, or requests made during the public speaks? That should answer your question, shouldn't’t it?
Ramser: If you have a problem that I could help you resolve, I would be more than happy to help.
I really wish I had some way of knowing this offer was sincere. But you have not shown me that respect to date, as I indicated in my comments above. You do not even show that respect to some of your board members, so why would I believe you would treat me any differently? I have asked you many things since you have been on the board. The vast majority of my requests have gone unanswered. Why? Because when someone asks you a tough question, or one you do not want to answer, you offer a very weak answer, if you offer an answer at all. I have experienced this during conversations with you and with certain other board members as well.
As a board member, how is your thinking any different from your OEA predecessors (other than the fact that you haven’t done anything that we know of that is likely to land you in court)? Like them, you cave in to the wishes of the STRS management, giving members reason to question what may be going on behind the scenes. Such as, what favors the management may be dealing out to those who kiss up to them, or are too new to realize what’s really going on (like the credit card deal and probably more stuff we haven’t uncovered yet). YOUR ATTENTION NEEDS TO BE FOCUSED ON THE MEMBERSHIP, NOT WHO CAN GIVE YOU PERKS OR MAKE YOU FEEL IMPORTANT. Wake up, Conni. We see right through this stuff, and we can spot a phony a mile away. As another retiree so succinctly put it: “She’s there for herself; she’s there for OEA; but she’s NOT there for us!” We want to trust you and the STRS management; please help us to find reason to do so!
Curtis: Further comments.
It is painfully obvious you feel you owe me NO responses to my questions, but I will not stop asking because of such. I am a bulldog when it comes to getting answers to questions and problem solving. My background is technology and this is what technologists do. We evaluate a process or system and then work on improving that system when there are obvious problems. God knows the STRS needs much oversight. They can only squander thousands of dollars of retirees’ money buying reports from companies like IFS, for so long. I am tired of getting nowhere with you and others at the STRS, but I am NOT going to go away. I will spend my time contacting legislators and others that I hope will bring pressure upon the people and processes needing to be changed or replaced at the STRS.
Conni, you are in a public position and you will have members in your face the entire time you are there unless you start listening to those who have far more knowledge, wisdom and experience than you will ever possess. No, I am not referring to the OEA leadership; as you well know, many consider them to be a big part of the problem. I beg you to get down to the real business that you should be doing (if you are capable): cleaning up the mindset of the management of the STRS and not allowing business as usual. That’s what got STRS into trouble in the first place. Little has truly changed concerning management’s mindset since Herb Dyer left with the very generous severance package your corrupt predecessors awarded him.
In closing, YES, I need to meet with you to discuss many issues, or I would not have requested it so many times. You told me you would contact me after the November board meeting, but you did not. To continue ignoring me only compounds the number and the severity of the issues I need to discuss with you.
Thomas Curtis
STRS Retiree
Subject: Curtis To Ramser, Re Personal Mtg With You
Hello Conni,
Thank you for your timely response to my email of 1.8.07. I will first answer each of your questions and then offer you some other comments.
Ramser: What is your issue?
Not responding to or acting on issues brought to your attention by the people you are there to represent is not listening. The membership expects far more than your simply hearing what they have to say. They expect results. At the very least, they are entitled to some kind of intelligent, sincere and informed response. This is my biggest issue with your performance on the board thus far. However, please understand that I have many more issues to discuss with you. This has become the case, due to your failure to keep up with providing answers to my questions. I guess given enough time, you can reclassify an issue a non-issue, right?
Conni, I explained to you when we first spoke face to face that many others and I would be watching your performance and responding to such. What did you not understand about that? You promised much better when you were sworn into office, then you have delivered. You have embarrassed yourself and the entire board by going public with negative and childish comments about Dennis Leone, then not being big enough to apologize publicly. Please get with the program, so our pension system does not go into insolvency. You do not hold a candle to the knowledge and experience that either John Lazares or Dennis Leone holds. Yet, you apparently and erroneously believe you do, considering the public comments you have made. If you want to make yourself look better, you need to start treating them with a lot more respect.
Ramser: After all, I spent over 6 hours talking with you when I first came on the board.
Yes you did. Actually, you spent more then 6 hours, but that was part of your job as a board member. If you will kindly remember, we discussed the amount of time you would have available concerning your responsibility to the membership and you assured me that would be no problem. From the questions you raise in your email response of 1.8.07, I would conclude that it is already a problem. Further, as you stated, our prior meetings were right after you came onto the board. I thanked you then and I am still grateful that you did so, but your responsibility to communicate with the membership certainly did not end there, especially now that you are the chairman of the board. I would never have guessed you find that the 6+ hours you have spent talking with me in the past to be exorbitant?
Ramser: Is there something new that we didn't discuss then?
Yes, there are many “new” issues I need to discuss with you. Our last sit-down was in 2005. Do you honestly feel that there is nothing “new” to discuss since 2005? There has been something “new” to discuss after almost every board meeting I have attended. If you are unable to meet with members, then you need to resign your position. Apparently someone gave you a very unrealistic idea of what your responsibility to the membership should be. Maybe I need to contact Marc Dann’s office and request a clarification on that?
Ramser: Is there something that you haven't said during the public speaks session?
Conni, please don’t patronize me. Absolutely there is! I even indicated this in one of my recent public speaks presentations, though apparently, you not remember that. Others and I receive no response from many of our board members after speaking and asking questions. That needs to change. With the exception of a few, you appear to look right through us, as though we were not there, and are quick to shut us up when our 180 seconds have expired. By the way, the time limit per person for the public speaks is another issue that needs to be addressed at the retreat this year. (Please consider this a formal request) If there are 15 speakers, I can see a possible need for it. But when there are only a few – half a dozen, maybe, as is usually the case – there needs to be some leniency, especially considering many people drive great distances at their own expense to be there. I know of one retiree, who slips in on his lunch hour, HOPING for an opportunity to speak, and usually NOT getting it, because the schedule has been delayed due to an executive session. Further, after the public speaks is complete, you usually adjourn the meeting, so what is the rush. Are you all that traumatized about hearing how your membership truly feels? Obviously you are.
Now, am I to assume that because the board was gracious enough to allow me a whole 3 minutes once a month to speak to them, that they believe all I have to say has been said? This is absurd; exactly the type of attitude I find so unacceptable with you and others on the board. Conni, most everyone knows you are not on that board because of your qualifications. I have spoken to this issue as well. You have little to no background in finance and business. You are on that board because the OEA went out and placed your name in front of a much larger group of voters than anyone else was able to do. Purely political - nothing more - nothing less. Had you run for the office without big money backing, you and I and everyone else knows it would be a very different story.
Ramser: Just because we haven't had a face to face doesn't mean I haven't listened to your comments.
As I stated in my first response, hearing, but not responding or acting on something brought to you by the people you are there to represent is not listening. Now stop and ask yourself, what have you done for me lately, concerning any of my requests to you by email, or requests made during the public speaks? That should answer your question, shouldn't’t it?
Ramser: If you have a problem that I could help you resolve, I would be more than happy to help.
I really wish I had some way of knowing this offer was sincere. But you have not shown me that respect to date, as I indicated in my comments above. You do not even show that respect to some of your board members, so why would I believe you would treat me any differently? I have asked you many things since you have been on the board. The vast majority of my requests have gone unanswered. Why? Because when someone asks you a tough question, or one you do not want to answer, you offer a very weak answer, if you offer an answer at all. I have experienced this during conversations with you and with certain other board members as well.
As a board member, how is your thinking any different from your OEA predecessors (other than the fact that you haven’t done anything that we know of that is likely to land you in court)? Like them, you cave in to the wishes of the STRS management, giving members reason to question what may be going on behind the scenes. Such as, what favors the management may be dealing out to those who kiss up to them, or are too new to realize what’s really going on (like the credit card deal and probably more stuff we haven’t uncovered yet). YOUR ATTENTION NEEDS TO BE FOCUSED ON THE MEMBERSHIP, NOT WHO CAN GIVE YOU PERKS OR MAKE YOU FEEL IMPORTANT. Wake up, Conni. We see right through this stuff, and we can spot a phony a mile away. As another retiree so succinctly put it: “She’s there for herself; she’s there for OEA; but she’s NOT there for us!” We want to trust you and the STRS management; please help us to find reason to do so!
Curtis: Further comments.
It is painfully obvious you feel you owe me NO responses to my questions, but I will not stop asking because of such. I am a bulldog when it comes to getting answers to questions and problem solving. My background is technology and this is what technologists do. We evaluate a process or system and then work on improving that system when there are obvious problems. God knows the STRS needs much oversight. They can only squander thousands of dollars of retirees’ money buying reports from companies like IFS, for so long. I am tired of getting nowhere with you and others at the STRS, but I am NOT going to go away. I will spend my time contacting legislators and others that I hope will bring pressure upon the people and processes needing to be changed or replaced at the STRS.
Conni, you are in a public position and you will have members in your face the entire time you are there unless you start listening to those who have far more knowledge, wisdom and experience than you will ever possess. No, I am not referring to the OEA leadership; as you well know, many consider them to be a big part of the problem. I beg you to get down to the real business that you should be doing (if you are capable): cleaning up the mindset of the management of the STRS and not allowing business as usual. That’s what got STRS into trouble in the first place. Little has truly changed concerning management’s mindset since Herb Dyer left with the very generous severance package your corrupt predecessors awarded him.
In closing, YES, I need to meet with you to discuss many issues, or I would not have requested it so many times. You told me you would contact me after the November board meeting, but you did not. To continue ignoring me only compounds the number and the severity of the issues I need to discuss with you.
Thomas Curtis
STRS Retiree
posted by Kathie Bracy at 10:23 PM
<< Home