Deal or no deal?

From John Curry, June 18, 2007

The following was posted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Politics Blog. The person posting, Aaron Marshall, quotes Representative Mandel (sponsor of Sub HB 15-divestments) statements re. Ohio retirement systems and Mandel states that:

"I've learned that many of the pension system bureaucrats are dishonest and don't communicate with retirees and retiree associations in good faith."

Mr. Marshall also goes on to write this:

"The brouhaha began when state pension fund managers and some public retirees railed against the bill, saying it would cost pension funds big bucks -- one estimate said almost $250 million a year. Mandel said he 'fundamentally rejects' the idea that it will cost pension funds anything to divest and said that divestment in Missouri actually brought gains of 3.9 percent. And the Iraq war vet opened fire on pension fund 'bureaucrats,' who he said overstated how much they would lose."

If what the Plain Dealer's guy says was actually said then....somebody's lying BIG TIME. Who might it be? Aaron Marshall's address at the Plain Dealer is amarshall@plaind.com

Maybe you would like to communicate your feelings to Mr. Marshall of the Cleveland Plain Dealer! I already sent Mr. Marshall a letter requesting documentation of Mr.Mandel's quotes.

John

Cleveland Plain Dealer
Politics Blog
Deal or no deal?
Posted by Aaron Marshall
June 6, 2007

A controversial bill forcing Ohio pension systems to pull $1.1 billion worth of investments in businesses with ties to Iran and the Sudan was stopped in its tracks Tuesday on the House floor with pension fund managers in an uproar at the mandatory requirements.

Hoping to reach a compromise after several hours of talks, House Speaker Jon Husted offered to pull back the divestment bill -- which was scheduled for a vote Tuesday that never happened -- if the pension systems agreed to a voluntary divestment of the half of those funds (more than $500 million) by the end of 2007.

Husted spokeswoman Karen Tabor said the fund managers have until the end of the day Thursday to send a letter agreeing to the deal.

But it's a slightly different tune from Rep. Josh Mandel, a freshman Republican state rep from Lyndhurst, who said Wednesday that "there is no formal agreement or compromise" and that he plans to push forward for a House floor vote next Tuesday. Mandel and other backers of the bill want to pass the legislation because of the ties both countries have to terrorism.

So is there a deal here or not?

"There wasn't an agreement as of yet," said Laura Ecklar, spokeswoman for the State Teachers Retirement System, one of the five state employee retirement systems affected by the bill. "The speaker made a proposal and we've asked for 48 hours to respond and are mulling it over and creating a response back."

The brouhaha began when state pension fund managers and some public retirees railed against the bill, saying it would cost pension funds big bucks -- one estimate said almost $250 million a year. Mandel said he "fundamentally rejects" the idea that it will cost pension funds anything to divest and said that divestment in Missouri actually brought gains of 3.9 percent. And the Iraq war vet opened fire on pension fund "bureaucrats," who he said overstated how much they would lose.

"It's been eye opening seeing how the pension systems act," said Mandel. "I've learned that many of the pension system bureaucrats are dishonest and don't communicate with retirees and retiree associations in good faith."

The bill originally targeted all investments in businesses with ties to Iran, but was scaled back to just energy companies in Iran and broadened to include Sudan as Mandel sought to widen support among lawmakers in his caucus getting cold feet.

So how much support did the bill have among House Republicans Tuesday?

"That was in flux all day long," Tabor said.