Dennis Leone to John Curry, August 8, 2007
Subject: RE: Ohio HB 151 divestment
John – Regarding your email below: Section 137.08 of proposed HB 151 is the key. In my eyes, this demonstrates how wrong the board was in June. How can the board voluntarily engage in divestiture when HB 151 acknowledged that we needed fiduciary liability protection in the event we reduced investments in Iran and Sudan. (Interesting, too, that no STRS staff member told the board about this language in HB 151.) Actually, Section 137.08 of proposed HB 151 is an admission that such divestiture is a violation of the board’s fiduciary role, which is why the liability protection was stuck in there. Problem is, however, is that HB 151 hasn’t passed, so why did the board vote in June as it did, especially when the board had no liability protection (proposed in HB 151) and when the board knew the matter was headed back to a legislative sub-committee for reconsideration? Anybody know? The motion (that passed 6-2) was made by Jeff Chapman and was seconded by Steve Puckett. Maybe they should answer this. Please feel free to forward this them. I intend to ask them publicly, so this email will give them a heads-up.
Cheryl Flagg to John Curry, August 8, 2007
Subject: Re: Ohio HB 151 divestment
If anyone just happens to want to know more about HB 151 and fiduciary duty and exemption of defined contribution plans, they can be referred to Sec. 137.08, Sec. 148.04, and 3305.02. HB 151 is attached for quick reference. [Click here to view text of HB 151.] Kept this information from my research earlier this year.