Jim N. Reed to Board member Hayden re: Divestiture vote

From Jim N. Reed, August 5, 2007
Subject: Disappointed at the Divestiture Vote

Dear Ms.Hayden,

I must admit to not knowing you nearly as well as I need to as an STRS retiree. No one is more important, more crucial to us than our Board members. As you may know, I have been critical of the past and present STRS Boards. (Some of my angst is personal and some professional.) I am a member of CORE and a supporter and fan of Dr. Dennis Leone and Mr. John Lazares. I do believe both have retirees' best interests at heart. (Their personal sacrifices have endeared them to a sizable audience, numbers that can no longer be ignored as simple "malcontents.") There have been past and are present Board members who I believe had and have very little real understanding of the plight of the average retiree. This gap badly needs narrowing. Its widening could be catastrophic to many career professional educators who are surviving on the edge.

I can only speculate as to your position on this Board. My first impression was that you were understanding, empathetic, and in-touch but your recent voting record has me wondering whether you are headed toward another rubber-stamp position on this Board. Retirees cannot afford another, or a continued, "yes-Damon" Board. I became actively critical of my retirement Board when another notorious Executive Administrator, Herb Dyer, presided over a submissive, corrupt (according to the courts) Board. I fear that retirees, present and prospective, can not survive another era of that kind of obscene misspending and misdirection.

Our hope is that a new generation of Board members, Ms. Hayden, will refuse to be brainwashed and demand independent thinking in their deliberations, be critical analysts of administrative policy, the "Good Old Boy" or written kind. I'm concerned that a continuing STRS "Business as Usual" is a death knell for STRS and its contributing members.

As an example of this continued crooked thinking pattern in the Boardroom, what is the logic that props up the argument that the Board should allow the Executive Director to speak for them regarding the surrender to the General Assembly bullies who insist on the divestiture of my pension funds? How can the ED make that sacrificial (guess who the lamb is) fiduciary faux pas without a formal decision coming from my representatives on my Board? How can the Board rationalize caving into the GA and the ED when the GA doesn't even know what its doing? Is this going to leave my already embarrassed and corrupt Board's legacy with more egg on its face and more feet in its mouth?

Yes, I'm angry , again, and disappointed. Angry and disappointed that some of the recently elected and appointed Board members have not demonstrated more empathy with those within their profession who can not withstand much more adversity in their retirement status. Disgusted that Dr. Leone and Mr. Lazares must stand alone in their efforts to insist on the Board's adherence to ORC 3307.15. What is it about this brief legal statement that cannot be interpreted and followed on every decision-making process?

I just read a letter from a good and wise friend, Tom Curtis, to Dr. Leone about the divestiture issue. I believe the letter was copied to you and other Board members. How do you respond to the issue as identified so clearly by Mr. Curtis? Can you point out to me where his logic and reasoning are fallible? What are Mr. Curtis, myself, and so many other retirees asking from this Board that is unreasonable?

Thank you for listening and hearing. You have impressed me as someone who does not patronize, condescend, nor offer lip service to your constituents. That's why I send you this correspondence.

Jim N. Reed