Letters: Molly Janczyk, Mark Meuser, Dennis Leone and Mary Ellen Angeletti

Molly Janczyk to Mark Meuser, August 26, 2007
Subject: Transparency

Mark, Why we want and ask for public exchange:

1. We have asked our Board members to be transparent and we wish to know how discussion and voting proceeds and who is keeping retirees as first priority, in our opinion. All of you need to be able to stand up to scrutiny or why are you there. Long gone are the days of back hall discussions and deal making for blanket Board approval.

POINT: When Staff and the Neville bring you their recommendations, they are simply that. It is YOU who decides and must question and further research whether their findings are in our best interests. Numbers and facts taken out of context can be made to show anything. So, it looks good and you naively agree. No! Your duty is to question and search for better options if needed. YES, all must always be in the best interests of all retirees, current and future-equitably. BUT, as with the cost increase for Medicare Part B, Leone and Lazares are simply saying: We see your stand and we wish to discuss this to see if OTHER options exist for retirees which will not threaten pension security as well as bring more relief for retirees. Many of you simply vote to approve the Staff findings unwilling to see how those numbers may be changed and reapplied differently. THAT is the difference between past and now and between Board members.

WHO is willing to question and research for alternative options? If none exist, good faith has been established as you tried: presented them for discussion and thoroughly examined pros and cons. Making a career of questions or acting in good faith?

Yes, more tedious and time consuming. Also in the spirit of ORC:3307.15 to act solely on behalf of membership WHO WOULD ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AND DEMAND EXAMINATION. We have 2 Board Members who at every meeting say virtually the same thing: "How will this look to and affect retirees who cannot afford meds?" Leone and Lazares. Due to their continued quest, in spite of persons being more concerned with their tone and tireless questions than the words and questions, other Board Members hear some stuff that well, does alter thinking at times. And IF Leone and Lazares feel something is wrong and morally or ethically unfair, they do not stop: Ex. No document for big vendor contracts , no signature. THAT is fiduciary duty. They keep at it until it is right. How did that practice enhance our benefits? How is that called micromanaging vs. 'carte blanche approval?" It is WHAT we want.

Some of you are so immature and inexperienced, in my opinion, that behaving as if we were at a tea party vs. down and at it real talk about real issues is more important than the issue. Let's play nice; let's not stomp our feet; let's not make waves. WHO CARES? Let's forget personalities and delivery and recognize simple fact and truth without prejudice. Then, vote, as if you were one of us! They do because they are one of us and never forget it. (That is the reason I refuse to be an officer, trustee, etc. of anything. I never want to forget I am simply trying to be an alternative voice for those who cannot fight or who do not feel they have been fairly treated. I try to direct them to the folks who can help always copying Lazares and Leone, and some have actually been given new options when previously told, none exist).

We are not numbers on a paper as I told Dyer. We are real. Put aside tone and your back up because you don't like it and hear the words. If they hold value, say so and 'work together to see what it will take to resolve the issue because there is so much to do.' (Mooney) He care less about passionate tone and jumped in with both feet to speak to all and find ways to get folks together. He became passionate as well, at times, telling me he often was the loudest and strongest in the room. He also found no problem talking to Leone and Lazares and wondered what the fuss was all about.

So, ask yourselves what responsibility you have in making people perturbed with constant no's vs. the open minds you promised. Ask yourselves if you have had any part in an unwelcoming bit of attitude to provoke others. Ask yourselves if you are open, listening, really hearing and responsive to all in accepting tones and thoughtful answers welcoming questions and researching options.

Forget everything except: WHAT IS BEST FOR RETIREES AND THE SYSTEM not just by Staff talk but by real findings of all options available because YOU have delved into the matter and determined accuracy.

THEN , you will find less tone and more collaboration because they will be just that: real effort to find the truth and make truly informed decisions which is what you are entrusted to do.

2. It was you, Mark, who was not clear on the motion re: Dennis Leone's stance re: Damon Asbury -- Ramser corrected you.

3. Media (publishing of sorts on a blog and by email) has been a resource to encourage in depth research and not simply listening to staff and attorney: Of course, as Mooney said, they will support STRS.

4. Leone has learned that he can only expect some real consideration by involving open view for us as to voting patterns. WE ASK IT OF HIM.

5. Intemperate by whose view? You and your organization. Mooney found it no problem to passionately discuss issues with an open mind. That is they key. When one comes to a preconceived mindset, it needs some 'overforce' at times to be really heard, we have sadly learned after so long of being dismissed and treated with maligning arrogance.

6. We expect you to vote using only your fiduciary duty but who votes to not see contracts before signing? No, it is NO different re: large vendor contracts, large Damon expenditures, severance for laid off workers tho no written policy exists, overextended travel, etc. Every penny counts not just what YOU feel is important but what WE feel as membership is important.

7. Think about your last paragraph: Credited Leone with a better deal with a PBM. Let's think about that: WHY? Due to Leone's research and questions. Why not Meuser's or Chapman's or Ramser's or Cervantes or Puckett's questions? That IS the point! It is NEVER because of those listed above. Yet, some find Leone's questions tedious and inflammatory -- scoffing in the audience and smirking .

WHEN WILL YOU EVER REALIZE IT IS LEONE AND LAZARES QUESTIONING AND RESEARCHING AND STANDING FOR MEMBERSHIP WITH US BEHIND THEM THAT MAKES A BETTER SYSTEM!

What are the accomplishments as a Board Member of the following? What have any of them done to enhance and safeguard or doggedly oversee membership benefits vs. a superficial perusing STRS-provided materials or topical skimming of related items: List your achievements: Puckett for Zelman, Meuser, Chapman, Cervantes, Ramser: PLEASE!

Then list Leone's and Lazares'. Let's see how you compare being responsible for researching and finding spending abuses vs. enabling them by keeping quiet or feeling Board Members were ENTITLED and to reduced expenditures: for cars, credit cards, family use of such, subsidies for fitness, child care, cafeteria, sick and vacation leave changes, bonus redefinements, SB133 language.

Then there is the new Ethics Policy and Travel Policy in place at STRS, Ongoing struggle to get the right policy in place: no document-no vote; limits to Damon's spending, struggling to get Board Members to actually see retirees pennies vs. increased Medicare costs.

Where are you 5 in this order? What have you done to see the issues vs. putting up barriers, being strong and determined no one lets Leone and Lazares tell them what to do, by golly! Let's keep up that show! Or did you hear those questions and wonder, hmmmmmmmmmm, there is a point I DID NOT THINK OF OR CONSIDER SO MY CHOICE IS: SHOW LEONE I DO NOT HAVE TO LISTEN CAUSE I DO NOT LIKE HIS TONE (never mind he joined a hostile Board and learned fast if he didn't come on strong , he would be dismissed for continuing lack of oversight and just carte blanche voting for STRS OR, here's a thought! Credit Leone with real gratitude actually being the ONE WHO GOT A BETTER DEAL BECAUSE HE TOOK THE TIME BECAUSE HE FELT THAT WAS HIS FIDUCIARY DUTY AND DID THE RESEARCH. Thanks, Dennis! That was great and we appreciate your time and efforts and we applaud you. OEA thanks you, ORTA thanks you, etc.
(THAT WILL BE THE DAY)!

So, let's hear what you 5 (and Zelman) have done! I am waiting and will be happy to see your accomplishments because they are more subtle obviously.

Oh, and WHERE were any of you when this fiasco began? And what did you all do back then to make things better except run for the Board? Did you question and ridicule Leone and Lazares along with your organizations or say: Hey! Let ME find out for myself how retiree money is being handled and let ME be a voice for change. Enable or fight for change. We know who fits where, precisely. We know who defended the indefensible, precisely.

Mark Meuser to Dennis Leone, August 24, 2007
Subject: RE: FW: Update: STRS Board on August 17

Dennis,

You have chosen to discuss events of the last STRS Board meeting in the rather public forum of e-mail. While I do not think this a particularly good idea, since you have made a number of statements about me, I feel the need to answer those statements in the same forum.

In explaining your motion to investigate Damon's decision to issue severence checks, you leveled the very serious charge against him that he had acted outside his authority. My objection to your motion was that it seemed to include a condemnation of the executive director. I did not want to vote on that before all the facts were in. I wanted to know specifically whether his actions were worthy of such a censure before making that decision. When Conni pointed out that the motion contained no condemnation of the executive director, but was simply designed to investigate the facts, I had no problem with it, as evidenced by my "yes" vote.

You also have the order of events wrong. I said that I would not jump simply because you said "jump" only in response to your accusation that I was breeching my fiduciary duty if I did not vote "yes" on your motion. I want to make one thing clear. I will vote in the way I feel is proper in exercising my fiduciary duty to the entire system. In the process of arriving at those decisions, I will gladly engage in rational discussion based on facts and research. I will not be swayed by intemperate accusations from you or anyone else. If you make statements which attack my character or judgement or statements with which I disagree, I will not sit idly by.

One final comment. I fully understand that your research and the questions you asked about Express Scrips helped our negotiators to reach a great deal on the PBM contract. I commend you for that. It is, however, not quite the same situation as when the budgets for vendor contracts have already been approved by the Board.

Sincerely,

Mark Meuser

Dennis Leone to Mary Ellen Angeletti, August 18, 2007
Subject: Update: STRS Board on August 17

Thank you Mary Ellen. Interesting, wasn't it (as the Canton Repository accurately reported), that Puckett accused me of "badgering" on August 16, seconds after I expressed my concern over the fact that the STRS staff had NOT given full information to the Board before the original June 21 divestiture vote. I guess it did not bother Puckett (who seconded the motion on June 21 to direct the staff to prepare a divestiture plan) that he did not have all of the facts before him at that time. It was okay in the past for Puckett, as you know, to have an STRS-purchased credit card, to have STRS pay for his personal long distance phone calls, to have STRS spend money on wine for a Hazel Sidaway going-away party, to vote for a settlement agreement without having a document in hand, and to support STRS paying for the private legal fees of 3 employees. Maybe I should do a little more "badgering" when it comes to Steve Puckett's behavior.

You soon will be reading about a motion I made at the STRS Board meeting on Friday, August 17, regarding Damon's decision to issue severance checks (costing $93,000) to eight STRS employees who were laid off recently from the IT Dept. I challenged that Damon did not have the authority to do what he did and pushed for a formal Board action to have our internal auditors (who now report directly to the Board, not to the STRS exec director) do an investigation into whether the payments were proper and pursuant to board policies. (They clearly were not proper and not pursuant to adopted policies, in my opinion, based on my research of ALL policies, board minutes, etc.) I made this motion, and Chapman seconded it. Before the vote was taken, Meuser gave a speech that he was not about to "jump because Leone says jump" and that he was NOT sure if such a follow-up was "worthy." After hearing that, I replied: "From my perspective, any board member who does not vote for this resolution is engaging in misconduct from a fiduciary standpoint." (Meuser's "don't know if this is worthy" statement and Puckett's "badgering" comment remind me of Judith Fisher's "intrusive" comment, Geoff Meyers' "waste of time" comment, and Bob Brown's "shut up" comment.)

Anyway, after Meuser and I exchanged words, even Conni Ramser (yes, Conni Ramser) told Meuser that the spirit of my proposed resolution was to have our own internal auditors look into the matter. The motion then passed 7-0, with Meuser voting yes as well. Board members Johnson and Puckett had to leave the meeting before this vote was taken. Board member Hayden was absent on Friday. Before the vote, STRS staff members spoke in defense of the severance checks (and the continuation of STRS-paid health insurance for the laid-off employees) because the laid-off employees were "deserving," because many of them "have car payments," and because we shouldn't "send the wrong message to other STRS employees." Funny, isn't it, that staff wasn't as concerned about retirees' car payments in 2002 when health insurance was cut for spouses. Meuser's comments on Friday also reminded me of his written comments of a few months ago, when he wrote that any board involvement in vendor contracts "inhibits the staff's ability to negotiate." Whether Meuser realizes it, it was individual board involvement in the recently adopted PBM contract (as it was being negotiated) that caused it to be a better contract in the long run. He just plain doesn't understand this.

One vote change occurred on Friday. If you recall on Thursday, Ramser was the abstaining vote in the 5-4-1 vote to raise the reimbursement costs for retirees who are on the Medicare Part B plan. Ramser asked on Friday to change her vote to a yes. This means the record will now show that Ramser, Cervantes, Meuser, Johnson, Puckett and Brooks voted yes. Voting no on this cost increase were Leone, Lazares, Chapman, and Hayden.

All of the above can be verified by the Board meeting tapes. Also, Fayette County retiree Marie Fetters was in the audience on Friday and heard it all.

As you can tell, it sure is very hard to predict how board members will vote on these issues.

Dennis Leone

Mary Ellen and Chuck Angeletti to Dennis Leone, August 17, 2007
Subject: The badger is a good guy

We thank you for " vociferously" asking THE important questions of Steve Mitchell at yesterday's STRS meeting. Being compared to a badger by Steve Puckett is quite an honor because what Mr. Puckett doesn't know is that the badger is vital for the controlling of the rodent population. So you should thank him for giving you this honor. As you know a rodent is a RAT, and you made a few squirm yesterday. We try to back you up as much as possible but since they don't listen to retirees, it is not always easy.

YOU MADE SOME SOLID INROADS YESTERDAY AND FOR THAT WE SURE DO THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE ANGELETTIS