Dennis Leone responds to Mark Meuser

Dennis Leone to Mark Meuser, September 9, 2007
Subject: My Response To Mark Meuser

Mark – Didn’t realize, initially, that you made it a point to copy 30 people with your email to me, including some of your OEA friends. Here is my response to you, Mark, for their reading pleasure as well.

Try as you wish, Mark, to change what happened at the August 17 board meeting, but the truth is the truth. Listen to the tapes of the Board meeting, Mark, and you will hear yourself questioning whether my motion regarding the authorization of the recent severance checks for laid-off employees was “worthy.” Here is the bottom line: Had you done your homework before the Board meeting – had you studied the information supplied by Damon Asbury in July regarding the severance checks – you would have better understood why I wanted our internal auditors to look into the matter. And yes, Mark, had you voted no to my motion on Aug, 17, it would have been a departure from your fiduciary responsibility, just like it was when you voted in favor of Damon presenting a budget to the Ohio Retirement Study Council that included 9 new employees – and you did not know why the positions were needed and what their salaries were going to be. Had you bothered to do your homework before the August 17 Board meeting, Mark, you would have learned that:

1. There is nothing in Board policy, nothing in the employee handbook, and nothing in STRS administrative regulations that speaks to severance checks for laid-off employees. In fact, in the spring of 2006, the board reduced staff perks in 6 areas – and one those cuts was severance checks for employees who resign at STRS. Does it bother you, Mark, that the Board was not offered information that future laid-off employees were due to receive severance checks even though we cut severance checks for regular employees who resign on their own? Perhaps you are not understanding the significance of this.

2. The Board was told on June 21 in executive session that the payments were “pursuant to Board policy.” They were not. It doesn’t matter, Mark, that you were not in attendance on June 21. You received the same homework documents that everyone received in July, prior to the August Board meeting.

3. The Board was told on June 21 that the cost for the severance was “approximately $70,000. The real cost is $93,000.

4. The Board was not told on June 21 that the severance for the employees included STRS-paid health insurance AFTER they were laid off. Nor were we told that the severance arrangement was also available for part-time STRS employees. The point is, Mark, that no one on the Board knew about any of this until after we received Damon’s email in July. Don’t we, as Board members, have the right and obligation to ask questions about these things – as we did for the other perks cut in the spring of 2006? Or should we do what the “old” board did – which was look the other way, and pretend we’re informed.

5. Does it bother you, Mark, that the terms of the individual “settlement agreements” laid off employees are asked to sign references the employee and the “employer?” Who do you think the “employer” is, Mark? Don’t you think the “employer” should be entitled to know what the hell is happening.

6. Does it bother you, Mark, in case you missed it, that the severance “policy” Damon sent us in July said it was “issued” in 2002, then “revised” on September 11, 2006 – but no one on the board had any knowledge of this? I took the time, Mark, to read all policies, all handbooks, all regulations, and all Board minutes for the past 5 years, and guess what – there’s nothing there about severance for laid-off employees. Funny, isn’t it, Mark, that the “revisions” put in place on 9-11-06 involved 3 perk areas (sick leave, vacation time, and college course reimbursements) the Board cut for other employees a few months earlier in 2006. Do you get it, Mark? The staff knew, if these 3 areas were not changed for laid-off employees, that such employees would have perks (AFTER THEY WERE LAID OFF) that regular STRS employees did NOT have. But the Board was not told any of this in 2006, were we, Mark?

At the end of your email below, your write “I commend you on that” – referencing my research and personal involvement in the development of a new PBM contract. Then you wrote: “It is not, however, quite the same situation as when the budgets for vendor contracts have already been approved by the board.” What the heck are you talking about, Mark? It is precisely the same. Eleven months ago, YOU voted no on my motion to require the board to review summaries of big ticket contracts BEFORE WE VOTE ON THEM. Right after your no vote, you offered this amazing statement in writing: “Any board involvement in vendor contracts inhibits the staff’s ability to negotiate.” (Don’t let the Gahanna-Lincoln Teachers Assn know your feel that way.)

Have you stopped to think that in the old days, Mark, the Board not only would have no involvement in the new PBM contract, the staff would have gone ahead and done whatever they desired on the matter without the board knowing one thing. It is a fact – the new PBM contract is better, tighter, and cleaner BECAUSE the board was given the opportunity to have involvement. By the way, Mark, why didn’t you participate in any of the discussions on August 17 in executive session about the new PBM contract? And why didn’t you ask any questions about the severance checks? And why didn’t you object to the legal fees of 3 staff members being paid a few months ago when free legal service was available to them from the State Atty General’s Office? And did it bother you, Mark, that the board (in your absence on June 21) initially voted as it did on the divestiture question without having sufficient information in hand? That was like when the board voted for a settlement agreement regarding non-investment staff bonuses without having a document in hand. Does it bother you, Mark, that this happened also? And why did you vote for a contract extension for Damon Asbury when the board had not done his evaluation and when the matter was NOT on the meeting agenda? (Gosh, Mark, I wonder what you would do as the Gahanna-Lincoln Teachers Assn President if the school board gave the supt a new contract without doing his evaluation and without the matter being on the agenda?) And I have always wondered, Mark – why didn’t you speak up when you learned that STRS was paying for a fax machine in the home of Michael Billirakis? Why are John Lazares and I the only ones to question the wisdom of these things?

You see, Mark, your fiduciary responsibility as a board member involves far, far more than you realize. Your statement questioning whether my motion seeking internal auditor assistance was “worthy” ranks up there with Judith Fisher’s “intrusive” comment, Geoff Meyers’ “this is a waste of time” comment, Jack Chapman “drop in the bucket” comment, Hazel Sidaway’s “we were doing board business during the Broadway Show intermission” comment, Joe Endry’s “I don’t get paid as a board member so I deserve these things” comment, and Tim Myers’ “crackpot/savior” comment. You are an OEA clone, Mark. You are a Stepford Man. As far as debating STRS issues, just tell me the place and time, and I will be there.

One thing, however, Mark: I will not meet you in Philadelphia, where you recently spent $2,901.65 of STRS money for in-service. It amazes me how board members spend thousands of dollars of pension money for out-of-state meetings, only to come back to Ohio and vote the way they do after NOT asking questions and NOT doing their homework. I can’t wait to hear what YOU have to say about the severance checks at the Board meeting on September 20. Maybe NOW you and my fellow board members will think about their vote every October to give the STRS Executive Director blanket authority to spend money as he sees fit “on behalf of the board.”

You once said, Mark, that you heard at a meeting that the purpose of all pension boards should be “undivided loyalty to the membership.” One way you can start doing that is to ask questions and not (like some others on the board) be a blind rubber stamp for the staff. I honestly do not feel that you and some others on the board have the experience or the capacity to be suspicious about anything that staff does. How many examples will you need before you learn? I thought you would have learned more about the misconduct of the prior board and the prior executive director. I guess not.

Dennis Leone

From Mark Meuser, 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 [sic] 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 [sic] 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