December 16 letters: Bill Leibensperger and Kathie Bracy

From Kathie Bracy, December 16, 2007
Subject: Re: In the spirit of open communication

Thank you, Bill. From your response, specifically where you wrote 'The Board motions to which she refers would be any "motions that would inhibit the Executive Director and Staff in carrying out their statutory responsibilities and/or hamper the System's ability to pass legislation to preserve the health care benefit,"' I would have to infer that Ms. Frost-Brooks is either unable (which is unlikely) or unwilling to articulate which specific STRS Board motions she was referring to in her testimony. Am I correct?

Kathie Bracy

From Bill Leibensperger, December 16, 2007
Subject: RE: In the spirit of open communication

Thank you, Kathy. I appreciate the clear communications.

In response to your request, there was only one motion made at the OEA RA. It was a directive to the President to address the Board around the four bullets you find in her address. Those points are verbatim from the new business item. The Board motions to which she refers would be any "motions that would inhibit the Executive Director and Staff in carrying out their statutory responsibilities and/or hamper the System's ability to pass legislation to preserve the health care benefit," in the past, present and future. I believe that the Board members are fully capable of using their professional judgment in applying this principle. I acknowledge that this response may not be what you were after, but I believe history has taught us the problems of hashing and rehashing the past. The spirit of the motion is prospective.

Finally, I don't believe President Frost-Brook's address violated any rules of the Board, but, as you point out, that is for the Board to decide. Her testimony was an example of the "one voice" alluded to in the OEA new business item and in my last missive to you. Her comments were the OEA's, as she is the embodiment of our union. They reflected not only the exact words of the new business item but also the discussion/debate of the motion. That more than one person looked at the testimony before it was presented reflects a smart practice and nothing else. When I speak on behalf of HCA you can bet that every leader of the various organizations in HCA have seen it and responded to it prior to its presentation. In neither case is an individual representing someone else's views; we are conveying a consensus viewpoint. I am afraid the strict interpretation of the rule you suggest may even preclude the acto of proofreading by another set of eyes. As a writing teacher, I could not advise such a practice.

Nonetheless, I reiterate my appreciation for this open dialogue. I look forward to our conversations evolving into the kind that generates positive collective action. Thank you.

Bill

p.s. Please feel free to post this note on your blog if you so desire.