Molly Janczyk comments on Patricia Frost-Brooks' speech to STRS Board December 13, 2007

From Molly Janczyk, December 13, 2007
Subject: OEA: Pres. Frost-Brooks' Speech to the STRS Board: 12/13/07

I read Kathie's comment at the top of her blog and smiled. Yes, I, too, think there is a 'ghost writer' on Broad St. [Comment reads: Thought for the day: why do I keep wondering (but not too hard) if there is a behind-the-scenes speech writer/ghost writer down on Broad Street?]

I think Frost-Brooks' speech was indeed 'crafted' as well. Crafted to be pointed -- very pointed to all who do not 'walk the line.' Of course, we ALL know WHO that is on the STRS Board. We know who questions and fights for oversight and transparency which many in membership elected them to do and who steps back so as not to tread on toes. What others call micromanaging, we call oversight and due diligence. When some say allow employees to do their jobs, we ask (with good reason) for transparency.

Yes, to a retiree who said today that he wanted policy to speak, I agree. But, when it is found that policy does not cover all aspects or needs tweaking, I also say, Yes, then it needs to come back to the Board for defining and perhaps more discussion and decisions made for special circumstances regarding some staff with different job descriptions than others.

Such conditions may apply to STRS Investment Staff who, at times, may need overrides for special trips to other countries. However, to have a policy in place with allowances not normally needed, seems an invitation to overuse at times as well. A thought for deliberation on how to resolve such needs.

I personally feel Frost-Brooks insulted her membership since many are not on her Exec. Board or attendees at meetings. I was not represented by her speech today and I am a decades long OEA member and Lifetime OEA-R member -- yet she, I felt, indicated she was representing all members. I know many others felt she did not represent them either. So, handpicking who you rep is convenient for such agenda statements.

I am a member of a much newer organization, CORE [Concerned Ohio Retired Educators, www.concernedohio.org], that does not speak for others without putting issues out for all to read and have a chance to express themselves. Then majority is heard and then determinations presented. I do not recall receiving anything from OEA or OEA-R as a decades long and Lifetime member for my input on Frost-Brooks' perceived, and what has now become a monthly, mantra on what they feel is micromanaging. A few at the top of the organization make the decisions for unknowing membership.

Do members' opinions, other than loyalists, deserve to be heard? It is fine to say you speak for a group when only a handful of the group has been polled. Like when one speaks for HCAs. Does one ask all the HCAs or one person in each group known to stand with one dismissing all others? As always, numbers can be used many ways to strengthen one's position. I can ask only those whose answers I want to hear and say I am speaking for a group.

I am ashamed of my old organizations' leadership for OEA and OEA-R. These same organizations demanded involvement from membership decades back when I was one of many helping 'grow' them. But, time and power somehow clouds issues and degrades pure intent and integrity. Organizations do not, we learned, call attention to 'their own' who commit indiscretions saying they deserve things because they work so hard. Heads are turned. When others uncover misdeeds, embarrassment brings a heavy onslaught and circling wagons vs. cleaning house and taking responsibility.

A new organization [CORE] formed as a result. One motto: "We never want to become what we fought to dismantle." We did dismantle hugely! We are here to stay; to provide oversight, regardless of what anyone else wants to call it; and demand transparency, regardless of what others wish blindly approved. We will be vocal for retirees, current and future, to restore STRS to its place of integrity.

I feel and many agree, that Steve Mitchell has led a valiant effort to rebuild STRS; and yet these dollars, though seemingly so large, do not restore STRS to its pre-tumble status any more than a person who has lost much of their finances. To begin, steps had to be taken to meet immediate needs and liability, and funding ratio suffered and still have not fully recovered. STRS can never pay for HC in today's market for its retirees without a dedicated revenue, no matter the amount, anyway, without a fund dedicated to HC.

We relish the hard working Staff at STRS and wish nothing but good for them. We only ask we be treated on a more balanced level with them. STRS exists because of us; not for Staff. Fairly compensated, of course, as we should be for building this system with our dollars. The 'shareholders' suffer. We need help.

SHAME on any organization that undermines free thinking and discussion and speech. SHAME on any organization that comes asking for solidarity of support regardless of one's moral and ethical standing. I, for one, demand knowing how individual Board members vote and why! I do not want Board members voting to keep peace or make nice or against their principles. EVER! I sure want them to tell me why they voted differently on issues. Otherwise, SHAME ON ME FOR NOT WANTING TO KNOW! That will never happen again. Those days are gone -- comfortable and fun as they may have been. Era past.

Molly Janczyk
CORE
STRS Retiree
OEA/NEA Lifetime
CEA Lifetime
FCRTA Lifetime
ORTA Lifetime