Molly Janczyk: Questions for STRS Board

From Molly Janczyk, December 21, 2007

I forgot to add that in my conversation with John Patterson, the word micromanaging never came up.....only 'at the discretion of the Board.' I feel OEA's attempts to 'constantly control the Board's decisions' with direct and pointed attempts to undermine individuals (my opinion) are indeed 'micromanaging the Board' instead of stating their position and letting the Board make up their own minds. Why don't you let the Board alone to do its job instead of inserting yourselves into their debate-my take?
Molly J.

My thoughts based on the AG Office: Patterson statements:

*Leone's motion is clearly NOT against current policy.

*Changing policies have been only positive in providing direction as evidenced by renewed trust and success. It was not stated that change of policy was inappropriate. It was stated that there is a difference of time commitment between Exec. Session and open forum and considering the advisability of making such public opening debate. For me , open debate is a good thing.

*Leone's motion CAN be reintroduced and approved.

*AG states AG makes 'recommendations' on representation -required, permissable or not.

*AG stated legal issues are CASE BY CASE just as Leone's motion requests

*I feel any legal issue is a public forum issue unless determined by the Exec. Direc. and STRS Board not to be so as to consider and or disallow inappropriate incidents. Membership has the right to know how its staff is operating and would demand the same of any staff working for them. It is right and fair to anyone to have the capability to respond to charges in open forum.

*I would NOT want ONE individual deciding legal options and feel case by case Board decisions are in order. There can be NO set rule on this as there are endless numbers of circumstances and all could never be listed. Why would anyone want to have their future determined by ONE person-esp. not knowing who that person will be.

*The only standard can be: "If an employee acted according to their job description with no illegal issues, the Board can decide on outside legal fees considering the AG's recommendation."
(Pretty much what Leone has presented).

It is not appropriate, prudent or intelligent us of our money to make unconditional statements regarding paying staff outside legal fees.

*It is not appropriate, prudent or in my opinion intelligent to make one person the final answer in all legal determinations. I find that foolhardy opening the door to much bigger potential problems.

Neville's statement is pertinent to case by case: "Unless otherwise determined by law, no associate legal fees will be paid without Board approval. No employee doing their job should fear this statement and I just have to add: Why all this fuss? How many law suits are we expecting regarding staff? I would think none! They seem hardworking and conscientious. Too much ado about nothing. We did our job and never worried about such.

Molly J.

From Molly Janczyk, December 21, 2007
Subject: CORE Officers; STRS; Organizations: Mark and Conni: Suspected STRS Board Tampering: Complaint:* Ques. to the Board

I spoke with John Patterson from the AG office.

He stated he would clarify public statements and does not wish to become involved in the politics of this motion. I told him I was taking notes to clear up questions and that I would add his disclaimer.

I am copying him for accuracy.

1. The Board could have voted to approve Leone's motion: There is nothing illegal about it. It is the discretion of the Board. They can still vote to do so. There is nothing inappropriate and it is at their discretion.

2. Legal fees for associates are case by case: It is up to the Board and Exec. Direc. to determine depending on the relationship between them whether it is decided that the Exec. Direc. has the authority to approve/disapprove: -If someone has done something illegal, they cannot be defended by the AG or STRS Legal team. -If someone has worked within the legal parameters of their job, STRS could decide to represent them based on they type of case. It is permissible and at times appropriately required and at times disallowed: illegal instances.

3. Patterson's statement was due to a concern that he said was really a time commitment: As long as discussion is in Exec. Session, no one can question a decision. One it is to be voted upon in public session, the door is opened for questioning the vote and why. Once that door is open, it cannot be reclosed and takes more time to address as it becomes open for questions and debate. It was merely a caution regarding this area as being reluctant to give up Exec. Session. He stated several times the difference was really a time commitment.

The AG makes recommendations to STRS in this area of legal backing. Patterson did accompany staff to court who were called for testimony in the former STRS Board members ethics violation charges. He could not represent Sidaway due to her charges.

((To me: If cases have to be decided individually, I would not want to operate under a standard policy disallowing case by case discussion and deliberation. I cannot believe this is a major problem at STRS at any rate)).
Mark Meuser to Molly Janczyk, December 21, 2007
Subject: RE: Mark and Conni: Suspected STRS Board Tampering: Complaint:* Ques. to the Board

Molly,

Below is the response I e-mailed you earlier. I don't know why it didn't go through. Sorry about that.

Even with Mr. Neville's restatement, the basic problem with the motion is its attempt to vest the Board with the authority to determine whether employees are eligible for legal fees. According to state statute, this falls under the purview of the Attorney General. I think it is important to note that public employees who are denied legal fees have the right to sue their employers for those legal fees, even if they choose their own attorneys. The motion in question also represents a change in Board Policy. According to Mr. Patterson of the Attorney General's office, if the Board is unhappy with a decision of the Executive Director, it can censure the Executive Director. Because even that did not occur, changing Board Policy is neither advisable nor necessary.

Mark

From Molly Janczyk, December 16, 2007
Subject: RE: Mark and Conni: Suspected STRS Board Tampering: Complaint:* Ques. to the Board

Conni, Are you saying this issue is still under consideration? If so, that is good. Thank you for your response.

Molly

From Conni Ramser, December 16, 2007
Subject: RE: Mark and Conni: Suspected STRS Board Tampering: Complaint:* Ques. to the Board

Molly,

After Mr. Neville's comments, there were other questions/suggestions raised. I asked that all ideas be put into writing so that it could all be considered and the best resolution sought.

Conni

From Molly Janczyk, December 15, 2007
Subject: Subject: Mark and Conni: Suspected STRS Board Tampering: Complaint:* Ques. to the Board

Mark and Conni,

This is a new day for Board members open to much more scrutiny and oversight by membership. We expect nothing less of our STRS Board members due to the history and misdeeds of former OEA Board members.

I am concerned about your recent voting and position on the problem of paying for legal fees for STRS Board members. I cannot imagine why you voted against Neville's, STRS Legal Counsel, statement answering what a proper policy should read on this matter except just to vote against Leone and attempts for oversight.

You both promised to be independent thinkers and decision makers and not party liners which never seems to occur in serious matters. Yet, it seems you rarely raise or debate issues from an independent view and research directly from sources. This is what got us into trouble before and it seems we are headed under this Board to that end again: Do not question, micromanage (same thing), etc. Rely on Staff to tell you what is going on.

As Mooney said, about blindly listening to those expected to support STRS asking: "What do you expect them to say?" It is not ethical if one disagrees nor due diligence to not speak up if an issue is felt to be wrong simply because it is the affiliation's wish. It is certainly not why you were elected or compliant with your oath.

Please present me with your well formed points on my questions so I can better understand how you could vote no on Neville's statement which Leone responded to with the words: "SO MOVED!" What on earth can you find objectionable except to a personality or to pressure.

Mooney said he was often the loudest in the room! He had spunk and spirit. I hope some of it comes to you on behalf of membership independent of anyone's thinking but your own, truly!

Please advise me on your thoughts.

Respectfully,

Molly J.

From Molly Janczyk, December 15, 2007
Subject: Suspected STRS Board Tampering: Complaint:* Ques. to the Board

OEA Pres. and VP:

Concerned STRS members have discussed reasons for changes in some STRS Board members voting patterns. NO CORE member has a concern over a well thought out individual decision based on conscience and ORC:3307.15. But when obvious and sudden turnarounds appear, one questions why the change of heart? At this point, I am a party of one issuing this complaint of what I feel may be possible tampering with STRS Board members. I have not yet asked for support but am acting due to comments after the last Board member and overt behaviors questioned by membership.

Bill Leibensperger, OEA VP and Gary Allen, former OEA Pres. told me the reason OEA did not step in regarding past misuse by its 5 OEA STRS Board members convicted of Ethics charges was because OEA's legal team dictated NO interference from OEA regarding their votes and decisions.

Some of us in CORE fear this is not so behind the scenes. Opinions I have heard among some members witnessing the last Board meeting are that STRS Board member(s) have been pressured as to how to vote by OEA Officers. We feel certain OEA Board members issue pressure which is probably not unusual unless threats are issued of some sort? This is pure speculation at this point based on virtual overnight pattern changes of voting for Leone's motions. Again, the concern is not due to a presented reasoned thoughtful decision based on input but what appears to attendees to be coercion with no other apparant reason.

1. I have asked 2 Board members, Tai and Craig Brooks, for their input on why they could not vote for STRS Legal Counsel's statement as to how and when legal fees should be paid by STRS for staff. No response yet.

2. NOW, I wish to ask Ramser, Meuser, Cervantes and Chapman the same question. What did you feel was not appropriate with Neville's statement as to how policy on this issue should read? What were your specific reasoned specific points to vote no on this statement presented by Neville and put in motion by Leone?

3. Puckett left prior to vote. I would ask him the same question however as to his approval or not of Neville's statement.

I intend to research this issue. I issue a complaint of possible tampering for research by Neville, STRS Board Counsel. I understand in advance OEA will state this was not done and they would never do such. I personally do not believe that for an instant.

I now present a complaint of possible tampering due to observable behavior of some Board members not consistent with past voting patterns. If it can be shown that this decision and turn around was due to a change of conscience and reasoned points which can be articulated by themselves (not OEA ghost writers-though I feel that will be the case), fine.

To the STRS Board Members:

1. What do you not support in STRS Legal Counsel's statement responding to how the problem before the Board can be corrected regarding paying of staff legal fees: Neville: (STRS Board minutes): "Unless otherwise requested by law, NO payment of Associate legal fees should be paid without Board approval."

2. What do you find redeeming about Patterson's suggestion that this issue could be looked at during the Exec. Direc.'s evaluation which would be AFTER THE FACT OF PAYING FEES?

3. Do you realize without a policy, a staff member could go to the highest charging attorney and submit fees without STRS Board approval? How do you feel about this?

4. Do you realize that without policy corrected, the Exec. Direc. can approve such payment? All confirmed by STRS legal counsel Thurs. 12/13/07. How do you respond?

STRS Board members: You all took an oath to act solely on behalf of membership for its benefit with prudence. If any of you have conceded to pressure, it is your duty to come forth and change your vote if you did not vote your conscience but succumbed to the my alleged attempts of OEA to change your vote.

This is not legal or ethical. OEA may present their opinion publically and you take that into consideration.

CORE never instructs Board members as to how to vote! It is NOT what we elected our Board members to do! We speak in support of our Board members and how we as membership feel. THEY act according to their conscience and for retirees alone. We feel their hard fought battles to stand for membership are evidence of such against overwhelming odds.

It seems obvious to many of us that there is an automatic block of votes against anything put into motion by Leone and Lazares without supported documentation or substance: Why would anyone call seeing a large vendor contract before signing off on it micromanaging? Why would one approve of large spending by the Exec. Direc. for unknown bills until after the fact? Why would anyone approve of loose spending habits of membership money calling questions micromanaging when membership clearly asks for oversight and praises improved corrections on this matters monthly to you.

In fact, the ONLY organization that does so (micromanaging mantra) is: OEA. I don't hear from other organizations ever saying this. Some don't like our in your face tactics but I don't get disagreement on points such as this.

We do speak up and to the persons directly. We don't follow old protocol of only speaking through an organization officer. If membership has concerns, Board members are public seats and the public has a right to go directly to the person being asked. Board members have a duty to respond to those members' concerns.

WHY THE ISSUE OVER LEGAL FEES? My assumption is fear and history. Board members remembering history of lack of legal backing and staff fearing some nebulous circumstance where they would not be covered. If legal, ethical and moral, should be no problem. What is the concern? You should not be covered in a classroom or office if you did not fulfill these areas.

Thank you, Dr. Leone, John Lazares and Tom Johnson for voting to approve the obvious based on STRS' OWN LEGAL COUNSEL STATEMENT OF PROPER WORDING! What is there to oppose?

I will push for answers and if I do not get them, I will address you publicly at a Board meeting. It is your choice. I have no problem and no fear about approaching any of you as you stand for me, not me for you. You are a servant of a public pension system. I will have answers for membership who ask and cannot themselves attend.

I present this complaint to all STRS Board Members, Neville, and Asbury. I will keep copy for further action with the Ethic Comm., Attorney General, Gov. and our legal counsel as to how to proceed should satisfactory responses not be issued. I do not respond well to no response. I do not use continued efforts for you to respond as a tactic. I will come straight to you as Neville, Russell, Bill L., etc. well know. If I am not granted a response, I will call a meeting with you and appropriate staff and officers of organizations. I am a member shareholder and have the right to question decisions on my money.

If an organization has approached a Board member as to how to vote, it is unconscionable and unethical and possible illegal. I intend to take this to resolution. Don't threaten me. I stated alleged and possible and intend to research the matter of 'appearances' at this point. If asked under oath, one best be prepared for truth is all I want.

I am a member of OEA/NEA and I do not want my organizations tainted by anyone. I was a proud member in my career but recent events make me ashamed.

Sincerely in the interests of membership but currently speaking as an alarmed individual with a long history of watching behavior patterns,

Molly Janczyk
STRS Retiree
CORE OEA/NEA Lifetime
CEA Lifetime