Open challenge from Dennis Leone to STRS Board: Which policies do you want to drop?

Dennis Leone to Molly Janczyk, January 1, 2008
Subject: Voting on "All" Operational Issues?

Since McGreevy and the Board majority are apparently worried that my real motive is to have the board vote on all operational issues, I think it is time for me to make a motion for the Board to withdraw about 25 policies that have been adopted since 2003. I will list them on a paper and ask the board members to say publicly which ones they’d like to drop and reinstate so we are not micromanaging and so the executive director won’t feel that we don’t trust him. Let’s see, let’s reinstate the one permitting staff member children to drive STRS cars. Let’s forget about requiring itemized receipts for meals, or purchasing plane tickets 30 days in advance, or forbidding subjective factors to be used to determine investment staff bonuses, or requiring a review of contract summaries before we vote on multi-million dollar issues, or forbidding the expenses of Board member spouses to be paid at conferences, or not allowing fax machines, credit cards, or personal phone calls to be billed by Board members. Gosh, Molly, while we are at it, let’s drop the policy forbidding the purchase of alcohol, requiring the child care center to be cost neutral, spending pension money on entertainment, like concerts, baseball game, Kings Island, and the Columbus Zoo Light Show. And while we are at it, let’s allow vendors to give tickets to staff for Broadway Show and Cleveland Indians baseball games, and let’s drop spending limitations for staff members on trips altogether. I mean, after all, the prior system worked so well, let’s just stop adopting policies to address issues that arise. Shame on the board for agreeing with me on any of these items in the past.

Dennis Leone

From Molly Janczyk, January 1, 2008
Subject: RE: Legal Fees

NO ONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD VOTE ON EACH AND EVERY OPERATIONAL ITEM AND FOR THIS TO BE STATED IS PURE INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION!!!!!!!! It is suggested that on the very rare circumstances (my words) when a staff member has a question of legal representation , that this is a case by case situation by the AG: Patterson and when asked how this should be worded as policy, STRS Legal mind Neville stated: "Unless otherwise dictated by law , no legal fees for associates should be paid without Board approval." What you think the legal opinion may also has no place. This is the quote in the minutes. What a Board member thinks has no place without confirmable legal backing by legal minds and the AG.

This low tactic of making generalized situations out of one issue is to continue to smoke and mirror tactics hoping some of this misrepresentation sticks even though NO ONE has ever wanted to micromanage operational issues beyond stated and at times changed for the better policy. This reeks of no leg to stand on so let's go for attempting to confuse the issue.

No one may misrepresent as an argument basis. What is suggested is not the case nor has it been the case. It is for a rare circumstance which no one policy can possible cover so as the AG said to me first thing: "Molly, this is a case by case situation. What Dennis proposed has nothing wrong with it and it can be reintroduced as a motion." Dennis made Neville's words a motion: "So moved!" when Neville answered how this issue (of legal fees) can be corrected: "Unless otherwise dictated by law, NO associate legal fees should be paid without Board (not Exec. Direc, not Staff: BOARD) approval."

That is all I have to say and this is my mantra.