Molly Janczyk: Letter to STRS Board

From Molly Janczyk, February 24, 2008
Subject: Dear STRS Board: STRS Policy

Dear STRS Board:

I am very pleased to receive some answers as it seems very shaky to me to have any one person deciding issues for an entire organization and then waiting till after the fact to admonish him should it not be appropriate. Also, as Lazares said, chances are much better for an individual to be heard with 11 people vs. one who may or may not have subjective feelings.

Ever since former STRS Exec. Direc. Herb Dyer abused his status and included staff as well as Board members in his indiscretions (NY plays, tickets, dinners, etc.) I have NOT heard ANYONE feel the Exec. Direc. should again be in a position of untamed power. All membership I hear from feels checks and balances such as Leone and Lazares propose are not only needed by imperative to ensure proper spending and budgets without hidden line items.

This seems such a no brainer to me especially for a public pension system solely operating for shareholders and not staff. Staff should be treated well and fairly and in my opinion, having ONE person decide a future is not fair, smart or good business practice. This goes back to days of old when one principal could hire and fire with no restrictions solely based on his/her subjective feelings. THAT IS WHY unions came into being. I was there when that occurred way back in the late 60's, early 70's.

IF one wants to prove a case, reasons can be trumped up and staff fearful for their positions will go along and support those reasons. Also, staff, fearful for their jobs will, WE LEARNED, go along with affluence, perks and pleasures granted them, right or wrong, and attend events, etc. not properly paid for on their behalf. Few among us would stand up and speak against such occupancies letting themselves believe that "They deserve it for jobs well done." I have heard that line used so many times regarding STRS and outside organizations skimming money from their shareholders. IF you have a broker who makes you tons of money, is it ever ok for them to simply take some for luxuries even if it doesn't seem to hurt you because they worked hard for you without your knowledge? Whether a dime or $800,000, it is theft. THAT is where Leone and Lazares come from: that thinking. Is it not supposed to be used for shareholder's benefit according to ORC:? Is there anywhere it says it is ever ok to enjoy special occasions on our money? Whether it would pay for HC (we know the lost amount wouldn't have paid for one day of HC for membership), does that make Billirakis, Norris, Scott, Sidaway, Endry, Jack Chapman, and Dyer right to tell us: "YOU DON'T GET IT! IT WOULDN'T HAVE PAID FOR HC!" They didn't get it, it was skimming for their perks and pleasures feeling they deserved it.

Thank some of you for responding. I would like to be able to debate and discuss points with you and only EVER hope you will make an independent decision based on conscience and hard work learning and researching issues so that your determinations can be considered for their strength of determination for membership and nothing more or less.

It is shocking to me that organization heads remain silent, unresponsive to this day because this is political demonstrating such weak leadership modeling. I came up under what I believed what integrity and hard work building unions for the sake of membership. When did it change to support Board members so lacking in that integrity and so dismissive of membership with arrogance and smirking?

It is a sad thing for me to experience unions turning their backs and defending behavior to this day of convicted former Board members while fighting so doggedly to revert back to Exec. Director control and one union dominating the Board. The unions refuse to ensure all candidate rights to be heard, to have access into buildings strongly trying to thwart this effort with "That will not happen" when we ask to access to teacher's mailboxes to allow educators to preview all candidates' positions for a fair and American election for a public position. Yet, the public is to be under 'dictatorship' given ONLY OEA's choice- a person who calls names and also smirks at membership evidenced in emails to us IN CONTEXT which can be produced and his own article: "A Day Behind the Glass at STRS" by Tim Myers (OEA candidate for the 2008 STRS Board election) directed at a member trying to hear the Board meeting over his antics merely asking him to please let her hear. This same OEA candidate was basically turned down by his own membership for a position within the organization it was told to me by an insider a few years back with implications that he was not well received. THIS IS THEIR BEST SHOT! OEA's BEST PERSON FOR THE STRS BOARD out of hundreds of thousands of members: unbelievable.

This OEA choice is the candidate who will win a seat, help rebuild OEA's majority on the STRS and make decisions for membership. This is who CEA , ORTA and OFT will help elect by omission-silence-no endorsing not allowing educators to hear another candidate of integrity, drive for membership and protection of STRS assets.

We will do our best as we always do because it is right. We know we have no chance over the power and money behind OEA's candidate who will be into every mailbox at home and at school with building reps guarding schools and other organizations sitting back letting it happen. Best interests, America, public right to allow all candidates to be heard: non existent for these organizations all of whom we have helped in past elections and issues. That is how it works in Ohio OEA Unionland.

LAW? No! No access to mailboxes IS NOT policy regarding candidates for educator systems. Legal opinions and former OFT Pres. Mooney all say district control of mailboxes was created due to old rivalry days between OFT and OEA : rivalry meaning: collective bargaining not pertinent for CORE who does not engage in bargaining for educators. Yet, they use this to issue letters into schools and engage their troops to attempt to keep us out. OFT will not keep us out but will not support any free election either by helping all candidates to be heard by their educators. CEA mailboxes are out of our reach we are told after Grossman said he would allow us access. Rhonda Johnson says Grossman is not Pres. and hasn't been for years and Grossman retreats on his word.

We want names of administrators and building not allowing access as it is not a union according to legal opinion and Mooney opinion that can disallow us and only the administrators can decide and it has become very clear in past elections, not many administrators go along with CEA's and OEA's attempts.

This is meant only to inform. Politics is nasty business and I hate it. But, it is reality and mostly I want to thank Board members who have tried to only consider issues for their hard work and independence.

Sincerely,
Molly J.