Molly Janczyk re: Craig Brooks' comments to STRS Board at January retreat

From Molly Janczyk, February 11, 2008
Subject: Craig Brooks: Speech to the STRS Board: One outspoken member's thoughts

I speak for myself as an individual STRS member.
To the Board:

I am touched by the remarks of Craig Brooks. I feel he has no agenda and in an independent thinker. For me, independence is marked by serious consideration, questioning as well as respect of all views, individual research of a variety of sources and making a decision on best interest of membership. It is NOT marked by consistent voting patterns following a line of block approval as no one person can always agree with a block of voters. When a group of Board members always vote together, states the same mindset and in the same way, I feel it shows block voting. A person whose mind is easily changed with pressure or group thinking vs. independent research forming the basis of their vote, is not independent. A person who votes against a personality vs. correct procedure is not voting their fiduciary duty. A person who votes their personal agenda is not voting their fiduciary duty.

Craig Brooks: Has evidenced independent thinking. His vote does not also agree with my position (not that this matters but just to show why membership does not address him when his vote disagrees with their wish) but it is never questioned that he exercised HIS mind. That is the ONLY qualification CORE asks of Board members: To vote THEIR conscience as promised on behalf of membership, not union or other Board members or personality.

Craig made a plea to the Board. Paraphrased: The Board are all good people. He mentioned his commitments and that of being a Board member perhaps more than he originally knew. He asked that all be respectful in their conversations with each other and listen to each other.

I fear that good people like Craig Brooks may leave the appointment. I fear that he is finding it difficult to continue and that we must support him. We have found that securing good investment appointments is no easy matter. We had 2 very corporate minded appointees at first and fought to have them removed. 2 were replaced with Brooks and Johnson. Both these men have shown independence. We need them on this Board. We cannot afford to lose good people.

I, for one, will try to address future communications with respect in tone and manner. This does not mean I cannot question or present my view but I hope to establish a betting communication with Board members. I feel this can only enhance our chances of being heard and being effective. I would hope that this will precipitate a better working interrelationship between myself and my Board.

I speak from this perspective: I wish to understand why and what determines votes. I hope to be able as one member to be heard from a member perspective -- a member I hope the Board knows does do some research and attempts to go to the sources for straight answers.

Membership seems also to want to know why a vote is decided -- reasons, enough research from varied sources, sides heard and investigated, decisions based on facts alone never dependent on controlling the Board.

I hope we keep Craig Brooks. He was very emotional and stress affects us all. I hope we can respect his view and attempt to rely on solid presentations, points, questions, accurate information and multiple sources presenting differing views for consideration without mindsets in place.

Just FYI on why it is so hard to get past the past for some: It has been a difficult few years with wounds so fresh. It is hard to get past devastating loss and overwhelming costs. Please know membership understands (for the most part) that the amount of misspending at the hands of the convicted former Board members and former Exec. Direc. would never have paid for even one day of HC at the then cost of $1.2 MILLION per day now up to $1.5 MILLION per day. But, it was insult on top of injury to have arrogance and dismissiveness and defending them vs. our organizations taking care of the matter.

We are still wounded never having been told by them it was wrong nor any of them taking responsibility for their part in current poor relations. It seems when it all falls to us to make new inroads, support organizations when they 'need' us with no give and take. We cannot expect reciprocity in any matter. It is only WE who must change or reach out. This so angers some that they feel it impossible to break new ground.

Reasons for anger: Feelings of betrayal from organizations for whom we worked and fought our entire careers. All must understand that my generation of retirees and older can never recover from their retirement crisis created by untenably huge increases they can never meet, were never warned of with no recourse having irrevocably made life altering changes. My generation of retirees were told we had nothing to worry about regarding HC in consults only to retire and find changes they did know had to come. It was unfair, cruel and punishing to a group who only expected modest retirements with HC. Our only recourse IF one is able was to find work to pay for HC. Thus, we were robbed of our retirements. Those who are too old or too infirm are simply refusing meds and treatments and Dr. visits, dropping HC for their spouses and/or finding less coverage plans.

We begged to be grandfathered but instead we were burdened with saving HC for a few years. Our organizations, like our consults, did nothing to warn us nor did they seek long ago proper funding revenue for HC back when it could have made a difference. Long term planning was not an issue for HC.

I no longer feel my problem can ever be resolved so I have no problem trying to help retirees to come as well as anything at all which may stabilize though not reduce our costs as I do not feel we are ever going to be a priority having been lost to the lack of foresight by former STRS Board and Exec. Direc. Just to explain why the hurt goes so deep which some actually don't understand they say.

Trying to reach out isn't because I have changed my stand but because I feel if I have to change my style to be heard or speak for retirees who contact me, then, I must, or I am not operating for membership but for my inner feelings (which I do often). I sure cannot guarantee I will not fail, but I will try.

My only goal is this for 5 years has been to help retirees, current and future. I want to try to help establish open communication with give and take points for resolution. I think including membership in points helps put a human face on issues.

WE NEED TALK POINTS, NOT FEELINGS, AND ASK WHAT LAZARES ASKED: "WE ARE SO CLOSE! WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO RESOLVE THIS?"

So, thank you, Craig, for a soul-searching speech about the future for those mired in the past unable to change their futures. You bared yourself to us and I think it was brave and groundbreaking for a Board member. Please hang in there for your membership who values you and your independence.

I agree that we cannot stay fixated on the past in every conversation as it can impede our progress. But, we cannot forget the past so that we do not repeat it. I agree that we all must focus on the future of STRS membership as our only priority whether Board member or member. We need Board members like you to remind us and I do believe you have our interests at heart.

We need Board members who focus on positive changes improving STRS vs. staying stagnant with old rules which can be misused. Firm and clear objectives make progress easier and proper oversight hard to question for I never want one more retiree to ever experience our lot going into retirement with no knowledge about imminent crisis. Board members MUST plan long in advance with solid foundations to protect and preserve retirement with HC.

Some past leaders sought out those who fought for retirees - no matter who there were or what organization they named. They knew how to forge inroads and get individuals working together vs. back rooms and group chatter among selves feeling threatened by one or more individuals. These leaders had courage to face opponents and make them friends on whatever common ground that could be found.

I often name Mooney who, I am sure, found me for ex. problematic at times and probably said so. But, his recourse was to meet and greet me and make common commitments even if we could not agree on all points. I am not presumptuous enough to think he was not ensuring common goals. He was just smart about it! He was approachable and always responded. He 'worked' those who disagreed or who were vocal to find a point of common interest and went from there in a respectful and dynamic manner. He was a master at it. He didn't stand in the shadows or refuse to respond. He came to you and did what it took join forces.

It is sad that current leaders seem to revert back to old ways of back door comments and shadow boxing. It lacks courage and commitment for change. I hope a new approach might make all feel more comfortable in speaking their minds face to face or email or call. I believe I have never been afraid to talk with anyone if it meant the slightest bit of positive change

It is in this spirit that I offer this email. I hope that all know that emails can be kept confidential or within a group if requested. I do not wish to indulge anyone in confidential attempts to use me to influence anyone because as I have always said. I am no one's keeper or advisor. I am only interested in working for retirees -- today's and tomorrow's.

Craig, keep reminding us; and Lazares, keep asking: What will it take to resolve this issue when we are so close? Membership, address Board members with respect and ask hard questions. Board members, please respond to your shareholders with in-depth reasons so your point of view can be heard.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Molly J.