Another take on the OEA's comparison of Boards A and B...with a healthy dose of reality mixed in!

From John Curry, April 13, 2008
Subject: Curry to OEA re. April 2008 "Protecting our priorities" article in the Ohio Schools magazine in reference to the current STRS Board election?

Response to "Protecting our priorities," April 2008 issue of Ohio Schools (OEA monthly publication)
[John's responses are indicated in blue type.]

Which board would you prefer to work with, Board A or B?

Board A

• Obsessed with trivial concerns (If you mean the $5,000 Board-approved child adoption bonus paid for by teachers STRS contributions and given to STRS associates and then called to the Board's attention by Dr. Leone then...give me Board A any day.)

• Short-term focus (This is a perfect example of the focus exhibited by a board formerly staffed by OEA people such as Billirakis, Sidaway, Norris, Chapman, and Scott.... the short term focus you ask...how about the lack of planning for future healthcare funding for STRS retirees?)

• Reactive stance (One can't be proactive if one doesn't know how poorly the formerly OEA-controlled STRS Board was managing their business -- they weren't! Dr. Leone exposed this, and then reactions came from not only STRS stakeholders, but from members of the Ohio House of Representatives (the majority of whom signed a petition to oust former STRS Exec. Director Herb Dyer); and Senate Bill 133 (Retirement System Reform Act) was passed into law because of this lack of a proactive stance by former STRS Board members…many of whom were OEA members.)

• Reviews, rehashes staff work (If you mean Dr. Leone's motion requesting a summary of contracts to be presented to all Board members before acting, then....give me plan A any day.)

• Driven by single agendas (This one, I'll have to give you credit [almost]. Yes, Dr. Leone and John Lazares are guided by a single agenda...it is called Ohio Revised Code, Section 3307.15...they both have repeatedly stated that! Funny that I haven't heard that section of the ORC being mentioned as a guiding principle by the OEA contingency on the Board!

• Consistent split vote (If you mean no more "rubber stamp" boards and the administration is always right, then...give me Board A any day: I thought the OEA was against "rubber stamp" boards when they were at the local schools level. Do I see some hypocrisy here?)

• Grandstanding (If you mean Dr. Leone's publicly stating that secret balloting at an "open" board meeting was contrary to the Ohio Sunshine law and subsequently being proven correct by an Attorney General's Opinion then give me Board A any day!)

• Plays to the audience (If you mean publicly exposing mismanagement to the Board and stakeholders concerning their illegal acceptance of expensive tickets to attend the Broadway musical "Hairspray" and mentioning that STRS business was conducted [as former OEA officer and STRS Board member Hazel Sidaway unsuccessfully did -- in court -- at her ethics trial] then you may be on the money with this one!)

• Violates confidence (The former STRS Board members who were also OEA members violated the confidence of tens of thousands of STRS retirees almost every time they took a seat at an STRS Board meeting…..Dr. Leone exposed that, and the current OEA STRS Board members are constantly continuing to snipe at Dr. Leone for many reform-minded motions that he initiates….go to a Board meeting or listen to the STRS Board CD’s…you'll then understand.)

• Individual directives (No one person on the Board can issue an individual directive without the majority of the Board voting on it in the form of a motion.)

• No chain of command (There always has been a “chain of command” for Board members…it is stated in section 33 the Ohio Revised Code under the duties of STRS Board members. The STRS Board also has and will continue to observe rules of order at each and every Board meeting.)

• "Fix it" mentality (You don't think that the STRS wasn’t ethically broken? That was the main reason for the passage of SB 133, the Retirement System Reform Act -- which now is Ohio Revised Code -- and affects all Ohio pension systems, as well it should. In it, many former OEA officers who were also STRS Board members would today not be allowed to run because of the previous excessive monies they used in air fares and travel expenses to “globetrot” on the teachers’ dime.)

• Focused on day-to-day operations (Dr. Leone and John Lazares -- highly experienced administrators and leaders; independent thinkers [and non-OEA-directed Board members] -- are, always have been and always will be focused on ALL operations….be they day-to-day, month-to-month, or year-to-year operations.)

Board B

• Governs lawfully (If you mean governing lawfully with OEA Board members who were convicted of criminal violations of the Ohio ethics laws, such as the former OEA office holders Sidaway, Billirakis, Norris, Scott and Chapman, then....give me Board A any day!)

• Primary emphasis on results for members (I’d say Dr. Leone’s exposing hundreds of thousands of dollars of frivolous spending by former STRS Board members [who were also former OEA officers] and unmerited bonuses for non-investment STRS employees translated into a “primary emphasis for members," wouldn’t you?)

• Encourages full exploration of diverse viewpoints (By the very nature of this concept there will be differences of opinions and subsequent disagreements, won't there? This directly relates to your "Consistent split vote" mentioned in Board A.)

• Focus on strategic governance matters rather than operational issues (What’s wrong with an STRS Board member or members keeping an eye on both? After all, they are legally responsible for ALL operations of the STRS and can be held to civil liability if they are derelict in this responsibility!)

• Observes clear separation of board and CEO roles (This is exactly the reason behind Dr. Loene's pursuit of clarity in the "operations" of the Ohio STRS....it was considered "micromanaging" by the OEA contingency on the Board.)

• Makes all decisions by formal vote of the board (Correct me if I am wrong but...aren't all Board decisions required to have a formal vote?)

• Governs with long-term vision (If the formerly OEA-dominated board (5 out of 9 members) had had the initiative to seriously plan for the future of STRS healthcare [as OPERS did] then STRS retirees wouldn't be currently paying over eight times the healthcare premiums for retiree and spouse as are paid by OPERS retirees for themselves and their spouses for the same coverage.)