The bonus issue: Molly Janczyk, June Hughes & Sandy Knoesel

From Molly Janczyk, November 9, 2008
Subject: RE: Question

1st: I am a Sandy Knoesel fan. She has been incredibly helpful to me with professionalism and compassion. I think she got caught in the middle of the discussion here and that these comments are directed at the STRS Board, not her. June thanks her for her work.

The point is: Retirees can never accept nor understand what has happened to them. The Board and STRS can offer reasons and validations for actions until the end of time. In house, out of house, whatever. We get it and rebuke it if extravagant in times of crisis. STRS can give us figures, offer positive remarks from some membership and cite business practices. We can also do the same. This does nothing but make those hurting hurt more.

The retirees saved health care by bearing the burden heaped onto their backs: Tom Mooney: 2003/Pres. OFT. STRS never looked to the future and secured a steady stream of revenue for the HCSF. STRS felt, along with OEA, that to do so was unnecessary in the early 90's despite warnings by former ORTA Exec. Direc. Endry who unfortunately retired ORTA and became an OEA clone though he was the only retired rep on the STRS Board. Former STRS Exec. Direc. Dyer stated he wanted out of the HC business! I think he would have gotten his wish had we continued our trust in STRS, money would have run out and STRS would have said, how sorry they were along with other retirement funds. But, 2003 brought on an onslaught of member awareness and publicity instead.

Endry didn't have the heart to publicly fight valiantly for these issues and succumbed to union dominance by voting 100% of the time with them. By STRS Board member admission, they rode the wave and while WE ALL know that markets that soar come back down, they seemed not to understand this. Instead , they were waiting for their 88% by making it to 35 yrs. with enjoying duplicity in retirement benefits from more than one source.

So, the choice is simple: STRS can HEAR those hurting along with those who feel it is doing its best and come to some place where it recognizes its older shareholder struggling to survive. OR, it can simply listen to its unions and those long off from retirement and do nothing differently.

Change CAN always be made to HEAR ALL shareholders and recognize that at least some of them have been unfairly burdened. Routine STRS rhetoric does nothing for them. I have offered suggestions for consideration of retirees who were slammed and destroyed by the former Exec. Direc. and STRS Board, all convicted of Ethics Violations: doe that NOT say something about their integrity?

1. Create a fund for needy retirees along with the assistance plan for them. Small amounts of money can make a huge difference to them annually. $1000 is like $100,000 to some of you. A box could be cked for $1-10 or more to be taken from staff monthly or bimonthly checks to go into an established fund. Recipients can be nominated as many retirees are too proud to name themselves.

2. Consider sliding scales for full retirement career teachers paying lower out of pocket and premium costs down to 20 yrs. of service which would be early retirement as with other retirement systems. 15-19 years can have access only to HC. IF one can retire with 15 yrs, more than likely, they have another retirement plan and or could afford to work less years with a spouse earning additional income with benefits. This would begin with NEW retirees only 6 yrs. out.

3. Up years needed for retirements incrementally for NEW retirees beginning 6 yrs out.

4. Bonuses based on % of earnings: For ex., if an investment staff members earned 5% for STRS, and makes $200,000, then they earn 5% of their salary. This would top off at a determined cap of say 35%. All is just an example.

We have all heard we are only as strong as the weakest among us. We cannot ethically simply allow those untenably devastated by the losses of 2003 to go alone into the depth of spending any monies left they may have, selling their homes, stopping Dr., RX, and medical treatments without some degree of compassion. DO NOT send us your choices or your rhetoric. Make these people COUNT!

What was their mistake? They only wanted to work with children and have a secure retirement with affordable health care as promised them by STRS. Give them what they earned. They are not asking for more than they worked to achieve and what the ORC dictates!

YOU CAN make changes! YOU CAN find ways - simple ways - to let them know they have been heard and relief of some kind will ensue. 3% simple COLAS with inflationary and health care increases dictates we lose more money each year.

Stop putting up walls! Do something for your shareholders who did so much for you!

Molly Janczyk

From June Hughes, November 9, 2008
Subject: Re: Question

I would have replied to your timely email sooner but it seems there's a flu going around that's not covered with the flu shots being given and I got both.

Ms Knoesel, thank you for replying. I notice most who respond to this fiasco of bonuses have been polite and correct. Well maybe it's time to take off the gloves and get into the reality of disgust.

So you're saying the lowest retirement checks were forced to go backwards to 2003 reimbursement level and lose the 13th check too. So we the 30 plus years retirees have been unfairly punished to help others who receive more money in their checks.

You mention 61,000 receiving reimbursements in 2003. You don't mention that even though there are more getting the Medicare B reimbursement, you need to factor in that more people have also contributed at a hopefully, higher rate toward all our retirements for RETIREE care. (Has any other group forced without a vote to give up so much by financially going backward?)

Now consider the bonuses that NO teacher(s) receive. In this year at a huge loss due to lack of either expertise, foresight or understanding, let's factor in the bonuses $6+ million, divided by the retirees it would alone sure help pay for the Medicare B reimbursement In Full which would be FOR the retirees who contributed the money in the first place.

I protest and demand that NO MORE BONUSES be given until all losses are replaced by the investment department with whatever means it takes even if it means the bonuses being returned. From what I've seen of the salaries STRS staff is making is much more than most contributors ie., educators.

When I first retired, I bragged about our retirement system, now I say greed and indifference has set in. You have my permission to look at my retirement check amount and ask yourself, do I make HALF what you receive? You see your salary and all others are from contributors not corporate profits. Are retirees even offered a free lunch at that sweat-blood-tears and paid for by higher-blood-pressures building?

I worked in schools with asbestos, hot buildings without even a fan (unless I bought it for my classes), crumbling walls, cracked plasters, out-of-date books and supplies. Did I get reimbursed? What a joke to even ask. Maybe some people need to be sued or at least fired to be put in her/his place.

Let's downsize like everywhere else is doing to cut costs. There are a lot of smart, well educated, unemployed people who have lost jobs; let's hire them to replace those who use computers to make decisions instead of being smart enough to earn their own pay. Who needs warm bodies, just buy a new computer that won't need millions in bonuses, just higher electric bill which will cost less than a high salary AND $6M.

I am sickened at the attitude from people who work for US! We don't contribute only for STRS employees' benefit, but our own! Otherwise maybe we need to perform our own needs as our own employees and bypass even having a board who enjoys perks, past and present.

June Hughes,
1990 Cincinnati

From Sandy Knoesel, November 7, 2008
Subject: RE: Question

Dear Ms. Hughes:

Dr. Leone asked me to respond to your question on Medicare Part B reimbursement. Beginning in 2004, the Medicare Part B reimbursement was frozen at the 2003 level to help extend the solvency of the Health Care Stabilization Fund. The Medicare Part B reimbursement is paid out of this fund as well as the costs for the hospital, medical and prescription drug claims of enrollees. In 2003, about 61,000 retirees received a Part B reimbursement at a cost of about $33 million a year. In 2006, the Medicare Part B reimbursement was increased slightly, but then returned to the 2003 level for 2007, 2008 and 2009. In 2008, about 71,000 retirees receive a reimbursement at a cost of about $40 million per year. As you may know, the premium charged by Medicare for Part B coverage is remaining the same in 2009 as in 2008 at $96.40. I hope this information is helpful.

Sandy Knoesel

From Dennis Leone, November 7, 2008
Subject: Question

Sandy – could you please answer June Hughes’ question below and send her a response, with a copy to me.

Thank you very much.

Dennis Leone

June Hughes to Dennis Leone, November 3, 2008
Subject: Question about Medicare B

When was the reimbursement level for Medicare B set back and reduced and how many retirees were affected by that reduction?

Thank you and keep up your good work.

June Hughes
(1990, Cincinnati)