Molly Janczyk re: Bonuses

From Molly Janczyk, November 21, 2008

Subject: RE: Duane Tron re. bonuses

We are not investors and that job does include bonuses. I am not against ALL bonuses for a job whose description includes them; I am for them being lowered in times of crisis in which needy retirees have a hard time paying for groceries. I am sure you disagree. But, we cannot compare ourselves to investors. We chose a profession and so did they. They have done amazingly well for us and they are contractually hired with job descriptions. I believe bonuses need redefined in bad times due to sensitivity to retirees for whom they work. Investment staff cannot be held responsible for a market crisis. I don't agree that benchmarks should be stagnant either as the market is so variable any more than I believe each child should have the same benchmarks imposed on teachers. If either outperformed other investors/educators and met benchmarks that are reasonable for the times/child, they jobs well done. We cannot say because we chose jobs that do not include bonuses, then others who did should not get them. That is all I am saying.

If STRS investors kept us ahead of other systems, then adjust down PBI's to fit the times and benchmarks in times that retirees are in crisis. I cannot compare myself to a contractor, doctor or investor. That is not what I chose. I chose a public service career and our investment staff chose a career based on their performance. Their performance can still be good in bad markets if they kept us ahead of other systems or made more than expectations state.

I think we must be reasonable in our requests or we will be met with -0-! I am looking for a compromise in times of devastation. Our investment staff has proven to be top preformers. I don't know how smart it is to completely change the rules or to imply such. I think we ask for a reasonable common ground in times of crisis for needy retirees. My opinion.