Jim N. Reed addresses STRS Board members re: their 6-3-1 vote on suspending PBIs

From Jim N. Reed, January 19, 2009
Subject: 6-3-1 Alteration of The PBI Policy

Dear STRS Board Members,

Please accept my sincere gratitude for your studied consideration and enactment of a revised PBI policy for the investment staff at STRS.

Thank you, Ms. Hayden, for your courage to second a motion by Dr. Leone. Without your commitment all may have been lost.

Ms. Burch, your willingness to become immediately involved as a new member and to add your voice to reason have not gone unnoticed and are much appreciated by stakeholders.

Mr. Chapman, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Puckett, your support of the down scaling of an out-dated corporate-minded bonus system gives retirees the hope of a new attitude that can assist in the rebuilding of trust and confidence among membership. Retirees are grateful for your support of a volatile issue that was capable of furthering divisiveness and eroding faith in our retirement system.

Ms. Cervantes, Mr. Meuser, Mr. Myers, Ms. Ramser, your continued reticence or silence in viewing this issue through the sensibilities of the average retiree is a shameful disappointment. Your attempts at justification of your negative ballot to revise an obscene bonus allotment, especially during these times of a faltering economy when so many stakeholders are suffering, are, as Mrs Slocum would admonish, "Weak as water. Weak as water."

Especially disgusting is a defense of your negative vote for reduction and removal of PBIs based on the "breaking of a promise." After thousands of prospective retirees were told by STRS counselors during their retirement planning sessions that educator retirement "promised" family security and affordable healthcare, how can there be any legitimacy granted to your ethical dilemma in reducing (or removing entirely for those not qualified) a six-figure bonus for our employees who are already receiving six-figure salaries!

Some may have a suspicion that your negative vote may have been more personally motivated. Is it possible that your vote reflected an automatic revulsion of the motion because it was Dr. Leone's? That would be a difficult admission. Dr. Leone's advocacy for retirees and success in bringing about retiree-friendly policy initiation or change should be emulated by all Board members. After all, that should be at the top of your job description.

After witnessing so many rubber stamp decisions from previous Boards, this difficult but correct (in the eyes of STRS-literate stakeholders) decision is a breath of fresh air and a cause for hope, once again, that the Board and Executive Director are genuinely interested in and concerned about the expectations of the membership.

We look forward to a time soon when all Board decisions are based on the well-being and security of all of your constituents.

Thank you for your vote of caring and concern.

Jim N. Reed