Molly Janczyk to state legislators and STRS Board: Where's the fairness?
From Molly Janczyk, March 16, 2009
Subject: Legislators, STRS:
Dear Legislators and STRS Board:
I am writing to question how a candidate is to be allowed equitable treatment regarding running for a public position while being unable to contact shareholders of the system for which they are qualified and willing to serve.
The organizations have access to every STRS member in their school mailboxes, home mailboxes, email addresses and phone numbers. They have the power and money to run expensive campaigns and attempt to block independent candidates from being heard. We are hit online, at home and in schools multiple times. I wish to ask how this is equitable for all candidates? Independent candidates can obtain names and addresses to pay for mailings from their own pockets which is impossible to afford.
STRS WILL NOT ALLOW INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES EMAIL ADDRESSES so that they can at least contact voters that way YET OEA, OFT, OEA-R hit us regularly with email info about their candidates. James Stoll went to the Supreme Crt. to obtain email addresses and was denied disallowing him the same access as other candidates enjoy.
I feel a law or position should be established to treat all candidates the same and allow them to stand on their credentials and qualifications. STRS should be the ONLY source circulation these qualifications to ALL its shareholders.
Unions have no place endorsing candidates to create voting blocks to benefit themselves. We have seen this over the years and have suffered its consequences. While unions state they do not interfere, we know from history, their Board members do follow the union mindsets.
Independent and highly qualified candidates have no opportunity to earn a seat based on experience vital to the Board. We have seen the unions fight against candidates who were much more highly qualified, and had investment expertise. One was an Economic Professor and a published author on market trends, business cycles, investments and economics but did not agree with the union positions. Instead, we have candidates who by their own admission was void of knowledge on these subjects, had to spend years training and still makes decisions only supported by OEA and OFT. Now OEA states its candidates go through a 3 or 5 day inservice for Board candidates. 3-5 days vs. careers of background and experience which some independent candidates have..
Where is the equal access to membership who will vote on candidates? Attorneys say every candidate has an equal right to be heard but the system has created an impossibility for that to occur. Do we want the best candidate of the ones who follow union thinking? Seems only the latter is supported.
We face another OEA mandate on the STRS Board. 4 STRS Board members are currently backed by OEA: Meuser, Ramser, Myers and Hayden. Leone is leaving this Aug. 31, 2009.
3 union backed candidates are running with the unions, (OEA and OFT), working together for them. Lots of votes. That will bring to 7 out of now 10 but supposed to be 11 STRS Board members. Either way-A CLEAR MAJORITY OF UNION BOARD MEMBERS which brought about the previous poor decisions, lack of long term planning for health care and spending abuses. When no one is there to question or fight for membership, retirees become numbers on pages and only actives are priority: precisely what happened to us in 2003. Reasons are not debated and decisions are self serving.
We need candidates who hit the ground running with expertise in investments vs. 3-5 days of pension system workings. We need every candidate heard and researched with candid and informational statements published for all to read.
Where is the fairness??
Molly Janczyk
Independent STRS Retiree
Subject: Legislators, STRS:
Dear Legislators and STRS Board:
I am writing to question how a candidate is to be allowed equitable treatment regarding running for a public position while being unable to contact shareholders of the system for which they are qualified and willing to serve.
The organizations have access to every STRS member in their school mailboxes, home mailboxes, email addresses and phone numbers. They have the power and money to run expensive campaigns and attempt to block independent candidates from being heard. We are hit online, at home and in schools multiple times. I wish to ask how this is equitable for all candidates? Independent candidates can obtain names and addresses to pay for mailings from their own pockets which is impossible to afford.
STRS WILL NOT ALLOW INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES EMAIL ADDRESSES so that they can at least contact voters that way YET OEA, OFT, OEA-R hit us regularly with email info about their candidates. James Stoll went to the Supreme Crt. to obtain email addresses and was denied disallowing him the same access as other candidates enjoy.
I feel a law or position should be established to treat all candidates the same and allow them to stand on their credentials and qualifications. STRS should be the ONLY source circulation these qualifications to ALL its shareholders.
Unions have no place endorsing candidates to create voting blocks to benefit themselves. We have seen this over the years and have suffered its consequences. While unions state they do not interfere, we know from history, their Board members do follow the union mindsets.
Independent and highly qualified candidates have no opportunity to earn a seat based on experience vital to the Board. We have seen the unions fight against candidates who were much more highly qualified, and had investment expertise. One was an Economic Professor and a published author on market trends, business cycles, investments and economics but did not agree with the union positions. Instead, we have candidates who by their own admission was void of knowledge on these subjects, had to spend years training and still makes decisions only supported by OEA and OFT. Now OEA states its candidates go through a 3 or 5 day inservice for Board candidates. 3-5 days vs. careers of background and experience which some independent candidates have..
Where is the equal access to membership who will vote on candidates? Attorneys say every candidate has an equal right to be heard but the system has created an impossibility for that to occur. Do we want the best candidate of the ones who follow union thinking? Seems only the latter is supported.
We face another OEA mandate on the STRS Board. 4 STRS Board members are currently backed by OEA: Meuser, Ramser, Myers and Hayden. Leone is leaving this Aug. 31, 2009.
3 union backed candidates are running with the unions, (OEA and OFT), working together for them. Lots of votes. That will bring to 7 out of now 10 but supposed to be 11 STRS Board members. Either way-A CLEAR MAJORITY OF UNION BOARD MEMBERS which brought about the previous poor decisions, lack of long term planning for health care and spending abuses. When no one is there to question or fight for membership, retirees become numbers on pages and only actives are priority: precisely what happened to us in 2003. Reasons are not debated and decisions are self serving.
We need candidates who hit the ground running with expertise in investments vs. 3-5 days of pension system workings. We need every candidate heard and researched with candid and informational statements published for all to read.
Where is the fairness??
Molly Janczyk
Independent STRS Retiree
posted by Kathie Bracy at 7:28 PM
<< Home