Shirlee Zerkel & Mary Ann Cervantes re: PBIs, bonuses, retention money

Shirlee Zerkel to Mary Ann Cervantes, April 8, 2009
Subject: PBIs, bonuses, retention money!

Dear Ms. Cerventes: At a time in our economy when bonuses that corporations give are frowned upon by all, STRS is still discussing and giving bonuses and raises to some staff members with the reasons being given as value -added, exceeding the benchmark, or retention. I am puzzled and angry by your opposition to the suspension of investment staff BPI's in the present economic climate. You only changed your vote after Mr. Nehf said that he could live with it. This tells me that you are more interested in taking care of the STRS staff than following the ORC and doing what is right for the retirement system and the retirees. I also noted that you voted 'no' to the motion that staff put in a 40 hour week at the same pay. Why aren't these suitable measures to take when other employers in the country are laying off staff, reducing wages, freezing bonuses in order to stay afloat, yet it appears that you and some other board members do not want the STRS staff touched in any way by this downturn. Get real! The system has lost 33 billion dollars of our total assets. We, according to the staff have to cut retiree health care by 81 million for the year 2010. Our pensions at this point in time are not secure1 But STRS staff and board hold many discussions about bonuses, raises, etc for the staff. But when the STRS staff presents cuts in benefits to the retirees, I hear no questions or discussion on the topic from you. It appears to be 'let's follow what the staff says is needed.' You were elected to the board to be the watch dog of the teacher's funds not give bonuses to the staff and watch the retirement system go down the tubes. By trying so hard to be a good board member to the staff, you are screwing yourself and your fellow educators out of benefits and maybe even a future pension. If the above is not the reason for your opposition, please explain your stand to me, other retirees and actives.

Sincerely,
Shirlee Zerkel

From Mary Ann Cervantes, April 17, 2009
Subject: STRS ZERKEL.doc

Dear Shirlee Zerkel:

Shirlee, I was interrupted while typing your response and perhaps, sent an unfinished letter. Here is my completed response:

In response to your email, I hope that this will answer your questions:

True, I did say that the Executive Director's remarks were compelling to cause a change in the vote. However, if you were there, you would know that Mr. Nehf made those remarks before the first vote. So what was the real reason for the change? In my mind, after 3 months of meetings, discussions, and revisions, we had to compromise and move on. The political tone did not indicate that the vote would ever change, yet we had to get to the long term planning issues before us. Issues such as health care and the future of the pension fund were front and center. That is the truth by me, but the other members may have other reasons.

Regarding your question on the 40 hour week, salaried employees may work that already. Speaking for myself, I work many hours beyond my required hours in the work-week and perhaps you did too. However, the $18 an hour person who now works an additional 2.5 hours without pay, sees a drop from $18 an hour to $15.75 after he/she gets no additional pay for that extra time. I wonder how you would react if this requirement were placed upon you? The hours change has been implemented at a time when a wage freeze has been put into effect. I have been a contract negotiator for my school district, where we usually try to trade off during economically hard times, either through contract language or through extra time. It is noteworthy that we have given nothing to these people. I seriously doubt that you would tolerate treatment like that. Case in point, Governor Strickland wants teachers to work 20 additional days each year. Is there any money associated with that? I have my doubts, but I can assure you that teachers are upset about it, and yet that is the very same thing that we did at STRS.

Finally, your statement about who I am trying to please deserves an answer. As I am a fiduciary of this fund, there is not a more real situation than that. Do not mistake kindness for weakness. All board members have to deal with their conscience and there is no personal agenda other than to do my job well for the benefit of all members.

One more piece of information Shirlee, as you have accused me of unfairness when I asked one speaker to conclude his remarks. Although I kept the time with my watch, I checked the tapes at STRS and confirmed that your information was incorrect. It was Mr. Stoll who spoke 5 minutes before I asked him to conclude his remarks, whereupon he spoke an additional 45 seconds. Mr. Leibensperger actually spoke 4 minutes 5 seconds. It is my goal to be fair but we do need to stay within the three minute policy.

Mary Ann

From Shirlee Zerkel, April 24, 2009
Subj: Your answer to me!

Dear Ms. Cervantes:

You asked me how I would react if this requirement were placed upon me. That requirement has been placed upon me and all other retirees at the current time and possibly in my future by the vote you give on the STRS Health Care program for retirees. My retirement benefit is an almost fixed amount yet the board continues to reduce the health care benefits and increasing the premiums thus reducing the income of all retirees. You state that it is noteworthy that you have given nothing to these people (the staff). What have you given to the retirees; NOTHING as we see it! You stated "... there is no agenda other than to do my job well for the benefit of all members." Please remember that the active and retired teachers are the ONLY members of of the system. I ask your kindness tomorrow or whenever you vote on the health care issues for the teachers, both retired and active.

Will be noticing your vote,
Shirlee Zerkel