ORTA Flashback - 3 Years Ago.....ORTA didn't back him then, either!

From John Curry, April 23, 2010

A 2007 letter from Dennis Leone re: ORTA's refusal to publish his column; Seamon, Bright & Hanning don't even respond to his inquiry on WHY

Hey, duh!! GREAT LEADERSHIP over there......and the beat goes on!!

Dennis Leone to Ronald Catron, April 11, 2007
Subject: Re: Letter To The ORTA Executive Committee

Thank you, Ron, for sending me a copy of the letter you wrote to ORTA. Here are 3 other amazing things regarding this issue:

1. I asked ORTA publications director Tom Seamon to please tell me why I wasn't informed that ORTA expected me to keep secret any column I write until AFTER ORTA publishes it. ORTA could not accept the fact that in the 6-8 weeks I am supposed to wait for it to appear in print (after I submitted it) that I shared with some retirees and RTAs that asked me to speak. The point is that I was never told about any gag order..........had I been told, I would have agreed, even though the whole notion is silly. I have not received a response to my question.

2. I asked ORTA President Don Bright if the rejection decision could be reconsidered given the above. He never responded. I also told him that I felt either he or Ann Hanning could have shown a little respect by calling me regarding this entire matter. In fact, neither have contacted me about anything in my first 19 months on the STRS Board -- not about any of the motions and initiatives I pushed for and advanced.

3. I asked ORTA's Ann Hanning, in writing, if I could write another column as a substitute since this one was rejected. No response. This is proof to me that ORTA really did not want to publish what I wrote in the first place.

I recall when I wrote my first column, ORTA had a disclaimer notice next to my column -- saying that my comments did not reflect an ORTA position. However, when fellow retiree Jeff Chapman wrote his column three months earlier, there was no such disclaimer statement with his column. After I complained about this, ORTA then put a disclaimer statement with Chapman's second column.

Dennis Leone

From Tom Curtis, April 6, 2007
Subject: 040607 To The ORTA Executive Committee

April 6, 2007
To The ORTA Executive Committee,

I received my ORTA newsletter yesterday and found that the column Dr. Dennis Leone, (one of two retiree representatives on the STRS board) submitted to ORTA for publication this quarter had been omitted.

Shame on all of you who made this decision! This is such a travesty on your part and shows that ORTA is clearly only a social organization and nothing more. This act is the final straw in a long series of failures to support the one person that had the courage and knowledge to step forward and begin a reform process that might save our retirement system from insolvency in the not to distant future.

This decision is a childish act by each of you who perpetrated such a cause. It clearly shows that the mind bank running this organization does not have the capability or vision of being anything greater then a lunch group. ORTA has continually shown me that it is not a strong advocate for the retired teachers’ benefits, simply by not supporting Dr. Leone on the many changes he has brought about to date. If it were not for Dennis Leone, our retirement system would be in a far greater financial situation then it is currently, as other states that have had poor management throughout the years.

Those of you that voted for this decision are a disgrace to your profession and violate your statement for existence as an organization. I have lost complete confidence in the ORTA leadership and will strongly advise people to join the only true advocate for STRS retirees, which is CORE (Concerned Ohio Retired Educators).

ORTA Life Member,
Thomas Curtis
Stark County

Dennis Leone's report which ORTA refused to publish, yet wouldn't give him a good explanation as to why (March 2007; the beat goes on.....)

Ohio Retired Teachers Association (ORTA)
QUARTERLY REPORT*
By Dennis Leone,
STRS Retiree Board Member
March, 2007

After my last column was published in October of 2006, the Board agreed to re-visit a motion I made months earlier to prohibit Board action on vendor contracts unless the Board first had an opportunity to review a summary of the proposed contracts. My original motion, as you may recall, was defeated 8-2, with only John Lazares joining me in support. Many retirees, in the months following, expressed their consternation over the 8-2 vote.

I am pleased to report that on October 20, 2006, the Board voted 7-2 to approve a motion I made (seconded by Lazares) that will require the STRS staff to provide a summary of all proposed contracts for services provided directly to the Board, and for any proposed contract in excess of $100,000. Former Board member Geoffrey Meyers and current Board member Mark Meuser voted against this initiative.

I am also pleased to report that 13 changes I desired in the Board’s travel and expenditure policies were adopted 9-0 on February 15, 2007. The changes were long overdue. Here are some highlights:

1. There will be no reimbursements for meals in the future unless itemized receipts are provided. This is the only way to make sure that pension money is not being used to purchase alcohol.
2. Airplane tickets must be purchased 30 days in advance, and Board members who choose not to do this will pay the difference in cost between the two tickets. Also, Board members – not STRS – will personally pay for any additional fees charged by the airline if ticket reservations are changed for personal reasons.
3. The previously adopted $6,000 maximum for individual Board members to spend on out-of-state trips per year did not include the conference fee for registration or tuition. Now it does. Board member Conni Ramser last year spent well over $6,000 on out-of-state trips, but this was not in violation of Board policy because her conference registration fees weren’t part of the calculation. They will be now.
4. Meal reimbursements are now limited to $10 for breakfast, $15 for lunch, and $25 for dinner. Previously, Board members could spend up to $60 per day, which meant that if Board members passed on breakfast and received a free lunch, they could – and did – spend $40 or $50 on a single dinner. My original proposal called for spending limitations of $5, $10, and $20, but the majority disagreed.
5. No overnight lodging will be provided by STRS on the day that Board meetings end or the day after conferences conclude. I will never understand why the previous policy permitted this. It was so wrong.
6. Board members will not be reimbursed for expenses while attending in-state meetings unless they are a formally invited speaker or an official participant at the meeting, or unless the Board votes to approve attendance in advance. There were examples in the past when some Board members would decide on their own to attend an association meeting and expect to receive a travel reimbursement.
7. STRS funds will not be used ever again to purchase credit cards, fax machines, fax lines, or lap top computers for Board members. Also, Board members cannot expect STRS to pay for their personal long distance phone calls when they are attending meetings. It was an embarrassment that Board policies permitted these things, and that – up until a few months ago – several Board members still were contending that such expenditures and reimbursements were reasonable.　

*This report will not appear in the ORTA Quarterly, as originally planned, as ORTA is refusing to publish it.　

Two points of irony regarding the above changes:

No. 1: Three weeks to the day after the Board adopted the revisions, Gov. Strickland ordered a meal reimbursement freeze for certain state agencies like the Ohio Board of Regents – a group that used taxpayer money for a $1,000 dinner. (Sound familiar?)

No 2: My push for the travel policy changes was triggered after Gary Hollow, from OEA-R and NEOEA-R, made a public records request for the travel expenditure report of one Board member – me. He did not express any interest in seeing what the other Board members were spending. He wanted to see what only Dennis Leone was doing. Damon Asbury then produced a travel expenditure report for all board members. What did it show? Credit cards had been purchased for Board members Conni Ramser, Michael Billirakis, Jeff Chapman, Mary Ann Cervantes, and Steve Puckett. A fax line, with a monthly fee, had been purchased for the home of Michael Billirakis. STRS paid for the long distance phone calls Steve Puckett made when he attended a conference in Orlando. Single meals costing in excess of $40 existed for several board members. I wonder how Mr. Hollow and OEA would have reacted if the travel reports for only Dennis Leone or John Lazares had shown these types of expenditures? I think I know.

I wish to explain why John Lazares and I were the only board members who voted no on November 16, 2006, when the board set the reimbursement rates for Medicate Part B retirees, and therefore increased the out-of-pocket costs for said retirees. We both felt: (A) The Board needed to first consider other options for change, like the $1.4 million dollar premium fee STRS pays yearly to provide a small $1,000 life insurance plan for all retirees; and (B) We couldn’t support such an increase for Medicare retirees when STRS money still was being used for things like Board member credit cards, fax lines, lap tops, and phone bills. ORTA, in my opinion, should have supported Lazares and me on this issue.

Finally, I have an obligation to share with retirees why I disagree with published projections by STRS that our current 47-year unfunded liability is projected to hit the desired 30 years by 2009. Note the charts below:

(Click image to enlarge.)

...................................................................................

The increase of about 3,500 retirees per year is what we expect. However, the average decrease

of 1,626 active teachers per year over the past three years was not expected. Another decline not expected has been the payroll growth in the past three years. STRS budgets for an anticipated payroll growth of 4.50% per year – not the 2.71% average we’ve received over the past three years. The staff projects only a 2.50% increase for fiscal year 2007. What’s keeping our heads above water? The fantastic investment returns we’ve received – averaging a whopping 14.45% over the past three years. Through eight months in fiscal year 2007, we’re receiving another 12.50%. (STRS budgets for returns totaling 8.0%.) My point is simply this: Absent a continuation of the great investment returns, we will not offset the realities (if they continue) of the other three areas shown above. I am hopeful my fellow board members will be agreeable to approving a contingency plan to minimize the negative impact of a significant stock market downturn. More on this, and my recommendations for such a plan, later………