STRS news update, October 15, 2010
The STRS Board this morning passed the HPA proposal 7-3. Thank you, Craig Brooks, Regina Burch and Bob Stein for supporting retirees by your vote. One retired Board member, James McGreevy, voted in favor of the proposal.

Bob Buerkle's speech to STRS Board, October 14, 2010

A great deal has changed since the time the STRS Board began developing its "Contingency Plans". Since March, 2009 when the STRS Investments hovered in the low 42-45 Billion dollar range, STRS has paid out over 6.6 Billion Dollars in pension benefits. During this same timeframe the STRS Portfolio has increased by over 15 Billion more and now stands at over 61 Billion. That is nearly a 50% increase in STRS Investment growth even as pensions were still being paid and COLA's remained unchanged. Knowing these facts nearly anyone can deduce the reality that we have made great progress in 18 months. We may still need a contingency plan but for sure we no longer need the same plan this Board and Staff developed in 2009.

Even though we have had the best September for investments in 71 years, had a great first quarter and a very good start here in October, we are still not out of the woods yet. Also, there is always the possibility that the market could retrace some of its progress. This is always a possibility and I am sure that this is already factored into long term STRS actuarial planning.

What I am saying is that we need to slow this process down as long as we are making good investment progress. If we don't do this the current plan will overshoot our solvency needs and our actives and retirees will suffer more pain than is necessary.

So far I would say the intentional Legislative delays may have BOOKed us a BLESSING in disguise.

Additional comments from Bob Buerkle (not included in his 10/14/10 speech at STRS): An explanation of our pension plan vs. Social Security

At a Hamilton County ORTA meeting on September 27th Senator Bill Seitz said people in private pension plans do not get a COLA and they don't understand why we do. Legislators like Seitz should explain that we are in a State Plan as an alternative to Social Security. Our plan is in lieu of Social Security and that is what it should be compared to. Unlike the general public who may have a private retirement plan in addition to Social Security, we do not pay into or qualify for Social Security from our teaching wages and we have no private company sponsored plan.

In Ohio, by the way, our Pension is all paid for by us as part of our deferred wage compensation package that requires our money be sent in through employer payroll deductions. Also, we must contribute nearly double the amount of our own money to fund the pension that we have as opposed to what Social Security charges. That is why our pensions are usually larger than Social Security Pensions and envied by non-participants. If the general public wants a pension comparable to ours they will have to save an additional 12% of their gross earnings for 30 or more years and earn 8% market returns on their retirement accounts. This is what we do. By the way, all of you who have Social Security know that it pays you a compounded COLA. We do not get a compounded COLA. Our simple COLA raise never increases. Now the legislature wants to eliminate one third of our simple COLA.

RH Jones: Those who retired with the 35 year/88.5% rule can take the hit to their COLA, but not the rest of us

From RH Jones, October 13, 2010

John and all:

You are absolutely correct! But, how about the two recently OH STRS Retired Board members who are supposed to represent us? Did not they retire with the 35/88.5% also? Those who retired with the 35/88.5% can take the hit to their 3% COLA. The rest of us can not afford to.

RHJones

Jones supports Bracy to OEA-R's Bill Sears but adds both Retired STRS Board Members as well

From RH Jones, October 13, 2010

To ORTA and OEA-R, Jim McGreevy and Bob Stein:

Are you two unions, supporting retired teachers as your (our) constitution directs you to do? I certainly don't think so! I strongly encourage all of you members of one or more of these "unions" to start telling them to begin acting like a union and represent the membership: retired teachers. And Ditto to our two OH STRS Board Members.

Regardless of the rhetoric that all of the above have been espousing to justify cutting our COLA, retired teachers have already had cuts in the form of our 13th check, and HC/Rx. It is grossly unfair to ask more of us. Any cut could be considered by many to be not conforming to accepted common standards .

RHJones, retired teacher

John Bos: Letter to Bill Sears

From John Bos, October 13, 2010
Subject: GOOD MORNING Mr. Sears

Good Morning Mr. Sears,

I STRONGLY disagree with your request to contact STRS Board Members regarding the recent proposed changes in MY retirement system. I retired in 1989 with 31 years. No, I did not have the 88% option. No, I did not receive good medical premium assistance. No I was not given years to plan for the proposed changes. They will be made for me immediately. Yet you are recommending that Timmy Myers be given approximately 11 years to plan for any changes to HIS retirement.

I, unfortunately, belong to ORTA, but ORTA does NOT REPRESENT ME!!!! Call me at [xxx] if you wish to hear more of my ideas!!!! I know that changes need to be made. P.S. Our daughter is an active teacher and I do understand both sides of the issue.

John Bos

Mr. Sears....whom do you represent?

From John Curry, October 13, 2010

From: John Curry

To: wsears1109@aol.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:57 PM

Subject: Mr. Sears....whom do you represent

Mr. Sears,

You are an OEA-R member, aren't you? You do realize that about ten years ago the OEA-endorsed active teacher members of that former STRS board pushed hard for and won the enhanced benefits for those educators who served 35 years at their jobs and became eligible for the 88.5% payout, don't you? Do you also realize that no other Ohio public pension system pays anywhere near that generous for 35 years of service? Do you know the most that any Ohio public retirement system (besides STRS) pays out for 35 years is only 77%?

Do you know what was given up so that some can recieve the 88.5%? Well....I'll help you understand. Are you aware that because of that 88.5% payout that STRS can only afford to apply 1% of the employers contribution toward healthcare costs for STRS stakeholders while all other Ohio systems pay at least 4% or more of employer contributions toward their retirees' healthcare costs?

Maybe, Mr. Sears, you are a "thirty fiver" and can enjoy the 88.5 and/or maybe your spouse is now of Medicare age and so insurance is affordable but, Mr. Sears, my wife isn't and so are a lot of other STRS retirees and their wives who relied on STRS to offer reasonably priced healthcare for their retirees and their spouses like OPERS currently does. You see, Mr. Sears, the HC insurance subsidy for my spouse and thousands of other STRS retirees' spouses was terminated immediately several years ago and with no 15 years advanced planning (warning) time notice like the HPA plan currently wants to give active teachers for their planning. Thanks to that OEA active-teacher-dominated board ten years ago, Mr. Sears, I am currently looking at health insurance premium rates fourteen times higher that I would be had I driven a county dump truck for my county of residence and retired in 2000 under the OPERS system. Mr. Sears, do you and your organization really represent "Retired" educators? By pushing for the HPA plan you aren't! You surely could have fooled me and....a whole lot of other retirees! Mr. Sears, active teachers won't "fall through the cracks," but many current retirees have been falling through those same cracks for a long time now. We have paid our "fair share" and, quite frankly, we're tired of getting screwed!

John Curry

A proud CORE member

an STRS stakeholder

a retiree glad that he never joined ORA-R

Kathie Bracy to OEA-R president Bill Sears: When is OEA-R going to fight for retirees?

From Kathie Bracy, October 12, 2010

From: Kathie Bracy
To: wsears1109@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Urgent request--Contact STRS Board members

Mr. Sears:

I cannot believe you are supporting this proposal and actually urging retirees to support it! OEA-R and ORTA are playing right into the hands of OEA, whose mantra is "Hit those retirees again and again and again, but God forbid if you ask the active teachers to give up anything!" Below is the message I sent to the STRS Board on October 5. When is OEA-R going to come to its senses and start fighting for retirees?

Kathie Bracy

Dear STRS Board member,

I am writing to strongly urge you to trash the current HPA plan immediately and come up with a plan that is fair to both active teachers AND retirees, which their plan is not. There should be NO cuts in COLAs for any retiree whose pension is modest at best and who has no way of improving his/her financial situation, as do active teachers who are not close to retirement.

In addition, to even consider any such cuts in the near future (2011) when the actives, many of whom have comfortable incomes far greater than the vast majority of retirees, get to be "grandfathered" and won't even see any changes before 2015, is a cruel slap in the face to your retired members.

It's time to go back to the drawing board, and I strongly urge you to do so. I also urge you to seek input from retirees other than those whom ORTA professes to represent (as a member of the HPA). I am a life member of ORTA, but ORTA does NOT represent me.

Thank you.

Kathie Bracy

STRS retiree

From: William Spears <wsears1109@AOL.COM>
To: OEA-R@LISTS.OHEA.ORG
Sent: Tue, Oct 12, 2010 10:09 am
Subject: Fwd: Urgent request--Contact STRS Board members

-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Robert [OH] <davisr@ohea.org>
Sent: Tue, Oct 12, 2010 9:53 am
Subject: Fw: Urgent request--Contact STRS Board members

To: OEA Board of Directors, District Leaders, Legislative Committee and OEA-R Advisory Council

A reminder of the importance of contacting members of the STRS Board and urging them to support the HPA proposal. The Board is scheduled to vote on the proposal this Friday. Board members need to continue to hear from their constituents, both active and retired, who support this proposal. More information is provided below. Thank you.

--Robert Davis

OEA Governmental Services

From: Leibensperger, Bill [OH]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 4:35 PM
To: Board of Directors
Cc: District Leaders; OEA-R
Subject: Urgent Request
Importance: High

Dear Colleagues,

As we have discussed, the STRS Board is scheduled to vote on the proposal by the Healthcare & Pension Advocates (HPA) at the October Board meeting. The HPA proposal addresses key concerns with the Board-approved plan. Adoption of the HPA proposal would be more fair and equitable to our members and bring about broad support of stakeholder groups. At the same time, the HPA proposal accomplishes this goal without much impact on the funding status of the STRS pension plan (adding only 1.7 years to the funding period).

I believe it is essential at this critical time that the members of the STRS Board hear from each of you about your support for this plan. Remind them of who you represent and the fact that the OEA Representative Assembly voted to support the HPA proposal. I have copied District Leaders and OEA-R Advisory Council with the request that each of the members of those groups do the same. Communicating with members of the Board will provide support for members who support the HPA plan and will hopefully persuade any who do not.

Provided below are talking points for your use in crafting a message to the members of the STRS Board. You contact members of the STRS Board by emailing the following addresses:

Craig Brooks craig_brooks@sbcglobal.net

Regina Burch BurchR@strsoh.org

Carol Correthers CorrethC@strsoh.org

Tai Hayden HaydenT@strsoh.org

Mark Hill HillMa@strsoh.org

Daniel Martin MartinD@strsoh.org

Jim McGreevy McgreevJ@strsoh.org

Tim Myers MyersT@strsoh.org

Dale Price PriceD@strsoh.org

Bob Stein SteinR@strsoh.org

Please forward me a copy of your email and feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Talking Points on HPA Proposal

Overview:

· The plan passed by the STRS Board in September 2009 was not supported by OEA and other stakeholder groups.

· A coalition of stakeholder groups representing employees, employers and retirees (HPA) have developed a counter-proposal that was more fair and equitable but would not substantially impact the funding goals of the STRS Board.

· The HPA plan makes key changes--adding a phase-in to the change in retirement eligibility and removing the “tier” in COLA benefits; while adding only 1.7 years to the funding period.

· The OEA Board of Directors and our Representative Assembly have voted to support the HPA plan.

· Support of constituency groups such as OEA will be critical in the legislative process. By adopting the changes recommended by HPA, the STRS Board will help assure that we are all “on the same page” in what will likely be a difficult

Phase in of Retirement Eligibility:

· The HPA proposal calls for the change from retirement with 30 years of service at any age to 35 years of service at any age to be phased in over an eight year period.

· This change would limit the disruption of retirement planning for those who are in the latter stages of their careers while without adding substantially to the funding period.

· The plan adopted by the STRS Board is unfair to members who fall just short of reaching 30 years of service by 2015. They would need to work another five years in order to be able to retire.

· The HPA proposal would allow over 6,800 active teachers with between 21 and 24 years of service to retire earlier than the STRS plan.

COLA:

· The HPA proposal would set a 2% COLA for those who retire after 2011; however the COLA is deferred for 36 months.

· The disparity between the percentage given to those who retire before 7/1/2011 and those who retire after that point would create a “rush to the door” where anyone eligible to retire would be incentivized to do so.

· The rush to the door would be extremely disruptive to Ohio’s schools and campuses. Further, it runs counter the Board’s goals to have a spike in retirements in 2011.

· The deferral of the COLA for 36 months reduces the cost to the system of increasing the COLA rate for future retirees.

Early retirement at 30 YOS:

· The HPA proposal would allow members to retire with 30 years of service subject to an actuarial reduction of benefits.

· Those who reach 30 years of service after eligibility changes would still have the option to retire, albeit significantly reduced benefits.

· There is no negative effect on the funding period.

FAS:

· The HPA plan would grant the Board statutory authority to set final average salary based on three to five years.

· The change to FAS has the least impact on the system. However, this change does have tangible impact individual members’ pension benefits.

· Granting the Board statutory authority to make the change allows for greater flexibility should economic conditions improve substantially.

Bill Leibensperger

Vice President

Ohio Education Association

614-227-3088

Ryan Holderman to STRS Board: All we ask is fairness

From Ryan Holderman, October 12, 2010
Subject: Pending vote on the HPA proposal

To the STRS Board:

I am writing to ask that you vote against adoption of the HPA proposal that is on the agenda for this month's board meeting. The proposal does nothing to address the plight of those teachers who retired prior to the enactment of the enhanced benefit package of 1999 - 2000. Retirees prior to that time not only receive a smaller percentage of their FAS but also worked at a time when salaries were significantly lower. They have seen their health care costs soar, their spousal subsidies vanish and the helpful "13th check" disappear. Under the existing HPA proposal these same career teachers would face an immediate reduction in their COLA once the legislature acted. They have no options. Those least able to afford reductions in income have no one to advocate on their behalf.

I ask that you consider very carefully the impact that the HPA proposal will have on those who retired prior to 1999, those who have no voice speaking on their behalf. Do not support a plan that delays cuts and other changes for those who already enjoy enhanced benefits, higher salaries and still have the opportunity to adjust their retirement plans.

Older retirees realize that changes are needed in order to keep the pension plan solvent and health care affordable. All that they ask is that the changes be administered fairly and that decisions made by the STRS board are made with the welfare of all retirees in mind.

Sincerely,
Ryan L. Holderman

Shirlee Zerkel: Letter to Bill Sears

From Shirley Zerkel, October 13, 2010

Dear Mr. Sears:

How dare you ask me to contact the STRS board members and request them to do it your way. I feel this way because OEA-R and ORTA have just let those already retired be punched over and over again while the OEA, OEA-R and ORTA have in the past and are still jumping in there to help the actives. On your plan, the retiree is hit immediately and your requests are for the present active and allowing them time to prepare. Where is our time to prepare? We have no way of preparing for such a hit now or in the future.

A life member of OEA and OEA-R and am sorry I am,

Shirlee Zerkel

A fitting coverage for one who is our "pinstriped avenger!"

From John Curry, October 12, 2010

"Mr. Cordray in two years in office has demonstrated a willingness to sue early and often, filing lawsuits against global financial houses, rating agencies, subprime lenders and foreclosure scammers. He has wrested about $2 billion so far, a string of gilded pelts: a $475 million Merrill Lynch settlement, $400 million from Marsh & McLennan and $725 million from the American International Group."

Note from John......don't let this guy down on election day....he certainly didn't let retirees down!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/business/12avenge.html?_r=1&src=busln&pagewanted=all

Ohio Attorney General Fights Against Wall Street
By MICHAEL POWELL
New York Times, October 11, 2010

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Back East, at the corner of Broad and Wall Streets, the view is swell. The Dow is soaring, and bankers look pleased.

Richard Cordray, Ohio’s attorney general, has reached several major settlements related to the financial crisis.

Photo: Richard Cordray (Click images to enlarge.)

But here on East Broad Street, the mood is gloomier. At least 90,000 residential and commercial foreclosure notices will be filed in Ohio this year. Pension funds for teachers, secretaries and janitors have suffered grave losses. And multitudes of the unemployed in Ohio now speak of turning to prayer.
Ohio’s attorney general, Richard Cordray, might be seen as their pinstriped avenger.
“There’s a belief here that Wall Street is a fixed casino and it’s back in business, and we’re left holding the bag,” said Mr. Cordray, whose office overlooks East Broad. “It’s important for us to show we’ll go after a company that does wrong.”
Mr. Cordray in two years in office has demonstrated a willingness to sue early and often, filing lawsuits against global financial houses, rating agencies, subprime lenders and foreclosure scammers. He has wrested about $2 billion so far, a string of gilded pelts: a $475 million Merrill Lynch settlement, $400 million from Marsh & McLennan and $725 million from the American International Group.
Last week, he filed suit against GMAC Mortgage, accusing the loan servicer of filing fraudulent affidavits in hundreds of Ohio foreclosures.
His office has returned money to investors, pension funds, schools and cities. And he has directed millions to agencies fighting foreclosure.
“We see what Washington doesn’t: the houses lying vacant, the eyesore stripped for copper piping with mattresses out back,” Mr. Cordray says. “We bailed out irresponsible banks, but we forgot about everyone else.”
It speaks to this political age that such words are more rarely heard from federal regulators, who walk quietly and carry big bailout checks. Instead state attorneys general, in this case, a sandy-haired 51-year-old Democrat who sits about 400 miles from Washington, are giving full throat to popular outrage.
If Eliot Spitzer, the former New York attorney general, was the prototype of this breed, a handful of current ones, like Mr. Cordray, Martha Coakley of Massachusetts, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Tom Miller of Iowa and Roy Cooper of North Carolina, lay claim to his mantle.

Photo: Martha Coakley, Lisa Madigan, Tom Miller

Like recessionary scouts, they spot trouble, like a rapacious foreclosure-rescue operator, a predatory credit card company or a financial firm draining a pension fund.

Ms. Coakley secured millions of dollars in mortgage modifications from Countrywide Financial and reached a $102 million settlement with Morgan Stanley over its role in financing the subprime loans that fed the housing crash in Massachusetts.
“We were the first to go after predatory loans — we’re not waiting for federal agencies to act,” Ms. Coakley said.
Some express skepticism, suggesting that such lawsuits are emotionally pleasing but economically destructive. Former Senator Michael DeWine, a Republican who is running against Mr. Cordray, a Democrat, in the November election, has implied that Mr. Cordray wields an antibusiness cudgel. Better to rely on federal regulators, others argue, to constrain global corporations.
That strikes James E. Tierney, director of the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia, as a bit beside the point.
“Is state action as effective as a federal regulator going after these companies? Absolutely not,” says Mr. Tierney, a former state attorney general for Maine. “But when regulators are too worried about giving offense, there’s no reason an enterprising attorney general can’t go in there,”
Born in Grove City, Ohio, Mr. Cordray was educated at Michigan State, Oxford and the University of Chicago Law School. A Supreme Court clerk, he also argued cases before the court. In 1987, he enjoyed a run as a five-time winner on the television show “Jeopardy!”
Somewhere along the way, he hankered for more. His father ran a program for mentally disabled people; his mother, a social worker, founded an organization of foster grandparents; and he wanted to enter the public sphere.

Photo: Richard Cordray

Mr. Cordray began running for office.
His yearning often went unrequited; voters, he noted with a hike of the eyebrows, elected him state representative but rejected his run for Congress and an early attempt at state attorney general.
He shrugs.
“I really got my head pounded in over the years in politics,” Mr. Cordray says. “My wife thought I was nuts.”
Eventually, he downsized his ambitions, and ran successfully for Franklin County treasurer and later for state treasurer. And in 2008, he won a special election for attorney general.
Mr. Cordray is no William Jennings Bryan inveighing against the evils of monopoly capital. He can be eloquent about corporate misbehavior, in an eyes-downcast and soft-spoken fashion. (His language reads hotter on the page than it sounds in person.)
He is, however, tapping a populist tradition in Ohio. This is where politicians mounted challenges to the Standard Oil monopoly of John Rockefeller and where Senator John Sherman led a late 19th-century campaign to pass the Sherman Antitrust Act, which was the first law to require the federal government to investigate companies suspected of running cartels and monopolies.
Mr. Cordray carefully describes his allegiance to capitalism, although he says the financial crisis should explode forever the efficient-markets theory, popular with economists, that the best market is a self-correcting one. (Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” shares space on his office bookshelf with books by the urbane Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith.)
“The notion that banks will just get things right over time is perhaps true,” Mr. Cordray says. “But over what time period, and at what terrible cost to the individual American?”
Certainly, he has not minced words in pursuing a steady stream of cases against corporations.
He accused Marsh & McLennan of conspiring to eliminate competition in the insurance business by generating fictitious quotes. He denounced three credit rating firms, Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investor Services and Standard & Poor’s, for giving inflated ratings to packages of troubled mortgages put together by the big investment houses. He says that Ohio pension funds lost close to half a billion dollars by investing in those triple-A rated securities.
And last October, he accused Bank of America officials of concealing critical facts in the acquisition of Merrill Lynch, even as that firm careened toward insolvency. Top bankers, he said, had not come remotely clean about the extent of the losses at Merrill and its bonuses.
The lawsuit against Bank of America was the first of its kind, although Mr. Cordray’s actions drew rather less press than a lawsuit filed months later by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo of New York. Mr. Cuomo, whose skill with the tactical leak, news release and the lawsuit is considerable, tends not to work closely with his fellow state attorneys general, say two officials from states other than Ohio.
Attorneys general are perhaps more successful at extracting large sums of money than in changing corporate behavior. A Goldman Sachs or Marsh & McLennan, to this view, tends to see such settlements as a cost of doing business.
“The settlements are large, but the changes in behavior don’t seem to be that large,” said Daniel C. Richman, a former federal prosecutor and professor at Columbia Law School. “These targets have massive amounts of money to pay off and continue on their merry way.”
Raise this criticism to Mr. Cordray and he nods in agreement.
“In an ideal world, if the S.E.C. had done its job, that would be much better,” he said. “Our settlements make up for the losses fractionally.”
As it happens, Mr. Cordray now faces a more existential threat. Legal challenges to corporate misbehavior are not proven electoral gold. This year, Ms. Coakley, a Democrat, fell to Republican Scott Brown in a race to fill the Senate seat of Edward M. Kennedy.
And polls show Mr. Cordray running behind in his race with Mr. DeWine. He’s no natural glad-hander — he apologizes when he realizes he has automatically extended his hand at a luncheon. More paradoxical, he finds himself at risk of being identified with “them,” which is to say the establishment that Ohio residents view as having failed them.
Again, he shrugs. He is not inclined to blame voters for his troubles.
“Politicians are kind of like adolescents, always looking in the mirror and assuming that’s what people see,” he says. “But there’s a great anxiety out there, a great unease about our future. Most people are hurting, and they don’t have the time to pay attention to us.”

Taps.......

Word has been received of the passing October 12 of Herman Fisher, STRS retiree and an officer of CORE. Sincere condolences to his wife, Ruby, and to their family. Herm was very active in causes relating to our pension and healthcare, and will be very much missed. View obituary here.

Mary Ellen Angeletti to STRS Board: Please vote down the HPA plan

From Mary Ellen Angeletti, October 11, 2010

Dear STRS Board Members,

I understand that you will be voting this Friday on the proposed HPA plan for reducing the unfunded liability. Since the STRS Board's current proposed plan is already in the hands of the ORSC, I hope that you will vote against the HPA plan. Retirees will be paying 73% of the cost of your proposed reform bill to reduce the unfunded liability and that will begin in 2011 while the HPA plan proposes the same 2011 hit for retirees and delays the hit for active teachers far into the future. IS this fair?

Neither plan is fair to the retirees as we are taking the biggest hit . . . a hit that retirees cannot afford. How is either plan equitable to the retired teachers of Ohio whose STRS pensions have taken hit after hit for health care and spousal increases? The retirees have already sacrificed to help our STRS Ohio's unfunded liability. The proposed COLA reduction is unconscionable.

Mary Ellen Angeletti
STRS Member

Nancy Hamant to STRS Board: Please make sure that the final Plan is just, fair and equitable

From Nancy Hamant, October 11, 2010
Subject: Proposed Plans for Unfunded Liability of STRS Pension

TO: STRS BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: Nancy B. Hamant
Date: October 11, 2010
SUBJECT: Proposed Plans for Unfunded Liability of STRS Pension

Dear STRS Board Member:

During this October STRS Board meeting, you will examine the current STRS Plan to reduce the unfunded liability of the STRS Pension, as well as consider the HPA proposal and other options to reduce the unfunded liability. Your decision and vote this week will deeply affect All STRS members, all 465,000 members. The five proposed changes (levers) to the pension amount to $9 Billion, which is a crucial, necessary and overwhelming burden for all STRS members to bear.

Please do everything in your power to ensure that the final Plan for Unfunded Pension Liability is equitable to each of the 465,000 members. Please question the actuarial figures provided to you, request the assumptions used to obtain the actuarial totals and know the fiscal impact of each of the five levers on each and every one of the STRS members. In the 2009 Plan, one lever--reduction of COLAs--amounts to 73% or $6.6 Billion of the projected $9 Billion. COLAs are only paid to retirees. Therefore current and future retirees will bear 73% of the burden. Hardly equitable! In addition, the COLA reductions are to start in 2011, after legislative action. Other levers in both the 2009 and the HPA Plans do not start immediately, but are delayed to 2014, 2015, or unbelievably until 2023. Hardly equitable!

Your vote on this matter is the most important one you will face as a fiduciary. It will impact each STRS member more than anything else you accomplish as a Board Member. Please make sure that the final Plan is just, fair and equitable. STRS members are counting on you!

Sincerely,
Nancy B. Hamant
Maineville, OH 45039

Agenda for October 14 CORE meeting

From Dave Parshall, CORE president; October 11, 2010

October 14, 2010 CORE Members Meeting Agenda

Some CORE members may want to attend Friday's vote on the on the New HCPA plan.

Welcome and introductions: (first time attendees).

Old Business:
1. Reading and approval of minutes -- Marie Fetters
2. Treasurer's report -- Herm Fisher.
3. List of questions for candidates for elections

New Business:
1. Board vote on New HCPA plan in October.
Where wasORTA and why are they supporting this further enhancement of the future retirees at the expense of the fund? OEA is always saying that all stake holders support this change. Current retirees were never asked nor does any local RTA even seem to know what is going on.