Tom Curtis answers an active teacher's question on why OEA is the problem

November 7, 2021

From Facebook

Question: Why would OEA members purposely undermine their own pension system? I'm a current teacher and want to learn why people think OEA is the problem.

From Tom Curtis:

Thank you for asking. It is very important that actives understand why the OEA has been financially detrimental to the STRS membership.

Active voters are going to be needed this Spring to get 2 active teachers elected that are not supported by the OEA. We need people on the Board that are not beholden to the OEA. The OEA has held the majority of the Board seats (5-6 of 11) for 30-years. Maybe 2-3 non-OEA people have been elected to the Board over the past 30 years.

The OEA has often spent as much as $100,000 to make sure their candidate(s) get elected, or re-elected. They jam every teacher's mailbox in schools and at home with flyers telling teachers to vote for their candidates. No individual teacher can campaign like that.

Keep in mind, the money the OEA spends every year to buy Board seats comes from teachers' dues. OEA holds total control over the Board and is so dominant that they expect a unanimous YES vote on everything they bring to a vote. That has been the standard for years, until recently, when 2-3 Board members have not agreed with the motion as presented.

The past Board chair, Rita Walters (OEA), disregarded requests for documentation these 2-3 Board members requested, and as such just blew them off. This was a problem for the past year. Those 3 people question many things presented by the staff to the Board, as they should at times. A Board member being refused documentation by the Chair is wrong. This long period of total control over everything is not healthy for any Board.

OEA is responsible for approving all of the mismanagement and misspending that has continued unabated at STRS since 2003. OEA approved all of the pension reforms that were put in place in 2013, thus causing teachers to increase their contribution rate into the system from 10% to 14%. The worst of all of the reforms is that all teachers now have to teach until they are 60 and have a minimum of 35 years in the class room before they can retire with a full pension. That is unacceptable, in my opinion.

That was changed from 30 years at any age. Full retirement has to be taken back to 30 years at any age. The OEA voted to first reduce the COLA in 2013 and then eliminated it in 2017. No teacher that has retired since 2013 has ever received a COLA. Only the Board can make those changes. Consequently, the membership has to take the control of the Board away from the OEA.

I hope I have answered your question with enough examples of why the OEA has been detrimental to the financial well-being of all teachers. Both STRS/OEA offer a bunch of propaganda in newsletters and flyers that fool far too many teachers into thinking everything is good. They know teachers don't have the time to check out the truth or even begin to understand what they tell us. The membership has always been at their mercy.

These people are heartless and despicable. Please don't hesitate to ask more questions. We want the entire membership to become educated about what problems face our retirement system. My biggest concern is that future retirees receive good benefits and a COLA.