James Carr: The monstrosity on Broad Street that's eating up our money needs to be dismantled.

From James Carr

October 14, 2023

STRS DOES NOT NEED:

• A large security force. It's a retirement firm, not a bank.

• A PR team. If their actions alienate the membership, no amount of BS is going to make us happy.

• A fancy workplace. Their job is to provide basic services to teachers. They need a basic workplace, nothing more.

• A large crew of custodians. Move to a smaller facility and get by with a minimal custodial staff, just like schools do.

• A large crew of expensive investors. If they can't beat an S&P index fund, what's the point?

• Assistants serving other assistants. Does anyone even know what these multiple layers of assistants do?

• A concierge workforce. Sharpen your own pencils. Clean up your own coffee spills. Screw in your own light bulbs. If you don't know how, ask a teacher, they do it all the time.

I hope the reform Board members are making a list of things that need to be done. The monstrosity on Broad Street that's eating up our money needs to be dismantled. It won't be easy, a lot of entrenched people who are heavily invested in maintaining the status quo are going to cry and moan. Do it anyway.

James Carr: The monstrosity on Broad Street that's eating up our money needs to be dismantled. It won't be easy, a lot of entrenched people who are heavily invested in maintaining the status quo are going to cry and moan. Do it anyway.

From James Carr

October 13, 2023

STRS DOES NOT NEED:

• A large security force. It's a retirement firm, not a bank.

• A PR team. If their actions alienate the membership, no amount of BS is going to make us happy.

• A fancy workplace. Their job is to provide basic services to teachers. They need a basic workplace, nothing more.

• A large crew of custodians. Move to a smaller facility and get by with a minimal custodial staff, just like schools do.

• A large crew of expensive investors. If they can't beat an S&P index fund, what's the point?

• Assistants serving other assistants. Does anyone even know what these multiple layers of assistants do?

• A concierge workforce. Sharpen your own pencils. Clean up your own coffee spills. Screw in your own light bulbs. If you don't know how, ask a teacher, they do it all the time.

I hope the reform Board members are making a list of things that need to be done. The monstrosity on Broad Street that's eating up our money needs to be dismantled. It won't be easy, a lot of entrenched people who are heavily invested in maintaining the status quo are going to cry and moan. Do it anyway.

Trina Kay Prufer: A retirement system must be based on truth and honesty, at least out in public. He has gotten himself so entangled, that there is no way out.

From Trina Kay Prufer

October 13, 2023

Why he must go…

Neville tells audacious lies because he is trapped in his previous lies. It probably all started when STRS staff were told retirees are malcontents and complainers because they were never guaranteed a cola and it’s their own fault if they don‘t have enough to live on. Its one thing to tell your staff the lie, quite another when staff conveys this to membership.

The problem, of course, is that retirees have solid STRS documentation that says otherwise…. the truth is a stubborn thing.

So now, Neville contends that the documents don’t mean what they clearly say they mean. Neville is out on a limb… because the original lie has morphed into the ridiculous STRS position that the retirement system was somehow remiss in not having conveyed that the cola was ad hoc and not automatic ( guaranteed), and an integral component of the defined-benefit. But again, the documents and definitions of the words he uses (its easy to disprove that ”actual benefits” does not mean a ”base allowance”) tell a different story... Neville twists himself into a linguistic pretzel trying to be consistent with his original account.

Why does he have to go? Neville is the public face of STRS. He is telling untruths that are so easy to disprove that even his status quo cheerleading board members must be getting worried. Also, by now the lie is pointless. Why not just say out-loud that STRS negated the contract it had with retirees?

A retirement system must be based on truth and honesty, at least out in public. He has gotten himself so entangled, that there is no way out.

James Carr: This organization doesn't need need a trip to Doctors Care, it needs a care flight straight to a trauma center.

From James Carr

October 12, 2023

The current leadership of STRS wants to put a bandaid over a gaping wound that has been festering for 2 decades.

The truth is, STRS is a very sick organization. If it's going to survive as a viable retirement system that actually fulfills the purpose it was founded for (to provide a safe and secure retirement for teachers) drastic measures are required. This organization doesn't need need a trip to Doctors Care; it needs a care flight straight to a trauma center.

Now you know EXACTLY why you (retirees) have been swindled out of millions (billions?) and you (active teachers) are being FORCED to PAY MORE and WORK LONGER!!!

From Michelle Flanigan (Active Teacher)

October 11, 2023

Why can OPERS continue to pay a 3.0% / 2.3% COLA (depending on date of retirement)? Why can OPERS actives retire with full benefits after 32 years of service? Why can OPERS do this, while STRS can't? These questions have plagued me for a while.

Is it because STRS pays out more each year than they bring in? No. Although that is a problem that will likely precipitate the need for increased employer contributions in the future, that is not the answer. Why? Because OPERS is in a very similar negative cash flow situation.

Is it because OPERS is not as well funded as STRS? No. That is not the answer either. Both STRS and OPERS have been over 75% funded since 2017.

The answer lies in investment performance, as the graph shows. There are a couple of important things to note about this graph. 1) It does not start at $0 but rather at $40 billion, and 2) STRS and OPERS have different fiscal years. STRS's fiscal year ends on June 30th while OPERS' fiscal year ends on December 31st. Thus, the fiscal year end numbers are 6 months apart, making yearly comparisons invalid. However, what is valid and important here is the trend over time.

After the great recession of 2008, OPERS had a quicker recovery and continued to grow their Net Plan Assets at a greater rate than STRS. The result is an OPERS fund that has been $20-30B greater than STRS since 2017. This is why STRS retirees have gone without a COLA and actives are working longer and paying more.

Unfortunately, we can't turn back the hands of time. But going forward, we don't have to sit back and blindly accept STRS's strategies for our money. We deserve better than this.

Trina Key Prufer defines an STRS scam for retirees and another scam for active teachers. Read on!

From Trina Key Prufer

October 2, 2023

It’s Not A Defined-Benefit Plan if the Benefit is NOT Defined

The STRS defined-benefit plan is an unsafe vehicle for retirement savings because the “benefit” is not defined at all… in fact, it changes just about every year. There is no stability to the plan because the payout is DEPENDENT on the financial ”integrity” of the plan… in other words, the plan has RISK… and lots of it…To be clear, it‘s OUR RISK, not STRS system risk.

How much risk? For teachers who retired prior to 2012, over a 20-30 year period, with STRS aiming for 100% system funding, that means losing anywhere from 25% - 50% of the payout promised, with the greatest monthly losses coming as we age, and are at our most vulnerable.

The very definition of a defined-benefit plan is employees knowing what the benefit will be so they can plan their lives accordingly. The gold standard for a defined-benefit plan design, in a non Social Security state, is about 70% replacement with a 3% automatic ( fixed-rate) cola. For those retired prior to 2012, that was the pension plan design we paid for, and was computed for each of us at the time of our retirement. That was the law. An example of what this looked like is at the end of this post.

It was the RESPONSIBILITY of STRS to DEFINE the EXACT elements in our defined-benefit. There is nothing new here… Standards and Best Practices in pension plans have been around for decades. That’s what makes Neville’s explanation of why he thinks it was ok to have removed the cola so reprehensible. He thinks we will buy into the lie that because the cola was adjusted (upwards as it turns out) in the past, any change is legal, even if it devastates retirees’ financial lives.

The 2012 STRS “reform” legislation hollowed out the very definition of a defined-benefit pension plan. It is NOT a defined-benefit plan at all. As written into the legislation, it is a scam for those of us who lost a significant portion of the payout. If previous promises and contracts mean nothing, there is no advantage to investing with STRS. If contributing 14% does not guarantee a payout worth that much, it is a scam for actives.

STRS - unsafe, unsound, unjust.

Trina Kay Prufer and The Lie: Neville and his staff are LYING when they tell us the defined-benefit in the pre-2012 retirement plan did NOT include the cola.

From Trina Kay Prufer

October 8, 2023

The LIE… no confidence in the Neville administration. The attempt to re-write history.

There are parts of the current ORC that contradict the 2012 reform legislation. They are in the definitions of the various funds such as the annuity and reserve fund, the guarantee fund etc. and in the statute that vests in retirees the benefits granted at the time of retirement. The 2012 reform legislation essentially takes away the 3% annual cola adjustment we earned as deferred compensation. THAT is the underlying issue that will be decided in the upcoming court case.

Neville and his staff are LYING when they tell us the defined-benefit in the pre-2012 retirement plan did NOT include the cola. I have no idea why they are perpetuating this. It is plainly in the STRS Summary Plan Document. There is nothing to gain… so why not just speak the truth, as the result is the same.

Neville is an attorney, so he should be held to a higher standard. Personally, I believe he should be FIRED for this. He is the PUBLIC FACE of STRS, an institution that MUST be based on integrity.

This issue needs to be cleared up. We deserve an apology and the truth. At this point, Neville is telling public audiences and STRS staff something he knows to be false. The lie also leaves STRS vulnerable to criticism (and possible litigation) that it was negligent in not telling membership to prepare for a possible future with a diminishing monthly benefit.

Trina Kay Prufer: Meaning of the term “Actual Benefits”

From Trina Kay Prufer

October 7, 2023

Meaning of the term “Actual Benefits”

I must admit I was very surprised to hear Neville’s answer to my question last week at the Parma town hall regarding the meaning of:

“Actual benefits will be paid in accordance with STRS law in effect at the time of your retirement”.

Neville indicated this only meant the original benefit awarded at the time of retirement.

I then went back to the ORC for guidance and did some digging. Below is the current law in the ORC on retirees’ vested benefit.

Turns out the current version of the ORC is pretty paltry in its section on definitions, however the 2008 version provides additional specificity. In the 2008 version, the original benefit is called a “ base allowance“; the word “benefit“ has a more inclusive definition.

There is a difference in the two words as used in the ORC - the sentence does not say ” base allowance”. You be the judge.