Trina Prufer: The hidden objective of SB 342 (Reform Legislation) and its DELIBERATE muddling in the ORC.

The hidden objective of SB 342 (Reform Legislation) and its DELIBERATE muddling in the ORC. 

By Trina Prufer 

September 15, 2024  

This is but ONE example of STRS INTENTIONALLY misleading membership and follows a pattern that permeates the system to this day.

When I am up at night, I ponder how in the world I was so misled by STRS. Why did I not know, in 2012, that that the 3% annual automatic cola had been taken away permanently?

Would this knowledge have made a difference? ABSOLUTELY! For one thing, beginning in 2012, I would have made every attempt conserve financial resources, understanding that inflation would progressively eat away at the benefit throughout my lifetime.

So how was I deceived? It happened because STRS and the State Legislature hid from members the true intent of the legislation, which was to take away the cola permanently. The most significant aspect of the legislation was contained in the INTENT STATEMENT, hidden from view unless you had access to a law library or knew how to navagate the recesses of the internet.

The ORC cola statute was purposely written to be ambiguous and confusing. It is important to understand the STARK CONTRAST between the bill as written and its codification in ORC 3307.67.

Below is the Intent Statement in the bill and the reform version of ORC 6607.67, the cola statute. Please read very carefully, sections D and E. Section D states: ”shall not make the increases”, which is easy to understand (no cola). Section E (the most SIGNIFICANT aspect of the legislation), uses the words: “may adjust the increase payable” which had previously been defined in the statute as 2%. Without having any knowledge of the Intent Statement, this reads as if the increase begins at 2% as its base, and applies to granting a cola above 2%. In fact, this remains a valid interpretation of the bill.

The language in the statute COULD have been made CRYSTAL CLEAR ( as it was in the INTENT STATEMENT) but was not… DELIBERATELY.

Nowhere in this bill does it say OUTRIGHT that those who retired prior to 2O12 no longer had the legal guarantee of a 3% annual automatic cola, as agreed to by contract and state statute (3307.42), in accordance with the pension model that had been in affect since 2002. That was BY DESIGN to keep members from realizing the truth earlier, and it cost us dearly. What about those who retired after 2012, who might have taken the PLOP had they only known the truth?

Everyone in the STRS ecosphere prospers, except teachers. That‘s because STRS does not have to pay members what is owed. That was the plan… from the onset.