Trina Prufer: The Duplicity of STRS and how it Harmed Members by not providing Full Disclosure

The Duplicity of STRS and how it Harmed Members by not providing Full Disclosure 

From Trina Prufer

August 3, 2025

We all know that “reform” legislation, passed in 2012, removed the 3% annual automatic COLA from the defined-benefit. But did you know that it took years before members fully understood what the revised COLA statute (3307.67) actually meant? 

One purpose of the legislation was to remove the obligated 3% annual automatic COLA from the unfunded liability, as the debt had grown so large, as to topple the system. The d-b obligation could no longer be sustained, not because the COLA was unreasonable for the rates contributed, but because for years STRS had minimized the impact of the debt on the system, and had done nothing about it. 

I have written before about how the ORC (3307.67) and the accompanying Intent Statement do not convey the same information. The Intent Statement contains the unvarnished truth: teachers would no longer have any “ legitimate expectation“ of a COLA, forever. That information was hidden from members and not put into the ORC on purpose. What that meant in real terms is that a portion of money contributed on your behalf by your district to pre-fund the obligation would now now be re-routed to pay off the debt, removing the 3% annual automatic COLA from the liability. 

But what was STRS telling members? It was telling members the exact opposite…essentially that current retirees would receive a 2% COLA from then on. It was the qualifier (COLA could be adjusted if fiscal integrity not met) that was the real driver of in the law. No one would realize that the statute had removed the COLA from the benefit. Members were led to the slaughter. Every member needed to fully understand what a benefit without a COLA looked like in order to mitigate the effects of inflation over time. The sooner money could be invested into another income stream, the better. Everyone needed FULL DISCLOSURE, but especially future retirees in determining if the PLOP was right for them. 

STRS was fully aware it would never pay a consistent 2% COLA to retirees as it was not built into the funding model. The State Legislature controlled the funding model by setting the contribution rates. STRS and the State exacerbated the financial harm to members by withholding critical information. 

Below is the Intent Statement (conveniently left out of the ORC) and what STRS conveyed to members after the passage of the legislation. STRS owes that 2% annual COLA to all retirees because that’s what it wanted them to believe.