I am asking this board to make an adjustment to the actuarially reduced benefit schedule for all those who retired in 2024. This would simply reflect the change from 34 years of service down to 33 years in a span of 5 months. I ask you to do this because it is the right thing to do for all 2024 retirees.

Lisa Barber's speech to STRS board

May 15, 2025

Good afternoon, I am here today to ask you to be equitable.

My name is Lisa Barber.  I retired from teaching in June 2024 with 32 years of service credit and a reduced benefit.  The required years of service at that time were 34. Just 5 months after my retirement, the board reduced the years of service for full benefits to 33. What new information did you have at that time that you did not have when I and many others retired?

Adding insult to injury, all retirees were given a December supplement IF they had been retired for a year or more. So, I did not receive a supplement.

Had the 33 years of service been in place when I retired, my pension (with the actuarial reduction) would be close to $500 more per month. I would not have delayed my retirement, however.

In the April 2025 update the board announced another decrease in years of service for an unreduced benefit. That was 9 months after I retired.  The new requirement is 32 years, then the years of service increase, then return back to 34 years beginning in 2032.  I am sure those still teaching find this arbitrary and inequitable. I certainly feel the two decreases in required service credit just months after my retirement were very unfair.

I am asking this board to make an adjustment to the actuarially reduced benefit schedule for all those who retired in 2024. This would simply reflect the change from 34 years of service down to 33 years in a span of 5 months. I ask you to do this because it is the right thing to do for all 2024 retirees.

Dan MacDonald's report on the May 14-16 STRS long, long board meeting

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

Dan MacDonald attended the May STRS Board meeting. The meeting was unique in that more time was spent in Executive Session [out of public sight].  

Wednesday the meeting was called to order about 8:30 a.m.  and went into Executive Session (1) for the rest of the day. Thursday the day started with an Executive Session (2) for the Disability Review Panel [This usually takes place on Wednesday and is always an Executive Session.] The Board meeting was called to order a little after 11 a.m. Minutes were approved, and the Board went into Executive Session (3) until noon. 

The Board returned and the Board Governance Committee met with a presentation by outside consultant GGA for all of nine minutes.  GGA told the Board that there were 22 areas that needed to be tackled from a 180 questionnaire that had been administered to Board and senior staff with a 69% response rate [I suppose I’d be happy if 69% of my former students handed in their homework on time, but to me the response should have been in the 90th to 100% percentile.  All Board members should have responded as well as the staff given the questionnaire.]

Public Participation occurred about 12:15 p.m.  Twelve people spoke, all retirees. [No specific names were shared but apparently two STRS staff lawyers were identified in the court filings regarding the 14-page whistleblower letter given to the governor and others about former Board member Steen and current Chair Fichtenbaum. Phrases such as unethical and disbarment were shared by more than one of the speakers.]

Back to Executive Session (4) with a lunch break. The session lasted to 3:06 pm. A presentation was made to honor Fred Williams who was retiring after 44 years of service at STRS. The Investment Committee then met for 45 minutes. April’s return was a positive 0.3% giving the fund return for the FY a positive 4.5% [Remember the Fiscal Year ends June 30 with a goal of a positive 7% to be on track.] Investment assets ended April about $95.8 billion, up since July 1, 2024, by $554 million.

The Statement of Fund Governance and Statement of Investment Objectives and Policy were presented along with the Semiannual Broker Evaluation and Associated Policies and outside consultant Callan remarks. The Chair then altered the agenda and had Routine Matters to approve April expenses and other routine matters. This took 4 minutes and when he called another Executive Session (5) which lasted an hour.

Upon return, the Benefits Department presented initial projected increases to 2026 premiums and the main drivers along with a motion to approve the Health Care Subsidy caused by last month’s vote to allow actives to retire at 32 years of service.

The meeting concluded with the Interim Executive Director's Report and Old Business/New Business and a recess to a continuation of the Board meeting Friday in Executive Session (6). I do not know how long the Executive Session lasted on Friday.  Through Zoom I know it commenced a little after 9 a.m. but I had to leave my home at 10:30 a.m. and the Board was still in Executive Session.  The next Board and committee meetings are slated for June 11, 12, 13, 2025.

[From what I overheard, the Governor and others told the Board not to select a new CEO at this meeting. Supposedly, Christina Elliott, Director of Benefits, removed her name for the position and there are an additional 2 candidates making the final cut. As to the reason for all these Executive Sessions, I haven’t a clue, nor was one given. Watching, some of the Executive Sessions caught even Board members by surprise.

There are 6 reasons for Executive Session: 

(1) To consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion or compensation of a public employee or official, or the investigation of charges or complaints against a public employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual, unless the employee, official, licensee, or regulated individual requests a public hearing by division (G)(1) of section 121.22 of the Revised Code.

(2) To consider the purchase of property (both real and personal, tangible or intangible), or to consider the sale of property (either real or personal) by competitive bid if disclosure of the information would give a competitive advantage to the other side by division (G)(2) of section 121.22 of the Revised Code.

(3) Conferences with the public body's attorney concerning pending or imminent court action by division (G)(3) of section 121.22 of the Revised Code. Court action is "pending" if a suit has been commenced; court action is "imminent" if it is on the point of happening or impending.

(4) Preparing for, conducting, or reviewing collective bargaining strategy by division (G)(4) of section 121.22 of the Revised Code.

(5) Matters required to be kept confidential by federal law, federal rules, or state statutes by division (G)(5) of section 121.22 of the Revised Code.

(6) Specialized details of security arrangements where disclosure of the information to be discussed in executive session might reveal information that could be used to commit, or avoid prosecution for, a violation of the law by division (G)(6) of section 121.22 of the Revised Code.

[Obviously, something behind the scenes is happening.  Remember that this is OUR PENSION and we should have more than say in its existence. Please read my Public Participation.  STRS Ohio has functioned fine since 1920, but legislative darkness now lurks.] 

Under the radar no more!

 

The STRS board majority now knows its in-house lawyers are actively and unethically working against their agenda. If it’s serious about implementing transparency and index investing, Ms. Wideman and Mr. Maxwell should be immediately terminated.

-- Toledo Blade 05/19/2025

Blade Editorial: STRS chaos internal

Editorial: STRS chaos internal

THE BLADE EDITORIAL BOARD

May 19, 2025 

Ohio lawmakers looking to push teachers off their own pension board are blaming the wrong people for the alleged dysfunction at the State Teachers Retirement System.

Claiming chaos at STRS, Republican legislators are researching other states’ retirement board composition for support to retake control by stacking the STRS board with appointees of the governor, treasurer, and General Assembly.

The most significant sign of dysfunction on the STRS board is the suit brought by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost against former member Wade Steen and current chairman Rudy Fichtenbaum claiming a violation of fiduciary duty for an investment they proposed in 2021.

AG Yost’s case was initiated by an anonymous letter in 2024 claiming Mr. Steen and Mr. Fichtenbaum had close personal ties to the proprietors of an investment firm to which they attempted to steer STRS funds.

It turns out, due to mandatory legal discovery, that the authors of the letter were STRS Chief Legal Counsel Stacey Wideman and her top deputy Mark Maxwell. Ms. Wideman and Mr. Maxwell had a professional ethical responsibility to bring this issue to authorities in 2021 when it occurred, provided they had a legitimate concern that board members Steen and Fichtenbaum were trying to steer STRS funds to a favored fund manager.

The STRS Legal Counsel-written anonymous letter was launched when elected board members gained majority status and had the power to implement their campaign promise of full transparency for the STRS investment portfolio and a shift in investment strategy to low-cost market index funds.

When the Pennsylvania teachers pension became fully transparent on investment management costs, it showed payments totaling over eight times more than Ohio reported on a bigger fund.

The STRS board majority, comprised of elected active and retired teachers, has compelling evidence Ohio is paying much more than reported and achieving results well behind what a lower cost market index would produce. It’s the appointed experts who want to protect the failing status quo and force Ohio taxpayers to increase their contributions to keep the pension solvent.

The STRS board majority now knows its in-house lawyers are actively and unethically working against their agenda. If it’s serious about implementing transparency and index investing, Ms. Wideman and Mr. Maxwell should be immediately terminated.

Regardless of any board action, the STRS lawyers should be sanctioned by the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel for an anonymous claim their own fiduciary duty required them to make on a timely basis and put their name on if they had evidence of misconduct by STRS board members.

This article may be read here.

Cleveland.com: Guarding actuarial health should be job one for teachers’ pensions

From the Toledo eBlade

May 19, 2025

Guarding actuarial health should be job one for teachers’ pensions

A GUEST EDITORIAL BY CLEVELAND.COM

OHIO TEACHER pensions at both local schools and community and state colleges are handled by the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio. Founded in 1920, the STRS says it is “one of the largest public pension funds in the United States,” managing about $90 billion in pension funds for half a million teachers and retirees.

But internal upheavals have led to policy swings between austerity and benefits generosity that could interfere with good actuarial oversight of the huge pension system.

Instead of shoring up its future by extending the years needed to be able to retire on a full pension, the system has twice recently shortened that time. And that’s happening just as state lawmakers are contemplating a crackdown on actuarial standards for all five of Ohio’s public pensions.

Plus, why make it easier to retire earlier on a full pension in a state with a teacher shortage, and where the accumulated wisdom of a seasoned teacher can be priceless for the students served?

The system also needs greater attention to its long-term health.

Cleveland.com’s Anna Staver reported that last month, state Rep. Adam Bird, of Clermont County in southwest Ohio, had announced launch by the state’s Retirement Study Council of a 50-state study of how others handle teacher pensions.

Amid these warning signs, STRS also has a leadership vacuum.

A swell of retiree anger after five straight years of not getting cost-of-living-adjustments (from 2017-2022) spurred a shake-up in the 11-member STRS board that’s led to years of turmoil.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a lawsuit a year ago, seeking the removal of board members Wade Steen (who has since rolled off the board, leaving an open seat), and Rudy Fichtenbaum, who’s currently board chair. The lawsuit alleges the two men “breached their fiduciary duties” by trying “to steer as much as 70% of STRS’s current assets ... to a shell company that lacks any indicia of legitimacy and has backdoor ties to Steen and Fichtenbaum themselves.”

Steen and Fichtenbaum deny the allegations; the case is pending in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Meanwhile, the system’s longtime executive director, Bill Neville, has left and his position remains vacant. STRS is now being run by an interim executive director.

That may be contributing to the system’s misplaced decisions to gin up benefits and push earlier retirements rather than improve its actuarial outlook.

Last December, the system paid out a onetime supplemental benefit to eligible retirees — financed by $306 million in investment earnings, STRS announced. That was the same time, that the system “lowered the years of service teachers needed before retiring” at full benefits.

In April of this year, the fund said that on July 1 it would add permanent 1.5 percent cost-of-living adjustments to the benefit of eligible retirees who’d started collecting benefits on or before June 1, 2021.

And effective June 1, STRS lowered to age 32 the cutoff for a full pension, and to age 27, retirement on a reduced pension.

Yet the system now says it needs a 4 percent boost in pension contributions above the 28 percent being paid in on a 50-50 basis by teachers and their school employers — but without saying by whom that increased contribution would be paid.

That sets up a battle between teachers unions, who think school systems should finance the added 4 percent, and school districts facing possible funding cuts in the next two-year budget.

Meantime, state Sen. Mark Romanchuk, a Mansfield Republican, has introduced a placeholder bill, Senate Bill 69, that awaits specifics on how to “Reform the state’s public retirement system law.”

But it’s evident lawmakers want to see tighter actuarial standards.

STRS’ Interim Executive Director Aaron Hood told the STRS board in March that the state’s five public pension systems may be asked to reduce from 30 to 20 years their funding requirement — e.g., the amount of time they need to close the gap between assets and potential liabilities.

All of this adds up to one thing: STRS needs to prioritize its actuarial health over actions designed to mollify teachers and retirees.

The pension system needs to make consistently wise decisions to preserve its assets while serving teachers’ interests, without giving away the store through unnecessary and counterproductive earlier and earlier retirement ages.

This article may be read here.