Molly Janczyk re: Legal fees at STRS

From Molly Janczyk, December 31, 2007
Subject: Legal Fees

I feel that what is not understood is that a policy saying that STRS “will provide legal representation to employees who need it in connection with the proper executive of their duties” would open the door for employees to ALWAYS argue that they need legal representation (no matter what they did) because they would say that the matter at hand resulted from the “proper execution of their duties.” If a Board member has a parent teacher conference tonight, and he/she feels threatened by a parent, would he/she be allowed to go out and hire a lawyer for advice, then turn in a bill after-the-fact? After all, this in line of duty as a teacher when the parent was viewed as threatening. We could have thousands of teachers submitting such fees. We have union attorneys to give such advice. Is OEA saying that their union attorneys are not good enough?

Employees can always, always, always argue they were doing something associated with their jobs. How about if a teacher/Board member shoves or grabs a high school student discharging the responsibilities to break up a student fight or when being severely badmouthed? We all know at times, educators' tempers are lost as well. Duty or temper? Do we go to a personal attorney for advice or call OEA? Again, is OEA inferior in its support?

What if an STRS employee is fired for making serious calculation errors? The employee, under a policy seemingly currently desired by some board members, then would be able to argue that the board owes him/her legal counsel support to fight the board because the alleged miscalculations occurred when he/she was discharging his/her duties. Is it a good idea to adopt a policy forcing the board to give employees legal counsel to fight the board? Such cases need paid for by the employee.

The reasons are endless as to why it is inadvisable to have a blanket policy that attempts to say WHEN the pension system will pay for employees’ legal counsel support as they can vary in numbers by the number of employees and their individual case.

WHY would an employee want one individual making such a decision. That is a roll of the dice as to whether the current Exec. Direc. holds you in high esteem or not. If you are not a 'politics' player, you may not be in the in circle. I'd sure want an objective Board of individuals coming with experience beyond one person to judge me over one subjective person.

It is a case-by-case matter judged on its merits, and the STRS Board should have to decide in each case as a majority. In the case of the 3 STRS employees who went out and selected lawyers when former STRS Board members were facing charges, the board did not get to vote on any of them. None of them sought board approval in advance. Everything was after-the-fact………..and it happened because the STRS Board majority seemed remiss to do anything about it as they do now.

Proposed policy, as amended by Bill Neville:

“Unless required by law, associate legal fees will not be paid without approval of the board.”

This policy is case by case as stated by the AG Office as well.

This lets the board members, the executive director, and employees know that they are rolling the dice if they are hoping for the board (after the fact) to pay for the legal advice that they have arranged on their own. This whole thing should be so simple to understand, and it is so discouraging that it is not.

Based on history, many members are not trusting of a blanket policy with only the Exec. Direc. determining the scenario. I know I am not.

We have 2 legal opinions on this matter: Neville and the AG: Patterson.

What is the problem?

I see only a control issue here being exercised by OEA and its Board members to ensure that the Exec. Direc. have a blanket policy.

AGAIN: How many such cases are expected?

I assume few to none.

Let's move on. Much ado about nothing, it seems.

Just attempts to control.

STRS is improved by all accounts due to more oversight and policy change.

Why is OEA trying to stop what has made for renewed trust and respect? What is OEA afraid of ?

I hear that some OEA members are not happy with past representation by their union and so are subjectively, it seems to me, placing their mindset onto this issue for STRS.

I understand any employee would be most happy to have guarantees but if one does their job within the objective boundaries, they should be no problems.

You know, folks, if someone wants you gone, ways will be found. And I have found that those who are gotten rid of were with basis. The only guarantees are what YOU provide making sure no one can question your abilities and guidelines. That's reality! We all had iffy principals and administrators. Some like you and others - not so much. Would you really want one of them deciding your future?

Making sure our jobs were done well by all accounts ensured our longevity giving no room for deciding otherwise. I guess I don't see why this fuss is about and I sure didn't have every administrator love me since I ask questions. Some welcome input; others find it horribly offensive but I always got outstanding evaluations because I worked hard and got results and helped other educators get results so their wasn't room for any problems.

Not touting myself, just wondering why the worry.

It is not hard to protect yourself with your own performance.

A response from the State Auditor's office

In a message dated 08/30/2006 2:09:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ContactUs@auditor.state.oh.us writes:

Dear Ms. Bracy:

Thank you for your recent email regarding the STRS Board meeting on Friday, August 18, 2006, and their decision to reimburse STRS staff members for legal expenses. We understand your concerns in this matter.

I have shared your email with the Chief Deputy Auditor and Chief Legal Counsel and they are reviewing your concerns. Upon completion of their review, our office will contact you.

Again, thank you for contacting our office. If we can be of further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Kathie Bracy to Betty Montgomery: Will you do the right thing or not?

August 30, 2006

Dear Ms. Montgomery,

My condolences on the death of your father. I know you've had a rough way to go between this and your health problems. I wish peace and better health for you.

We need your help. STRS is spending OUR money to pay legals fees for employees who went out on their own and hired private attorneys when they were subpoenaed to court (and granted immunity) in Hazel Sidaway's trial. Now the executive director and the Board (not Dennis Leone or John Lazares) think it's OK to pay for those lawyers, even though prior approval was neither sought nor granted.

Now four more people are being hauled into court (1 current and 3 former Board members) on ethics charges. I am afraid STRS will try to pay THEIR legal fees, too, and then those of senior staff members yet to be charged. Where will it all end? It is OUR money!! This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!! What about the thousands of retirees living on a mere pittance of a pension check and forced to pay increasingly out-of-control, exorbitant health care costs? THEY didn't do anything wrong -- ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE DID -- AT OUR EXPENSE!!!

Please, please, please -- our system is hemorrhaging badly, morally, ethically and economically. You can help (hey, weren't you part of it?). You MUST help. What will your choice be -- to Do the Right Thing -- or not?

Kathie Bracy

37.7 year STRS retiree

Dennis Leone: An amendment to 8/20/06 memo to Betty Montgomery re: STRS Board paying private, personal, after-the-fact legal fees for STRS staff

From Dennis Leone

Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006

Subject: Help Needed, Part II

PLEASE HAND-DELIVER THIS TO BETTY MONTGOMERY AND MARY BETH FOLEY.

August 29, 2006

Dear State Auditor Montgomery:

I wish to amend the memo I sent you recently regarding the recent decision of the STRS Board and the STRS Executive Director to pay the private, personal legal fees of certain employees who were subpoenaed to testify in court. There are two additional points I wish to bring to your attention:

1. Imagine for a second an STRS employee coming to the Board saying: "For more personal protection, I wish to purchase a personal liability policy (an umbrella add-on) with my homeowner's insurance plan, and I want the STRS to pay for it." The answer, unquestionably would be a NO (as it would be with every school board in Ohio). The recent payment of private, personal, after-the-fact legal fees of STRS employees -- who did not seek such payment in advance and who did not attempt to utilize the free general legal assistance of STRS legal staff or the State Attorney General's staff -- is essentially the same thing. Since it undeniably would be wrong to pay for one's personal liability insurance protection in advance, how could it possibly be right to pay the legal fees -- after-the-fact -- for someone who went ahead and secured such a policy on his/her own.

2. The fact that the employees involved were asked to testify about matters that occurred during their work hours really has nothing to do with this. It doesn't provide an excuse for an employee to go out, hire someone on their own, and expect a reimbursement later. Having said this, it deserves noting that all 3 employees were worried about whether they were facing criminal charges themselves. This is an absolute fact. THIS IS WHY THEY SECURED THEIR OWN LEGAL ASSISTANCE. In fact, one of the employees was granted immunity by the prosecutor in exchange for her complete testimony. What I am trying to say is that one cannot have it both ways. An employee knows he/she cannot expect any legal help from the Board if he/she is facing criminal charges (which is the same for the former STRS Board members who were criminally charged). So when said employees end up NOT being charged or end up receiving immunity, how can the Board possibly pay for their after-the-fact personal legal representation that was secured privately when they were worried about criminal charges. Something is very, very wrong with this picture.

Dennis Leone

Dennis Leone to Sen. Marc Dann: ORC 3307.15

From: Dennis Leone
To: Sen. Marc Dann
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Subject: ORC 3307.15
Dear Senator Dann --
I, like John Curry, hope you are elected as AG. I hope, when you have a minute, that you review 2 things: (1) ORC 3307.15, which lists the statutory responsibility of all STRS Board members to make decisions that are only in the best interest of STRS members and their beneficiaries; and (2) The new pension reform language contained SB 133 -- passed on June 16, 2004 -- which mandates that the AG to enforce ORC 3307.15, and pursue civil charges, removal, and restitution against pension board members who engage in misconduct.
I am the person who (in May of 2003) discovered and published the terrible misspending practices of the former STRS executive director and former STRS Board members. At the urging of retirees, I ran for the STRS Board and was elected on May 7, 2005. It bothered me greatly in 2003 and 2004 when neither Betty Montgomery or Jim Petro had the fortitude to enforce the spirit of 3307.15. They wouldn't do it, simply put, because they were part of the Board that was engaged in misconduct. SB 133 removed them from the Board, which has eliminated the ridiculous conflict of interest that existed.
I look forward to working with you.
Dennis Leone