Molly Janczyk, Jim Kimmel re: Divestiture/Obama

Molly Janczyk to Jim Kimmel, August 31, 2007
Subject: For Divestiture: Obama

State Teachers Retirement has approp. 400,000 members. State Employees 700,000+ in membership. Then there is Fire and police and School Employees. This is not acceptable. It is wrapping a flag around public employees' money slowly contributed over lifetime careers and the ORC mandates the system act solely on behalf of membership without political interference. This is only a token play for politicians but it is our survival. None of us want to support terrorists! Any business directly doing business with terrorists should be shut down. This punishes workers for corporations who are trying to support families, not terrorists. It punishes public employees. Let the legislators BE THE FIRST to withdrawn THEIR funds and see how it works!

There are far too many oil and utility companies tied to countries with terrorists because so many countries have pockets of terrorists. What about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and many other countries all with global companies within their borders supporting everyday citizens supporting families who live fear ridden lives due to those terrorists and dictators? Is displacing them going to help fight terrorists or help grow them?

I have long respected Obama and read about his life. I fear it is true, now, that instead of being a fresh start, he is unschooled in global politics settling for superficial 'patriotic' bandaids which will be of little help in this insidious battle over terrorism.

Why only target public employees? Where are the private wealthy holdings in all this? As usual, unfair and inequitable.

I want no generic form replies meaning nothing.

This makes my decisions for presidential candidate much easier.

Molly Janczyk

From Jim Kimmel, August 31, 2007
Subject: Re: For Divestiture: Obama

Doesn't Obama know that such a bill would be impossible to enforce and that as long as we buy oil in theMiddle East we will be financing terror... Big corporations have a dozen ways around any restrictions the Senate imposes and the only ones hurt will be the pension systems and small investors. Mayne he is a Republican in disguise!! He may be catering to the brokers who paid him contributions!!

Jim Kimmel to Speaker Husted: Give it up!

From Jim Kimmel, August 23, 2007
Subject: Divestment

August 22, 2007

Mr. Husted:
"Give It Up!" That was the title of an article in the Columbus Dispatch today. Good advice! What you are trying to do is a case of "Let's you and him fight": you are using private money (teachers, police, firefighters, etc.) to conduct US foreign policy. And by the way -- states cannot conduct foreign policy for the US -- only the Feds. The state retirement systems' total assets are made up of money taken from paychecks of teachers and firemen and others in public service. Just because we were are paid out of public funds has nothing to do with it. Once we do the work and are paid we are free to do what we want with our money. But it is still our money -- even that which is contributed to the retirement system. And that includes the school boards' contribution to STRS because it is part of our pay as well -- for retirement. Remember 3307.15 of the ORC? The money is for our retirement -- not foreign diplomacy. You know it is illegal Why else would you try to make STRS Board members immune from liability for any losses caused by this scheme?

Also, such divestiture would do no good anyway. You know that, I am sure. You and your friends just want bragging rights to help you move up to a higher office. Besides, if it is such a good idea, why not require everyone -- brokers, bankers, private individuals and corporations -- to divest instead of just public servants? What do you have against us? Ironically, the very stocks STRS must divest I could (if I could afford it) buy those stocks as an individual. If these stocks were divested en masse they would temporarily fall in price and those in the know could make a lot of money as stocks like Toyota, Rolls Royce, Coca Cola, etc., would inevitably return to normal value. And you can be sure the pension funds would not gain from that. I had thought that this all had been placed on the back burner-- if not, shut it off now!

Mr. Husted, I was not born yesterday but you are acting as if you were, when you proceed in this manner. You are very young and need more experience in life before you make life changing decisions for your elders. Divestment -- "Give it up"

Respectfully,

James O. Kimmel STRS Retiree
30 year veteran teacher
Ohio Air National Guard 1963-1969
Life long Ohio Resident

Paul Boyer and Speaker Jon Husted re: Divestiture

Paul Boyer to Jon Husted, August 17, 2007
Subject: divestiture

To the Honorable Representative Jon Husted:

I am a retired minister and teacher, having spent 29 years in the ministry and 18 years in Ohio Public School teaching. My wife had 25 years as an elementary teacher and principal. We have both enjoyed twenty-two years of retirement under the Ohio State Teachers Retirement System. We have been able to live on that income along with a very small Social Security check each month.

Now I understand that you and some of the state legislators want to cause our STRS to lose millions of dollars by divesting their investments in certain multi-national companies that do business in Iran and the Sudan as only two of the many nations where they operate. I am wondering just how much of your busy time has been spent recently in reading the Ohio Revised Code as it pertains to STRS? Let me quote a little bit of it to you.

ORC 3307:15 SAYS:

"The board and other fiduciaries shall discharge their duties with respect to the funds "solely" in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries; for the "exclusive" purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the system;"

We retirees have all interpreted that to mean that the board members have final say on how to conserve and use our money that has been taken from our pay and that which the school board contributes, also considered part of our pay. Now, when the legislature wants to pass a law telling the STRS investment counselors who and where to invest the money to make the greatest income, you are taking over the responsibilities that the Revised Code say is exclusively theirs. Please understand that our investment people have done a marvelous job in restoring what was lost a few years ago in the stock market downturn and adding more income so that today our fund is the highest it has ever been. The head of our investment division estimates that it will cost many millions of dollars to sell some of these investments and put the money into others and will continue to lose money on the new investments because they may not be as good money makers as those they were forced to sell.

I am sure that you can see that I am trying to say that the legislature will be guilty of breaking the law by forcing its will onto our investment counselors. I am also sure that you know that some of our former board members have been found guilty of using our among in a wrong way. You don't want yourself or fellow legislators to wind up in that condition.

Please look at our side of it very closely and realize that the legis;legislature is beyond the scope of its authority in considering this devestiture bill.

Thank you for your attention.

Paul L. Boyer
Retired since 1985
Life member OEA/OEA-R, NEA, ORTA, CORE
Proud to be named “Core” of CORE by Dr. Dennis Leone
---

Here is a reply I just received from House Speaker Husted. It may or may not be a form letter that he is using to reply to all letters and he evidently does not know that STRS Board rescinded their decision last week.

Paul

Jon Husted to Paul Boyer, August 20, 2007
Subject: RE: divestiture

August 20, 2007

Dear Mr. Boyer:

I received your e-mail regarding your opposition to House Bill 151. I appreciate your concern for this issue and its importance to Ohio's public employee retirees, as well as your years of service to Ohio’s students.

According to the sponsors of the legislation, the intent of House Bill 151 is to protect public pension fund dollars from the risks associated with investing in these countries and address issues of national security. As you are likely aware, House Bill 151 was scheduled for a vote on the House floor on June 5. However, after meeting with the pension plans, my colleagues and I agreed to give the plans time to deliver a letter in which they state their intent to divest at least 50 percent of their investment portfolio with the intention of divesting 100 percent at a later, unspecified date. On Thursday, June 7, Ohio’s five public employee pension systems agreed to adopt policies aimed at dropping shares of companies that do business in Iran and Sudan. The systems said that they would divest themselves of half of these investments by the end of the year and ultimately divest the rest. In this case, I am thankful the pension funds have agreed to voluntarily comply.

Again, thank you for contacting me and sharing your views on this piece of legislation. You can be assured that as we continue to discuss this measure in the Ohio House, I will be mindful of your views. If I can be of further assistance, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Jon A. Husted
Speaker
Ohio House of Representatives

Dennis Leone to STRS Board re: Curtis letter; "The whole thing smells bad"

Dennis Leone to Tom Curtis, August 5, 2007
Subject: FW: 080507 Curtis To Leone, Divestment

Tom -- I agree with you that any decision for a divestment plan is contrary to the spirit of 3307.15. What the Board majority will say, however, is that since the official Board resolution states that our ultimate divestment plan will not compromise the total assets at STRS, this is supposed to make it okay. In other words, even though tons of staff time will be needed to find different investments to make up for divestment changes, the Board majority will tell you that their fiduciary role also has not been compromised because total STRS assets have not be compromised. That’s similar to the philosophy that existed when pension money was spent (in the past) on “team building” – you know, for Kings Island, concerts, baseball games, the Columbus Zoo Light Show, parties, booze, super-expensive dinners, etc. The Board can always find a way to say that their actions (like spending pension money on the private legal fees of staff members) are proper for staff morale or staff retention, etc.

What is difficult for me to accept about the Board’s divestment resolution is that when the decision was made, the Board knew the matter was headed back to a Senate subcommittee for reconsideration and additional discussion. This was stated publicly by Mary Ann Cervantes BEFORE THE VOTE. Did this slow down the Board? No. Full speed ahead. Why? Because the staff wanted a vote to be taken. The whole thing smells bad.

Dennis Leone

Jim N. Reed to Board member Hayden re: Divestiture vote

From Jim N. Reed, August 5, 2007
Subject: Disappointed at the Divestiture Vote

Dear Ms.Hayden,

I must admit to not knowing you nearly as well as I need to as an STRS retiree. No one is more important, more crucial to us than our Board members. As you may know, I have been critical of the past and present STRS Boards. (Some of my angst is personal and some professional.) I am a member of CORE and a supporter and fan of Dr. Dennis Leone and Mr. John Lazares. I do believe both have retirees' best interests at heart. (Their personal sacrifices have endeared them to a sizable audience, numbers that can no longer be ignored as simple "malcontents.") There have been past and are present Board members who I believe had and have very little real understanding of the plight of the average retiree. This gap badly needs narrowing. Its widening could be catastrophic to many career professional educators who are surviving on the edge.

I can only speculate as to your position on this Board. My first impression was that you were understanding, empathetic, and in-touch but your recent voting record has me wondering whether you are headed toward another rubber-stamp position on this Board. Retirees cannot afford another, or a continued, "yes-Damon" Board. I became actively critical of my retirement Board when another notorious Executive Administrator, Herb Dyer, presided over a submissive, corrupt (according to the courts) Board. I fear that retirees, present and prospective, can not survive another era of that kind of obscene misspending and misdirection.

Our hope is that a new generation of Board members, Ms. Hayden, will refuse to be brainwashed and demand independent thinking in their deliberations, be critical analysts of administrative policy, the "Good Old Boy" or written kind. I'm concerned that a continuing STRS "Business as Usual" is a death knell for STRS and its contributing members.

As an example of this continued crooked thinking pattern in the Boardroom, what is the logic that props up the argument that the Board should allow the Executive Director to speak for them regarding the surrender to the General Assembly bullies who insist on the divestiture of my pension funds? How can the ED make that sacrificial (guess who the lamb is) fiduciary faux pas without a formal decision coming from my representatives on my Board? How can the Board rationalize caving into the GA and the ED when the GA doesn't even know what its doing? Is this going to leave my already embarrassed and corrupt Board's legacy with more egg on its face and more feet in its mouth?

Yes, I'm angry , again, and disappointed. Angry and disappointed that some of the recently elected and appointed Board members have not demonstrated more empathy with those within their profession who can not withstand much more adversity in their retirement status. Disgusted that Dr. Leone and Mr. Lazares must stand alone in their efforts to insist on the Board's adherence to ORC 3307.15. What is it about this brief legal statement that cannot be interpreted and followed on every decision-making process?

I just read a letter from a good and wise friend, Tom Curtis, to Dr. Leone about the divestiture issue. I believe the letter was copied to you and other Board members. How do you respond to the issue as identified so clearly by Mr. Curtis? Can you point out to me where his logic and reasoning are fallible? What are Mr. Curtis, myself, and so many other retirees asking from this Board that is unreasonable?

Thank you for listening and hearing. You have impressed me as someone who does not patronize, condescend, nor offer lip service to your constituents. That's why I send you this correspondence.

Jim N. Reed

Tom Curtis to Dennis Leone re: Divestment

From Tom Curtis, August 5, 2007
Subject: Curtis To Leone, Divestment

Hello Dennis, Concerning the issue of divestment, I want to thank you and Mr. Brooks for attempting, once again, to educate your fellow board members concerning an issue many of them have little knowledge of.

Further, it would seem that those board members voting for any action moving forward on a divestment plan are in violation of their fiduciary responsibility, according to the ORC 3307.15. I agree with you, not one minute should be spent by STRS staff on this issue.

Where does the STRS attorney stand on this issue? Was his opinion asked and did he make any statement? Why was the Attorney General not consulted and asked for a position statement?

It is my understanding that it is illegal for the Ohio legislature, or any state legislature, to order divestment of funds due to their concerns about foreign policy. Is that not to be done by the Federal government and not state or local governments?

I sent an email on 7.23.07 to the Attorney General asking where he has been on this issue and why he has not issued a ruling concerning such. I did not receive any response to my email, so I sent the same letter by snail mail this past week. I will call his office this coming week and ask if my correspondence was received and again request a response to my questions. Who is representing his office at our board meetings now? Is it still John Patterson?

Dennis, I am so tired of hearing that decisions like this one are made so as not to anger the legislature. That is pure conjecture and fear thinking! If we want HC in the future, then we simply must fund it. That is not a hard concept to understand, yet so much time, energy and money have been spent in trying to resolve this problem. As one young educator stated when speaking to the board last year, stop playing around with this problem and put the full 5% on the actives back and let's get on with it.

I need not remind you, but the STRS/OEA/ORTA have been using the fear issue concerning HC legislation since early 2003, yet still have not gained such. How long must this foolishness go on?

This follows the same rhetoric that has been stated by so many for so many years, that being, that we must find a dedicated source of income for funding HC. That statement was printed in a 1992 STRS Newsletter and yet is still unresolved in 2007. That is unbelievable to me! One would think that with all the money paid those leading the STRS, that would have been resolved by now. It is very obvious to me that it is not in the best interest of the STRS management, OEA, OFT, or ORTA to get the job done. They all have been dragging their feet, when this could have been settled years ago and the funding would be in place. As it stands now, only the retirees are suffering and I for one am damned tired of it!

Tom Curtis
STRS Retiree
CORE & ORTA Life Member

Speaker Husted responds to Paul Boyer's letter of June 7, 2007

From Jon Husted, June 18, 2007
Subject: HB 151, 152

Dear Reverend Boyer:

I received your email regarding House Bill 151 and House Bill 152. I appreciate your concern for these measures.

House Bill 151 was introduced on April 12. This measure seeks to specify procedures for divesting investments a public investor holds in directly held, publicly traded companies conducting specified types of business in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of the Sudan, prohibit public investors from investing in such a company and authorize the Ohio public deferred compensation board, the alternative retirement program and the Ohio college savings program to offer a terror-free investment option.

As you may be aware, House Bill 151 was scheduled for a vote on the House floor on June 5. However, after meeting with the pension plans, my colleagues and I agreed to give the plans time to deliver a letter in which they state their intent to divest at least 50 percent of their investment portfolio with the intention of divesting 100 percent at a later, unspecified date. On Thursday, June 7, Ohio’s five public employee pension systems agreed to adopt policies aimed at dropping shares of companies that do business in Iran and Sudan. The systems said that they would divest themselves of half of these investments by the end of the year and ultimately divest the rest. In this case, I am thankful the pension funds have agreed to voluntarily comply.

Throughout this process, it has been my hope that we will take investments out of countries that sponsor terrorism, such as these, whether it be by a change in statute or voluntary action taken by the plans themselves.

Furthermore, House Bill 152, sponsored by Representative Widener, would require school boards to establish alternative retirement plans for teachers and school employees. It was introduced on April 17 and referred to the House Financial Institutions, Real Estate and Securities Committee.

Please know that I understand your concerns related to these pieces of legislation. As discussion on both House Bill 151 and House Bill 152 continue, I will certainly be mindful of your views as we work to decide upon the best outcome for our state and Ohio’s retirees.

Again, thank you for your email. If I can be of further assistance, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Jon A. Husted
Speaker
Ohio House of Representatives