Molly Janczyk re: Bonuses and 13th check

From Molly Janczyk, November 13, 2008
Subject: RE: Bonuses and 13th check

Let's say there are 110,000 retirees. I am not sure of the current number. Was 105,000 and I saw close to 145,000 somewhere.

100,000 x $400 for each retiree in 13th ck = $40 million annually.
There are over 100,000 retirees and $400 is a low amount.
I rec'd over that in my first and only year of receiving a 13th ck in 12/99.

It seems so small to us but that is a lot of discretionary money and STRS and HCA have stated no use of discretionary monies until STRS is 30 yrs or below for their unfunded liability (basically a 30 yr debt to payout pensions and the recommended number given by the Ohio Retirement Study Council : ORSC) as well as an 80% funding ratio. Put that together with this crisis as the first priority is pensions and all that is mandated. I am unsure where we now stand on unfunded liability ; it did get down to under 30 yrs with our talented investment staff but I think it is now over 30 yrs again.

The point is, for me, appearance and sensitivity to shareholders in times of crisis. We were all thrilled when investment staff made huge gains for us outperforming their goals. Now, though, in times of struggle for shareholders, one expects their system to exercise prudence and decorum. The hugely overpriced bonuses for these times, is salt in our wounds when we cannot expect ANY relief in the form of 13th cks, or compounded COLAS, etc.

However, small changes could be made to show shareholders, STRS is sensitive to them. I outlined many ways monies could be used differently.

OEA will fight to the death over raising years for retirement. Probably, OFT as well. BUT, that is precisely what the ORSC is considering and is in order for a new time. It would be far from punitive to raise years incrementally as Soc Sec did decades ago beginning 6 yrs out so no one who is close to retiring is affected, having planned this. Of course, NO ONE worried about retirees getting hit AFTER THE FACT of retiring and did not grandfather us in. We would never want that to happen to anyone.

There are ALWAYS ways and means to accomplish goals. STRS puts out rhetoric-same ol. BUT, they CAN make such changes without legislation. Of course, our Union block on the STRS Board will fight that over any compassion for current retirees. BILL LEIBENSPERGER will help any active who wants to write a letter as he has stated previously in Ohio Schools.

Will our new Exec. Direc. stand up to the Board and make recommendations that include bettering conditions for retirees as well? So far, not.

Seems unlikely that HB 315 will go anywhere with school boards and so many against it. ORSC would like to see STRS make changes first towards achieving health goals by upping yrs of retirement along with other changes so as to direct more money into HCSF.

OEA STANDS FIRMLY AGAINST ACTIVES TAKING ANY HIT such as this.

From Alice Marson, November 13, 2008
Subject: Bonuses and 13th check

Hi Molly,

If they have that kind of money to pay bonuses why can’t we merit a 13th check?

Alice Marson
Summit Co. STRS

Kathie Bracy/Bill Leibensperger dialogue, 12/19/07

From Kathie Bracy, December 19, 2007
Subject: Re: OEA: In the spirit of open communication

Hi Bill --

I don't know why my e-mails aren't getting through, either. I hit the Reply button each time.

As far as the anonymous communication, I agree that in many cases it is gutless and cowardly, but I know there are other reasons, too. Some people are too shy or scared to sign their names; obviously, this is not the case here. There is one other good reason: to protect innocent people. I know this person is not at all shy about signing his/her own name ordinarily, but where there is good reason to think the safety or well-being of others may be at risk, anonymity is the only responsible way to go.

A lot of issues have been laid out, and a lot of people would like to know your position on them, regardless of *who* brings them up, anonymous or not (remember -- we want to talk issues, not personalities). You do not need to sit idly by. You have a perfect opportunity to enlighten all of us, and I sincerely hope you will.

Best wishes to you and yours in the coming days --

Kathie Bracy

From Bill Leibensperger, December 19, 2007
Subject: Re: OEA: In the spirit of open communication
Molly and Kathie,

I do appreciate being kept in the loop. Kathie, for some reason your e-mail responses to me are not getting to my ohea address. I only see them when Molly forwards them to me on my aol account or on the blog. It appears that you have my address correct, so I'll check on this end to see why they are not coming through. It may be because Molly's address is blocked from OEA because of the spamming of a few years ago.

As I said before, I do truly try to understand the anger that I see in these letters, but it strikes me as so deep...beyond the issues themselves. As for the anonymous communication, I can't really deal with that. Anonymous communications are gutless and cowardly by their very nature. I can't imagine what real things this individual is afraid of. His/her letter contains so many factual errors and logical fallacies that I wouldn't know where to begin addressing them. Plus, as I said, I'm not really interested in a public written debate.

As you have probably noticed, I will address actual issues. It is a new day here at OEA, and we will not sit idly by when we or our members are attacked. The "hit and run" or "shoot arrows and hide" accusations are without merit. I am always available, as Molly well knows since we are in regular contact by email, and I speak confidently when I say that Pat and Jim are available as well. As a constiuent organization of STRS we have a right, and our members would say an obligation, to lobby on behalf of our members and make public statements that reflect their views. We will continue to do that. HCA will continue to do that, as well.

I continue to plea for honest communication through civil discourse. We can accomplish so much more when working together toward a common goal like HB315 (which, by the way, would not even exist without OEA) than picking on each other over perceived injustices of the past. I won't give up in trying to keep us all focused on what we can do rather than what we haven't.

I wish you all a most joyful holiday season and best wishes in the new year.

Sincerely,

Bill Leibensperger

December 16 letters: Bill Leibensperger and Kathie Bracy

From Kathie Bracy, December 16, 2007
Subject: Re: In the spirit of open communication

Thank you, Bill. From your response, specifically where you wrote 'The Board motions to which she refers would be any "motions that would inhibit the Executive Director and Staff in carrying out their statutory responsibilities and/or hamper the System's ability to pass legislation to preserve the health care benefit,"' I would have to infer that Ms. Frost-Brooks is either unable (which is unlikely) or unwilling to articulate which specific STRS Board motions she was referring to in her testimony. Am I correct?

Kathie Bracy

From Bill Leibensperger, December 16, 2007
Subject: RE: In the spirit of open communication

Thank you, Kathy. I appreciate the clear communications.

In response to your request, there was only one motion made at the OEA RA. It was a directive to the President to address the Board around the four bullets you find in her address. Those points are verbatim from the new business item. The Board motions to which she refers would be any "motions that would inhibit the Executive Director and Staff in carrying out their statutory responsibilities and/or hamper the System's ability to pass legislation to preserve the health care benefit," in the past, present and future. I believe that the Board members are fully capable of using their professional judgment in applying this principle. I acknowledge that this response may not be what you were after, but I believe history has taught us the problems of hashing and rehashing the past. The spirit of the motion is prospective.

Finally, I don't believe President Frost-Brook's address violated any rules of the Board, but, as you point out, that is for the Board to decide. Her testimony was an example of the "one voice" alluded to in the OEA new business item and in my last missive to you. Her comments were the OEA's, as she is the embodiment of our union. They reflected not only the exact words of the new business item but also the discussion/debate of the motion. That more than one person looked at the testimony before it was presented reflects a smart practice and nothing else. When I speak on behalf of HCA you can bet that every leader of the various organizations in HCA have seen it and responded to it prior to its presentation. In neither case is an individual representing someone else's views; we are conveying a consensus viewpoint. I am afraid the strict interpretation of the rule you suggest may even preclude the acto of proofreading by another set of eyes. As a writing teacher, I could not advise such a practice.

Nonetheless, I reiterate my appreciation for this open dialogue. I look forward to our conversations evolving into the kind that generates positive collective action. Thank you.

Bill

p.s. Please feel free to post this note on your blog if you so desire.