Election talk: Bill Leibensperger, Molly Janczyk and Kathy Russell

From Molly Janczyk, April 20, 2009
Subject: Double Talk, again!: KATHRYN, Vote for Carol Correthers

Interesting double talk AGAIN from OEA! The FACT IS: -STRS IS CONSIDERING RAISING THE AGE OF RETIREMENT AND AS BILL SAYS: ALL THINGS ARE ON THE TABLE! THAT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS!!!! Source: STRS Board and OEA Candidate McGreevy who answered in the affirmative when I put this question out and he answered: All things are on the table to my asking if upping retirement age was being considered. -If anyone is naive enough to think that upping contributions IS NOT being considered, well, there is a bridge I 'd like to sell you as I need the money to pay for health care. -UPPING CONTRIBUTIONS DOES TAKE LEGISLATION! -UPPING RETIREMENT AGE TO MY KNOWLEDGE TAKES STRS BOARD APPROVAL AND DOES NOT NEED LEGISLATION: CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG: I have been told for years that the STRS Board CAN do this themselves!!!!!

If anyone is using smoke and mirrors it is OEA/OEA-R! NOT JAMES STOLL who is trying to get facts out to actives! BILL L. HAS ALWAYS IN MY OPNION SKIRTED FACTS WITH RHETORIC AND USED ALARMIST' TACTICS TO SWAY VOTERS AWAY FROM FACTS! JAMES STOLL, LIKE DENNIS LEONE, USES STRS FIGURES NOT OEA SHROUDED ONES.

EDUCATORS: SHOULD YOUR STUDENTS PASS BECAUSE THEY DID BETTER THAN THE NEXT CLASS EVEN THO THEY UNDERPREFORMED? THAT IS BILL L./OEA/STRS LOGIC.

IT IS YOUR MONEY AWARDED STRS STAFF WHEN YOU CANNOT AFFORD YOUR MEDICAL BILLS IN THESE DIFFICULT TIMES! STRS EXISTS BECAUSE OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS AND YOU, THE SHAREHOLDER, SHOULD COME FIRST!!!! DO YOU?

IF ONLY STRS, OEA, OFT alarmed folks long ago of this impending crisis AND THEY KNEW IT WAS COMING SINCE THE EARLY 90's! JOE ENDRY advised them at that time change was needed and legislation was in the offing to mandate health care. OEA AND STRS said it was not necessary! Former Exec Direc and OEA's pick Dyer said he wanted out of the health care business and it seems that is just where we were headed-spend what's left and then say, we're out. WHAT STOPPED THIS??? A FEW RETIREES HEADED BY DENNIS LEONE AND JOHN LAZARES WHO BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MEDIA MUCH TO OEA's DISMAY! OEA's reaction was to hurl accusations and untruths slandering Leone never to apologize even though Leone was proven correct on all counts and Dyer and his 5 ACTIVE STRS OEA BOARD MEMBERS AND ONE RETIREE FOLLOWER WERE ALL CONVICTED OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS! They chose to ride the wave of the market, spend on themselves and NOT act prudently on behalf of membership with long term planning to secure health care funding. You can deny bad behavior all you want BUT WHEN DOES I T BECOME PAINFULLY AND BLATANTLY CLEAR THAT STRS AND OEA DID NOT PROTECT MEMBERSHIP??

JAMES STOLL IS TRYING TO EDUCATE YOU AND PROTECT YOUR FUTURES! LEONE AND LAZARES WARNED FOR YEARS THAT PENSIONS MAY BE JEOPARDIZED IF STRS CONTINUED ITS PATH! HERE WE ARE! STRS IS CONCERNED ABOUT PENSIONS FOR ITS ACTIVES DOWN THE ROAD!

Head in the sand or research yourselves the real facts! Listening to Bill L. will only ease your minds short term but Leone, Stoll, Lazares try to inform and work towards long term solutions to protect you.

Jim Stoll: Active STRS Board Candidate Bob Stein: Retiree STRS Board Candidate

McGreevy is OEA-R prototype and though a nice man, I feel unable to leave his comfort zone to vote for real change against his comrades.

From Bill Leibensperger, April 9, 2009
Subject: RE: KATHRYN, Vote for Carol Correthers

Dear Ms. Russell,

I’m afraid someone has sold you a bill of goods, but I certainly respect your right to vote for the candidate of your choice.

There are two key reasons we did not endorse Mr. Stoll for this position: 1) he didn't screen, and 2) Carol Correthers is a superior candidate. She is the OEA-endorsed candidate, which means that she has passed a screening made up of knowledgeable members representing both active and retired teachers. The questions to which she responded required an in-depth knowledge of the issues, a commitment to serve all, and an understanding of the duty.

I20am guessing that your members are responding to the deceptive communication from her opponent. I have seen the chart that Mr. Stoll is sending around. Probably a majority of members are "frosted" over the whole bonus thing. Unfortunately, there are those (including a current Board member who is supporting Mr. Stoll) who would pander to members' emotions and fears in order to make themselves look good, rather than work collaboratively with others to protect the integrity of a very strong system that will take care of all of us for the rest of our lives.

Mr. Stoll's email has selected "facts." One of the important ones missing is that the Board did approve a new bonus policy without a dissenting vote after much deliberation and preliminary voting. Another fact that is difficult for many of us as teachers to understand is that bonuses are actually the way investment staff are paid throughout the industry. STRS investment staff have outperformed the industry, but the Board in their wisdom and in respect to the members they serve have passed a policy that curtails bonuses when there are losses (even when the losses are significantly less than the overall market).

Carol Correthers does support strong operational controls and understands that members expect STRS to run their operations in a prudent way. I think you can rest assured that Carol will always make go od decisions based on intelligent deliberation and a strong commitment to all members of the system. Certainly she will not try to alarm members with "the sky is falling" kinds of messages, as she understands the gravity of the position for which she is running. Members will find her very accessible.

It is important that we protect our retirement by electing intelligent, reflective, and hardworking representatives who will do their homework and never put any personal interests ahead of the well being of current and future retirees. I hope we can count on you to support OEA-endorsed candidate Carol Correthers. She has my vote.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Bill Leibensperger
Vice President
Ohio Education Association

From Kathy Russell, April 6, 2009
Posted To: govtsrv Conversation: KATHRYN, Vote for Carol Correthers
Subject: Re: KATHRYN, Vote for Carol Correthers

Dear Mr. Leibensperger,

I hope you are aware that more and more people are becoming very upset about the policies of the OEA and particularly the way the OEA endorsed candidates who are elected to the STRS board have been wasting our hard earned retirement money. More and more active teachers are watching what is going on at STRS and are choosing to vote for the other candidates, NOT endorsed by the OEA. We would much rather elect people who have our best interests at heart like Dennis Leone. We are tired of the way the STRS board has wasted our money on extravagances for themselves when they should have been taking better care of OUR money. Thanks to your board members, retired teachers no longer get a 13th check, the health care fund is in serious danger of being completely depleted, and the retirement fund has lost many billions of dollars. We would rather elect someone who will actually be responsible to take care of OUR money, not just say they will, and then do whatever the OEA tells them to do with it. Furthermore, we are appalled by the way the OEA refuses to allow the other candidates to campaign in the public schools. EVERY candidate has a right to campaign and should be allowed to put fliers in any school they wish to. It is outrageous that the OEA representatives in many school districts will only allow campaigning for their own can didates. I, for one, will be voting for JIM STOLL, not Carol Carrethers.

Sincerely,
Kathryn Russell

From Bill Leibensperger, April 6, 2009
Subject: KATHRYN, Vote for Carol Correthers

Dear KATHRYN,

Those of you who are active teachers and contribute to STRS will be receiving a ballot in the mail in the next few days to elect a new member to the STRS Board. OEA has endorsed Carol Correthers for this position. Carol is a special education teacher in the Lorain City Schools. She has a wide range of experience, including service on the OEA Board of Directors and a local school board. She is committed to this important role and in her advocacy for our members.

The current state of our economy and the rapid decline in stock prices over the last 18 months has made the benefit of belonging to STRS even more valuable. I’m sure you all have friends or family members who have lost their jobs or lost their retirement savings. For Ohio’s teachers, the benefits provided by STRS represent our economic security in retirement, and OEA will continue to work to protect those benefits. This will not be easy. STRS has experienced more than $30 billion in market losses, and the STRS board and staff must work together to address policies on how to manage retirement and health care funds as we wait for the securities markets to recover. At times like these, we need strong, experienced members on the STRS Board to help ensure that we continue to have the pension and retiree health care benefits we need and deserve. Carol Correthers is just such a person.

Carol is a classroom teacher who has earned the endorsement of both OEA and the Ohio Federation of Teachers. Through her experience on other boards, she’s overseen budgets, set policy and dealt with personnel issues. She knows that collaboration and thoughtful judgments yield better results for our members than knee-jerk reactions, bombast and combativeness. However, make no mistake: Carol is a strong and decisive leader.

I noted with dismay that in a recent campaign email, Carol’s opponent implies that STRS might raise the retirement age, increase required contribution rates from members or make other changes to our pension benefits. The fact is the STRS Board does not have the power to do any of these things. Such changes require a change in state law. What is true is that the STRS Board is examining changes that they may recommend for legislation and that “everything is on the table.” Given the critical nature of these discussions, I feel it’s more important than ever to have Board members with the knowledge, experience and temperament to serve in this important role.

Please make the time to vote in the upcoming STRS Board election, and I encourage you to vote for Carol Correthers.

Retired members of STRS will be electing two new Board members. OEA has endorsed James McGreevy and David Preslan for these seats on the Board. Please do all that you can to get out the vote among retirees to get these two highly qualified gentlemen elected. More information on each of OEA’s endorsed candidates is available on www.ohea.org.

Sincerely, Bill Leibensperger
OEA Vice-President

Minutes of the March 19, 2009 C.O.R.E. Meeting

March 25, 2009

Twenty-five Concerned Ohio Retired Educator (CORE) members were in attendance at the March 19^th meeting in the Sublet Room on the second floor of the STRS Building in Columbus. At noon President Dave Parshall opened the monthly meeting by asking for acceptance of the February minutes. Mary Ellen Angeletti moved that they be accepted; Kathie Bracy seconded the motion.

Cards were circulated for members to sign for Donna Thorp and Ruby Fisher, who are both recovering from surgeries. Due to Ruby’s surgery, Treasurer Herman Fisher was unable to attend the meeting. However, he did send word via President Dave that our account is in the black.

There were no committee reports, but President Parshall reminded everyone that membership is still encouraged. In fact, currently CORE has over 1700 e-mail addresses. It was stressed that those e-mail addresses are very important.)

The new business part of the meeting revolved around the upcoming STRS election. CORE is endorsing Jim Stoll, active teacher, and Bob Stein and Jim McGreevy, retirees. A CORE flyer highlighting the three CORE-endorsed candidates will be sent out as soon as Jim McGreevy’s photo is added to the flyer. Once the flyers are completed and available, members are encouraged to run more off and to distribute them to teachers, retired and active.

Dave read the letter CORE received from candidate Jim McGreevy: What follows is the body of that letter:

“I would like to extend my thanks to the membership of CORE for their endorsement of my candidacy for the position on the STRS Board representing retired members. Over the past several years I have worked hard to educate myself on the issues that are important to our members, and if elected I will continue to work diligently to represent those members to the best of my ability as a fiduciary under ORC 3307.15.

CORE’s endorsement of me represents an expansive “big tent” approach to the issues confronting all of us at STRS. Frankly, I see a lot of very tough issues ahead that will require some difficult solutions. Please be assured that if I am entrusted with this position I will always be open to your advice and the counsel of your leadership. It is probably unrealistic to believe that we will always agree on every detail, but I have faith that all of the stakeholders, working together at STRS, can achieve our goal of providing financial security to our members.”

Following the explanation of the flyers, a discussion of health care ensued. It was commented upon that even though Medicare Advantage programs were cheap up front, the administrative costs are up. (There is a profit from running it.) Most members seemed to agree that it would be hard to pass even a revised H.B. 315 in the current economic climate. It was generally agreed that a long term “fix” is needed. We need to get the message out about health care and our pension. We must support each other. A national healthcare solution my be our only hope. Start to get involved. See the letter writing suggestion below. Dave Parshall will be attending a Single Payer grassroots meeting soon and will report back.

The topic of the meeting then turned to our pension fund…and the use of the word “safe” as opposed to “guaranteed.” In an effort to answer this, President Dave read a letter from a CORE lawyer, who had tried to address the matter for us. He directed members to Chapter 3307 of the Ohio Revised Code. The legal expert stated, “The sections on contributions are found starting at Section 3307.26.Benefits begin at Section 3307.50. The regulations that do detail policy are generally found at Ohio Administrative Code Section 3307:1-3-01. There are also a lot of sections to read.”

The lawyer continued, “You should be able to find the codes on line. I believe that Ohio Legislature maintains a site with the Revised code. This will keep you busy for a while…”

Plenty of discussion followed the reading of the letter. AIG, local pension systems, Warren Buffett, the top eight corporations being in fiscal trouble, single-payer health care possibilities, and the power of grass roots’ efforts were all roundly discussed. One suggestion that came out of the group’s conversation was that members need to be writing letters. To this end Alice Faryna will e-mail a model letter so that members will have a guide, if they need one. It was also suggested that concise, legible, hand-written letters were the most effective. Legislators, the governor, and newspapers should hear from us In fact, in order to help us get the word out, there is a link to editors of any papers on Bob Stein’s site.

The meeting closed at 1:30 after a reminder that people need to be attending the STRS Board Meetings. We need to have a presence so that we have an impact. For those who can’t attend a meeting, call and ask STRS to send a CD of that month’s meeting!

Respectfully submitted,

Marie M. Fetters

CORE Secretary

CORE endorsements

February 19, 2009

At today's CORE meeting, the following candidates for STRS Board were selected for endorsement:

.....Bob Stein (retiree seat)
.....Jim McGreevy (retiree seat)
.....Jim Stoll (active seat)

-----------------------------------------------------------

James McGreevy -- Candidate for STRS Board (Retired Seat)

Endorsed by: " OEA/OEA-Retired " Ohio Federation of Teachers " CORE (Concerned Ohio Retired Educators)

My priorities for STRS are:

1. Health Care -- Unless a dependable, adequate revenue stream to fund health care can be secured, this important benefit is in jeopardy of being eliminated in a very few years. The recent credit and equity market problems, combined with a continued high rate of medical care inflation, have accelerated the decline in the Health Care Stabilization Fund. Legislation to provide additional funds will be a hard sell in these tough economic times. Although health care is not guaranteed for STRS benefit recipients, retirees know there is no secure retirement without health care. A solution must be found.

2. Pension Funding -- STRS total fund assets have dropped precipitously in the past year. As a long-term investor, STRS has the resources to weather this downturn, but prudent management of its funds and increased attention to investment policy and asset allocation should be a major focus of the Board's work.

3. Defense of Defined Benefit Pension Plans -- In the past few years, defined benefit pensions like STRS have come under attack in a variety of ways. Public sector pension systems have seen politicians demand divestment of stocks, without regard for the impact on our assets, in order to further some political, foreign policy, or cultural agenda. Defined contribution programs have been pushed in the hope of driving down costs, disregarding the facts that such programs do not provide an adequate income for retirement and are actually more expensive. For-profit charter schools undermine teacher salaries, reducing contributions to STRS. Social Security "reformers" continue to propose mandatory coverage that would ultimately dismantle pension systems like STRS. These assaults represent greater threats to teachers' retirement security than stock market crashes, terrorist attacks, or bad investment choices, and we must be vigilant in fending them off.

Candidate's Background Information

STRS
2008 Awarded The International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans' Certificate of Achievement in Public Plan Policy (CAPPP) following training and examinations on pensions and health care

2008 Attended Ohio Forum for Pensions

2005 - Present Attended STRS Board Meetings, Retreats, and Special Health Care Committee meetings as OEA-R representative

2007 - Present Health Care Champion for STRS - in support of HB 315

NEA/OEA/EOEA/MEEA
2006 - Present OEA Board of Directors, OEA-R representative
2000 - 2003 OEA - Audit Committee Chair
2000 - 2003 OEA Program & Budget Committee Vice-Chair
1997 - 2003 OEA Board of Directors - EOEA Representative
1997 - 2003 OEA Program & Budget Subcommittee
1995 - 1997 EOEA District Vice-President
1978 - 1997 Mid-East Education Association - various executive offices and lead negotiator on three master contracts

Other Experience
1985 - 1993 MCS Employees Credit Union - Board of Directors, Treasurer
(MCSECU was a multi-county teachers credit union that merged with the Ohio Educational Credit Union in the 1990's)
1980 - 1984 Corporate officer and assistant manager of family-owned wholesale beer distribution business.

Community
1997 - 2008 Festival of Learning, Cambridge, Ohio - Steering Committee
2005 - 2008 OSU Alumni Association of Muskingum County - Board of Directors, Scholarship Committee Chair

Education
1970, 1975 The Ohio State University, B.S., M.A.

Employment
1970 - 2005 Mid-East Career & Technology Centers, Social Studies Teacher
3.16.09

Dennis Leone enlightens Jim McGreevy on reality of search process for new STRS leader

Jim McGreevy to Dennis Leone, May 19, 2008
Subject: Report Addendum

Dennis --
Thanks for the information on the ED search process. I will send an addendum to my Board Meeting report tomorrow to OEA-R members. The text of that is copied below. I'm glad to hear that the possible reasons I cited for the delay were off-target.
- Jim

After sending my STRS Board Report yesterday, I received an email from Board member Dennis Leone that sheds more light on the Executive Director search process.
Dr. Leone reports that thus far the Board has “spent three days in executive session interviewing candidates…and one day discussing the candidates privately” among themselves as well as consulting with Hudepohl & Associates, the headhunter firm hired to assist in the nationwide search. Leone described these sessions as “very productive” and characterized by a spirit of genuine collaboration among Board members. He confirmed a rumor that two candidates were in Columbus on Wednesday to meet with senior STRS staff as well as the Board.
Leone stated unequivocally that none of the reasons I had speculated were the cause of the delay in hiring a successor to Damon Asbury were at issue, but that the Board is “taking our time, doing it right, carefully checking references, having multiple interviews with candidates who look good, giving all board members the chance to ask all questions desired, and trying our hardest to develop a consensus, which, thus far, is occurring - it appears 10-0.”
Although no one is suggesting a firm timetable, it appears from this report that the process is on track for a successful resolution.

Search For New Executive Director Continues
[From Jim McGreevy's original report to OEA-R on the May 2008 STRS Board meeting]
The Friday session of the May meeting of the Board was punctuated by frequent and lengthy executive sessions to interview candidates for the soon-to-be-vacated post of STRS Executive Director and other related issues. Damon Asbury’s retirement is set to begin July 1, so time is growing short to settle on a candidate, agree to contract provisions, and get the new ED on board to assure a smooth transition.
There had been some speculation that an announcement might be made at Friday’s meeting, but the Board spent the majority of time that day in executive session, cancelled a planned report on the new computer system, and returned to the open session only to conclude routine business matters in a brief twenty-three minute sprint to adjournment. No information as to progress or problems was provided, further fueling speculation as to what the holdup may be. Is it lack of a suitable candidate, dissension among members of the Board, a snag in contract negotiations with the preferred candidate, or some other issue? No one is saying, but the Board continues to project a unified, positive view that the position would be filled with a highly qualified person to lead the system.

After the election: comments from Molly

From Molly Janczyk, May 12, 2008
Subject: The STRS Election: Local union letters

Congratulations to Tim Myers on being elected to the STRS Board.

I wish to comment on a items being circulated by Whitehall and most likely, I think, other local unions. I feel certain regardless of what is said, that Bill L. was the scribe or suggestor of items in a sample letter to the local school districts suggesting they send such letters to actives.

One ex. was Whitehall School District letter. I feel sure that similar letters went out in many if not most or all of the OEA schools. That is fine. We knew OEA had the money and power to completely overwhelm any efforts on our behalf. We expected all out efforts to reach actives. Unfortunately, we expected untruths as well and we got that.

1. CORE has NEVER fought against the 35 yr. rule. I have had that conversation with Bill L., McGreevy and other OEA officials on line and in person. I put out a very comprehensive letter to them and membership that BOTH retirees and actives benefited from HB 190 and precisely HOW each group benefited. I stated that NO ONE wants to take away benefits from one group over another. I HAVE fought to ensure this stand explaining it to any retirees who questioned this issue. The issue has been raised in discussion and this was always the result with NO EFFORT EVER FROM CORE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE 35 yr. rule.

Bill knows this. I continue to be saddened at the lack of integrity in the use of scare tactics so unneeded in what was going to be a landslide without lies (my opinion).

2. Another mistruth: CORE IS NOT against OEA but against OEA officials who have misled membership and who did not take steps to correct the problems with the former convicted OEA STRS Board members. CORE formed when OEA did not step up to provide oversight of the misspending which is verified and for which all the former OEA Board members were convicted of ethics violations.

That is NOT unfounded and hardly irrational. What is irrational is OEA not taking a stand in this cleaning house of its offending STRS Board members.

3. Misleading: CORE knows that OEA stated in the early 90s that legislation for a stream of revenue for health care was unnecessary. Joe Endry, former ORTA president went to the STRS Board back then and informed OEA of this need. OEA and STRS Exec. Direc. Herb Dyer, (OEA's choice for Exec. Direc.) did not feel it necessary. Dyer stated he wanted OUT OF THE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS! No long term planning was done to preserve health care and NOW OEA is working for HB 315, as is CORE, following CORE's efforts to clean up the Board and pursue CORE's number one goal: health care in retirement.

4. Naïve: It is naïve for anyone to think that there is no influence by organizations on STRS Board members. As attending membership clearly sees, the policies and mentalities are evidenced at every meeting. Similar organizational Board members tend to vote the same way, as happened with the former convicted STRS Board members who voted to approve every misspending item 100% of the time. An organization can and does infiltrate thinking and independence is not always evident though it is supposedly required. Block votes are very obvious by the same persons month after month very often.

We attend the meetings. We wish to help actives have health care in retirement. We wish for independent STRS Board members who listen to no organization but only adhere to the Ohio Revised Code to act solely on behalf of membership.

We want everyone to work for the same standard and nothing less. We want the leaders of organizations to stand tall with complete transparency and integrity. Where was OEA leadership in 2003 when all the information came out regarding their OEA STRS Board members who enjoyed $600 hotel rooms in Hawaii and Alaska, paying bar bills and flying from Ohio to NY for $1000? Where were they when STRS Board members awarded your money (interest on contributions) to huge bonuses, to pay for staff childcare, cars, credit cards, lunchroom, fitness center, and so much more. Unfounded? Irrational?

Had it not been for CORE, Leone and Lazares, those former OEA STRS Board members would still be enjoying the ride on your dime.

It remains a travesty that actives are not informed and take the word of organizations over their own research. We did the research and every item was found verifiable. Read the investigative reporters' articles on this issue. Plain Dealer: 6/08/03; 6/12/03 and more; Canton Repository: many articles. Leone and reporter Paul Kostyu of the Canton Repository won journalist awards for their STRS research. Cols. Dispatch, ONN, Cinci Ch. TV, Cols. TV, Dennis Shreefer -- radio talk show, Akron Beacon Journal, etc., etc.

Are they ALL irrational and unfounded?

No one could write the letters from the local(s) who is either not bending or misleading the facts, or who had bothered to actually find the truth.

This is not because Tim won as we knew he would do by a landslide as predicted by us. It is because we cannot seem to see any raising of the bar or complete integrity in doing so.

Molly Janczyk
OEA/NEA Lifetime
CEA Lifetime
ORTA Lifetime
CORE
STRS Retiree

A word of truth

Dennis Leone to Ryan Holderman and John Curry, May 11, 2008
Subject: RE: A word of truth

What CORE did (shame on CORE) was that Lloyd Knudson gave 2 blockbuster speeches refuting the back-to-back rhetoric of Bill Liebensperger and Patricia Frost-Brooks – when both suggested that the STRS Board should reject all 5 of the governance motions (3 passed) that I recommended. Tim Myers fits this picture perfectly. What actually was worse than Myers’ “crackpot” statement was his assertion (in writing) that my recommendations and calls for reform in 2003 were already under way at STRS. (Yeah, right!) It’s so typical OEA. Gary Allen called me “destructive” and a person with “unclear motives,” Conni Ramser called me “childish,” Jim McGreevy called me a “spoiled brat” and Myers called me a “crackpot.” So OEA.

Dennis Leone

From Ryan Holderman, May 11, 2008
Subject: Fw: A word of truth

Dear One & All:

I did find a single word of truth in the talking points put out by Whitehall Education Association:

"CORE’s attacks on OEA are viscous, unfounded and irrational."

What Dennis Leone and CORE had to say about OEA sponsored former STRS Board members' complicity in the mismanagement at STRS did stick all the way to court!

Later,
Ryan

-----

Note from John...here's the link to what Ryan was referring to:

http://whitehallea.com/files/Talking_Points_on_STRS_Campaign.pdf

-----
Gee -- it's interesting that he labels our "attacks" as "viscous." At least he didn't say they were "vicious." KBB

Molly Janczyk: Anonymous writer

From Molly Janczyk, January 10, 2008
Subject: Anonymous writer on Kathie's blog: Jim McGreevy

I did not promise I would not say who the writer was and I felt sure I knew who it was since the beginning it was Jim due to the newly inserted Baldrige language along with many similar things which he had used with me tho not ever name calling that I recall with me.

Jim,

I know now it was you writing to Kathie (NOT FROM KATHIE) and it has changed things for me. You have been writing things far stronger to others than what you write me about Dennis which I feel are untrue and completely closed minded and clearly a line drawn for me.

Name calling and mean spirited - which is what you have always said you disagreed with. I cannot trust you and think you played me with a different tune using less inflammatory rhetoric.

Do not use anonymous anymore with any thought that it will remain so. Kathie DID NOT tell me. You have burned some bridges.

There is no discussion on this. I thought you were trying to reach out but you were trying to spread venom.

It is hopeless with you people. You will not change and until you are changed from your positions, you hold no credibility with me.

This changes nothing regarding our work for HB315 which is for retirees, not OEA. OEA is just finally taking steps to do something or show something which should have been done long ago.

Molly Janczyk to Jim McGreevy, January 9, 2008

Subject: Jim: AND Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:04:30 -0500

AND he is not an attack dog, he is frustrated over lack of action and support for all the past approved motions of his and Lazares none of which would have occurred and all of which you said you agree with.

If it is you calling Dennis this, he will never believe me again about trying to establish communication with you. I thought in my heart that you wanted to be able to talk with him and he was going to try soon. If he gets wind this was you calling him an attack dog and a leopard, that is dead and I am a liar. Nothing could be further from the truth-Dennis NEVER changed or will change his spots. He is a true believer in and for retirees.

Please tell me you are not calling Dennis an attack dog and a leopard. I assume it is you (anonymous) writing Kathie due to the Baldrige speak.

Open challenge from Dennis Leone to STRS Board: Which policies do you want to drop?

Dennis Leone to Molly Janczyk, January 1, 2008
Subject: Voting on "All" Operational Issues?

Since McGreevy and the Board majority are apparently worried that my real motive is to have the board vote on all operational issues, I think it is time for me to make a motion for the Board to withdraw about 25 policies that have been adopted since 2003. I will list them on a paper and ask the board members to say publicly which ones they’d like to drop and reinstate so we are not micromanaging and so the executive director won’t feel that we don’t trust him. Let’s see, let’s reinstate the one permitting staff member children to drive STRS cars. Let’s forget about requiring itemized receipts for meals, or purchasing plane tickets 30 days in advance, or forbidding subjective factors to be used to determine investment staff bonuses, or requiring a review of contract summaries before we vote on multi-million dollar issues, or forbidding the expenses of Board member spouses to be paid at conferences, or not allowing fax machines, credit cards, or personal phone calls to be billed by Board members. Gosh, Molly, while we are at it, let’s drop the policy forbidding the purchase of alcohol, requiring the child care center to be cost neutral, spending pension money on entertainment, like concerts, baseball game, Kings Island, and the Columbus Zoo Light Show. And while we are at it, let’s allow vendors to give tickets to staff for Broadway Show and Cleveland Indians baseball games, and let’s drop spending limitations for staff members on trips altogether. I mean, after all, the prior system worked so well, let’s just stop adopting policies to address issues that arise. Shame on the board for agreeing with me on any of these items in the past.

Dennis Leone

From Molly Janczyk, January 1, 2008
Subject: RE: Legal Fees

NO ONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD VOTE ON EACH AND EVERY OPERATIONAL ITEM AND FOR THIS TO BE STATED IS PURE INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION!!!!!!!! It is suggested that on the very rare circumstances (my words) when a staff member has a question of legal representation , that this is a case by case situation by the AG: Patterson and when asked how this should be worded as policy, STRS Legal mind Neville stated: "Unless otherwise dictated by law , no legal fees for associates should be paid without Board approval." What you think the legal opinion may also has no place. This is the quote in the minutes. What a Board member thinks has no place without confirmable legal backing by legal minds and the AG.

This low tactic of making generalized situations out of one issue is to continue to smoke and mirror tactics hoping some of this misrepresentation sticks even though NO ONE has ever wanted to micromanage operational issues beyond stated and at times changed for the better policy. This reeks of no leg to stand on so let's go for attempting to confuse the issue.

No one may misrepresent as an argument basis. What is suggested is not the case nor has it been the case. It is for a rare circumstance which no one policy can possible cover so as the AG said to me first thing: "Molly, this is a case by case situation. What Dennis proposed has nothing wrong with it and it can be reintroduced as a motion." Dennis made Neville's words a motion: "So moved!" when Neville answered how this issue (of legal fees) can be corrected: "Unless otherwise dictated by law, NO associate legal fees should be paid without Board (not Exec. Direc, not Staff: BOARD) approval."

That is all I have to say and this is my mantra.

Janczyk, Leone & McGreevy discussion: unfunded liability, Ferguson contract

From Molly Janczyk, October 25, 2006

Subject: RE: Major Point Not Missed on Unfunded Liability

I agree about Betty's performance stated in Jim's notes below. Dennis just wished the report first to visit the issue.

Re: Ferguson: yes, I know it is policy but to us, that is not all the picture. It was the large payout to a firm without the board knowing all the details, once again, that is the problem. I would like to hear that kind of thing in your reports, is all. Not just what is general rule but also why some question these things, as I would hope you would want from those who oversee your dollars. That is the pt. to me. Jim, we can all play nice and do business as was usual or we can question and know what we are doing this time around. We sent Lazares and Leone to question. They are listening to us and only doing what WE ask of them. I think this point is missing in a lot of exchange. We WANT to know about any slipped through issues or spending and yes, we would have liked to know the mechanics of the Ferguson Deal and how it operates. OUR MEMBERHIP is one who questions these issues and Lazares and Leone take our questions and any other items which should be known to us to the meetings. WE WANT TO KNOW!

For all to see: regarding the bringing up of other ways to lower unfunded liability other than the always charted and used 1% .

WE REALIZE AND NO ONE WANTS TO CHANGE THE NOW IN EFFECT OF SB190! IT IS NOT AN OPTION NOR ON ANYONE'S AGENDA! The point was not to be comparable .

This is the point: Retirees are scared to death of losing HC should legislation not pass.
1% to HC is constantly charted over the years as a way the STRS Board could lower unfunded liability. It is said it is not being considered. Retirees do not trust that statement as we have learned the hard way that when STRS discusses something it may very well come to pass. So, WHY, was Leone's question, is THAT the ONLY way presented when there are other ways to reduce liability ALSO no one wants or considers them either. But to keep using this example scares members as though if push comes to shove, it may be considered. We would strongly fight that.

He was only raising the point of there are multiple ways so why only ever mention 1%. NOT BECAUSE HE WANTS TO CHANGE SB190 AND NO ONE DOES. We understand ALL BENEFIT FROM IT! The only change I have heard mentioned was by the retiree who spoke Thurs. 10/19 who feels the addt'l benefit retro to '99 and passed '00 was unfair. Of course, retiring in '99, I feel good about it. I didn't benefit from the '98 Incentive for Retiring and I won't benefit from future benefits most likely. Things change and enhancements are part of it. I am better off than older retirees and won't be as well off than younger ones. I don't benefit from 35 yrs and probably wouldn't have retired if I have understood it all back then. That's life. I do benefit from SB190 thought as most retirees do. It would be disastrous to try to change SB190 for actives and retirees already benefiting and Leone has said he would never want to take away benefits from anyone.

You know, folks, listen to the man. Hear what he SAYS IN CONTEXT and stop jumping on every word taken out of context and it is simple: if you have a question, ask him directly instead of supposing and he and Lazares will tell anyone up front and personal. They are really easy to approach. Thousands of us do it and RTA's love them. Take down the wall and attitude and just talk/discuss and stop name calling and behave universally. You can't say be a team player on your issue and vote against them on every issue the membership wants like NO DOCUMENT: NO VOTE and simply LOOKING AT WHERE OUR MONEY GOES . YOU ALL BE TEAM PLAYERS! TEAM MEMBERSHIP! Where were you as team players on those issues or when Lazares and Leone are wrongly attacked in the media?

Where are you THEN? Did any of you support them/him?

NO!

You only want to point out what you view as negative and then fault them when you disagree instead of establishing real dialogue which might, oh no! result in heated debate and then finding ways to uniform compromises.

YOU want to give veiled attacks on not working professionally you call it for legislators to see. As Angelettis pointed out so well: DO YOU THINK LEGISLATORS WILL APPROVE LEGISLATION WHEN THEY SEE BLATANT MISUSE OF FUNDS? The old board found ways 'LEGAL' but not ethical IS THE POINT and this is same ol when THIS board approves rubber stamping money spending by Damon and staff and Board members whether $1400 or $55 credit card fees secretly used until Gary Hollow inquired about Dennis to no avail and Damon had to present all Board Member records. Hollow didn't expect that, he said, when Dennis thanked him for his actions making these records available.

Legislators ARE looking at us for RESPONSIBLE spending and INTEGRITY of spending, for OPEN AND HONEST dialogue resulting in REAL solutions so they see we are trying all we can. Billirakis was praised as if a saint had died. This board member was convicted of 4 ethics violations and OEA chose to speak of his professionalism and impossible to replace interactions on the HCA committee. Bill had how many years to get this rolling and did nothing until STRS Board Members were found out. Suddenly, his name muddied, he wanted to save HC and pled with us to keep him out of our 'news.' WHERE WAS HE all the years on the board when HE KNEW HC was a disaster as OEA and STRS knew since late 80's/early 90's and is documented. WHERE WAS his influence these past 3 yrs even when he decided to be the one to save HC?

Mike was approving misspending and NOT working to save HC, is where he was. Mike was as the Canton Repo said, 'milking the system' another 'legal' but unethical way to up his salary and retirement benefits by being a 'teacher' in the Perry Local SD without ever showing up for one day of teaching while earning big bucks on the road for NEA.

This is who OEA chooses to LAUD! This is the one OEA chooses to use as an example of professionalism and demeanor for other board members. This is who we should mimic in efforts for legislators to see we all are on the same page. FORGET IT!

We will work for HC legislation but we do not feel to behave as Billirakis did is the answer. We do not feel not looking at contracts or voting without documentation or watching Damon's spending is the way to 'all get along ' and be 'team players.' WE WILL NOT ACCEPT SUCH ACCUSATIONS ONLY USED WHEN WE DISAGREE AND FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT FOR MEMBERSHIP!

If we speak up, oh, be careful, legislators are looking. If you laud such ridiculous ex.'s of professionalism and stand up for 'team playing' on wrong issues, YOU THINK LEGISLATORS AREN'T LOOKING?

They are looking for how we changed, how we oversee what we have, how we stand for membership according to : ORC:3307.15.

It is YOU who don't watch and blindly support those who are convicted who should be worried about legislators!

Legislators, of all people, know honest and passionate dissension brings solutions and real compromise. Problem : This board is so blindsided by what they want and fighting Leone and Lazares they don't see the exceptional qualities they are wasting using these men for local school board presentations, RTA presentations, legislator meetings and school district meetings. THESE ARE THE 2 WHO MEMBERSHIP RESPECTS AND BELIEVES!

Find a renewed path to communication of real debate and working through issues and you will find a "team." Tom Mooney should be on this board. He knows perfectly how to talk with Leone and Lazares with no problems. Mark Frederick should be on this board as he is not afraid to speak and to listen. Tom Hall should be on this board with expertise and understanding of economic and investment issues. Instead we have individuals who want to play nice and give appearances of all agreeing when they don't.

I'm sick to death of this continued play acting. If you can't stand the heat of real work, get out of the fire and let us have those who wish to roll up their sleeves and get down with improving our lot. This isn't a tea party and you don't have board meeting experience. You belong to the old board mentality of good ole boys and girls if you want just and only to play nice with your friends. YOU ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS! YOU ARE THE GUARDIANS OF OUR FUNDS! GUARD THEM!

And as a member of every organization, I want to hear exactly who felt how and voted how. Report ALL the facts not some generic nice general write up and approved issues with no specifics.

Personally, I think Mary Ann and Jeff are nice people but not experience enough or with enough fight to stand up for what is right for membership. Either learn to stand up or go back to your nice lives. Mark M., you are obviously taking a 'learned' approach. I like you. You have kept your word to be responsive. But, take from books what is needed and couple it with reality of a lost trust and needed oversight not in books as we are not those systems but one that has proven we need oversight-esp. with Damon
(regardless of STRS surveys; take your own survey but be sure to mix it up with ages and all membership and let us write the questions)

No insult intended but membership is not happy and we have waited long enough for experience to be learned and views taken seriously.

Thanks.

-----
Jim McGreevy to Molly Janczyk, October 25, 2006

Subject: Major Point Not Missed on Unfunded Liability

Molly -

I've exchanged emails with Dennis about the two emails you forwarded.

Regarding the Ferguson contract: I don't believe anything I put in my report was inaccurate. I reviewed my notes and I believe I got it right. The bottom line on that contract is, as the staff who negotiated reported to the Board, the language on paying fees was standard contract language for high end headhunters.

On the Montgomery letter: I don't give a rat's patoot what Betty Montgomery SAYS she would have done had she been on the Board. The key point as far as I'm concerned is the legality of the payment. Was it poor judgment on Damon's part to pay it? I think it was. Had I been on the Board would I have voted to approve it? No. But, given Betty's dismal past record on such issues, I don't put much credence in anything she says. She's trying to have it both ways with this letter. Not surprising in an election year, I would say.

On the payroll growth assumptions, I completely agree with Dennis that those assumptions are out of whack with reality and need to be looked at. But, we also understate performance on investment income, so the net result is something of a wash as I heard the report. As Tom Johnson said on the subject "both retirees and active teachers should be pleased at the performance of the fund" as was evidenced in the overall picture. If the HCA proposal passes it will help the funding period substantially, another argument we can use to get it enacted.

Jim

-----
Dennis Leone to Jim McGreevy, October 25, 2006

Subject: Re: Major Point Missed on Unfunded Liability

How could you possibly conclude that the major point of Montgomery's letter was that the expenditure was "legal." How could NOT report that she determined the payments were inappropriate and that the free service was available to the three employees from the Attorney General's office? How could you, or any retiree, NOT be upset that pension money was used, given this undeniable fact? It matters how Leone, Lazares, Ramser, or Meyers feel, or what they said. What matters is what the truth is........and you are choosing to report a limited version of the truth.

I do not understand what you are trying to say about the payroll growth and our unfunded liability. The truth is the truth. If we adjust our payroll growth assumption to 3.50%, we are at "infinity" -- which means we are admitting that we can't meet our future pension obligations. Board members and you can't smile about our unfunded liability dropping from 55 years to
47 years unless you are willing to tell the truth about our payroll growth assumptions.

Dennis Leone

-----

From Jim McGreevy, October 24, 2006

Subject: Re: Major Point Missed on Unfunded Liability

Dennis -

I was in the room and heard the exchange between you and Kim Nichol concerning salary projections. I am in complete agreement with you on the seriousness of the lack of accuracy recently displayed on the actuarial assumptions on salary. I think the payroll growth percentage should be in the 2.5% - 3% range for next year. Of course, as Tom Johnson pointed out, on the whole the assumptions are producing a generally balanced picture since STRS has been doing better than assumed on investments and some of the other numbers. I don't think we should use an inflated figure for asset growth even though recent experience has been more robust and that would improve our numbers. But I don't think there's any doubt that the picture today is better than it was a year ago. The trend lines, as I recall the presentations, are in the right direction, even with the shortfall on payroll growth.

On the other concerns about my report that you mentioned in the earlier email, I have tried to present what the Board did as a group, what the consensus is as I observe it. I understand your points about the Montgomery letter, but it was clear to me that, with the exception of John Lazares, the rest of the Board did not see it in the same light that you did. That doesn't mean you're wrong, just that the consensus of the Board saw it differently, and that's what I reported. The letter is out there on the Internet for all to read and draw their own conclusions.

I do appreciate your points about Damon Asbury's contract extension. I would probably react negatively to the way it came forward if I were in your shoes. But, again, I'm trying to report the Board's position, not individual members' positions on such matters. I fully understand why CORE and Kathie Bracy's Blog want to exclusively promote your point of view on some of these issues, but I'm trying to do a factual presentation on the Board's actions. Similarly, I did not provide a complete exposition on Mark Meuser's position on contract review -- I reported the actions of the Board that supported your position.

- Jim

-----
On Oct 24, 2006, at 9:04 PM, Dennis Leone wrote:

Perhaps you were not in the room when I asked questions of Kim Nichol, but here is the bottom line about our "improved" unfunded liability, which is now "down" to 47 years. My own previous reports to RTA's, I now know, were incomplete. Everything assumes that STRS will have a 4.5% payroll growth from active teachers in the future. The last three years? We have received payroll increases of only 3.0%, 2.4% and 2.1%. If we lower our payroll growth assumption from 4.50% to 4.25%, our unfunded liability goes up to 54 years. If we lower the assumption to 4.00%, our unfunded liability shoots up to 62 years. If we lower the assumption to 3.50% (still higher than what we've received in the past 3 years), our unfunded liability, Ms. Nichol reported, would be at "infinity" -- which is defined as a pension system not having sufficient funds to meet pension obligations in the future. Tell me, James, what should the Board use as a future payroll growth assumption?

The above is a serious, serious matter.

Dennis Leone

From Jim McGreevy: OEA Executive Committee Report to OEA-R

June 6, 2006

Thanks for sending me this, Jim. I hope Conni can also get the Board to work on the issue of double dipping by rehires. There's a loophole that definitely needs to be addressed, as it's hurting the pension system. It's certainly not helping new or laid-off teachers, either. It sure is helping the school boards and the rehires, though. Something's wrong with this whole picture.

Kathie Bracy

_____

From: Jim McGreevy, OEA-R Representative to the OEA Executive Committee

Re: OEA-EC Report to OEA-R

Date: June 6, 2006

The OEA Executive Committee met in Columbus on Saturday, June 3, and generally dealt with routine matters and reports.

Among items of interest to OEA-R members:

1. The Constitution & Bylaws subcommittee reported that it has received the initial attorney’s opinion on the rights of “rehired retirees” to hold elective office in OEA. No formal recommendations will be brought forward until further study has been concluded.

2. In his report President Gary Allen discussed a future (2007) push for a statewide ballot issue concerning school funding should the legislature continue to fail to act. If necessary, members will be asked to circulate petitions to secure the requisite voter signatures. This will be a developing story following the upcoming general election.

3. Gary Allen also reported on a recent meeting held at OEA headquarters with members of CORE (Concerned Ohio Retired Educators). All parties are interested in passage of legislation to provide a dedicated revenue stream for post-retirement health care for STRS members, both now and in the future. The legislation will be put in final, legal form very soon and will likely be introduced following the fall election. Several Senators and Representatives from both parties are considering sponsorship of the legislation and discussions held with lawmakers have been generally positive thus far. Notable exceptions to this are Sen. Lynn Wachtmann and Rep. Michelle Schneider who are hostile to the needs of retired teachers if additional taxpayer support is necessary. They offer no alternatives. OEA-R members should raise the issue with their representatives and senators as they see them at county fairs, community festivals and other public places as they campaign this summer. Urge their support for the STRS/HCA (Health Care Advocates) legislation. A comprehensive campaign for the legislation is under development by HCA and its member organizations, including OEA.

4. Conni Ramser, recently elected STRS Board member, reported that STRS is working on the problem of “adverse selection,” the tendency of relatively younger, healthier retirees to leave STRS-provided health care plans for less expensive private insurance. STRS must offer “products” that are attractive to all members to maximize the long-term viability of our health care plans. The HCA legislation should provide a solution on the funding side, but correcting the adverse selection problem would add greater stability on the “consumption” side. Speaking for herself and successful Board candidate, Mark Meuser, Conni thanked OEA for its support in the recently concluded election.

Molly Janczyk: Report on 5/31/06 meeting with OEA

From Molly Janczyk, May 31, 2006

Subject: Meeting at OEA: Wed. 5/31/06

Present were: Gary Allen, Dennis Reardon, Jim McGreevy, Patricia Frost-Brooks, Bill Leibensperger, Dave Parshall and Molly Janczyk. Mary Ellen Angeletti was too ill to attend.

The atmosphere was very congenial, respectful, candid, professional and forthcoming. We were made most comfortable and an ease of exchange prevailed. Dennis Reardon had to leave early. While present, he made sure to define terms/titles with which we may not be familiar.

I asked to open with a statement. I relayed that we were here in a serious minded collaborative mindset. I conveyed that there was some concern over being 'used' or on a mission for show and that we wanted assurance there was real promise exists of positive outcome for the HC legislation.

I sent the compiling of thoughts from CORE members regarding HC legislation to all attendees prior to the meeting so as not to waste time. I was impressed with the advance preparation and effort to address every concern and question with specific information. Nothing was asked to remain confidential.

Gary Allen headed the table and I felt it was he who ran the meeting effectively and efficiently. Some topics provided room for branching out and while he certainly allowed free discussion on all ideas, when the topic was completed, he steered us back to the questions and concerns I had provided to him which we wished addressed.

A. FUNDING FOR EDUCATION: Gary opened with this issue since many, if not all, feel this is at the heart of the issue. Also, one statement to them was OEA has the political and financial power to harness legislative support for both funding education properly and HC legislation.

The answer was interesting and layered:

1. LEGISLATORS:

Historically, OEA has made it a practice to contribute equal amounts of EPAC money to both Republicans and Democrats. But, with time, Republicans have become less education minded and OEA didn't feel it could keep giving money to those who would vote against education. OEA is solid with democrats and courts moderate Republicans. However, by not contributing to some legislators, it has closed doors once open. Also, there is a strong 'pay to play' atmosphere. The longer term limits is is affect, the more conservative it gets.

If Ken Blackwell is elected, OEA feels that the HC legislation proposal will be killed. OEA supports Strickland as a friend to education. Strickland WILL BE an advocate for education issues. Voters need to realize that conservative legislators running on platforms of abortion, guns, gays and which church one attends will not solve the HC problem. The Governor backing has already been completed with Strickland being the candidate of choice.

OEA will screen Senate and House legislators for those who support 'our issues' of fixing the funding for education and support of educators. Screening for statewide positions such as Attorney General and Auditor, etc. will be completed by Aug. 31.

There will be a list in September for all recommendations: statewide, House, Senate, School Boards (John Brandt is gone), Courts, etc. OEA can present this list to us as members and we can circulate but they are bound by law not to advertise per se. Legislators can say OEA supports them.

2. ENA (Equity N Adequacy): An EDUCATION COALITION : [See note below from Jim McGreevy]

Includes ALL education based groups: HCA except Higher Educ., School Boards, BASA, etc. WORKING FOR PROPER SCHOOL FUNDING.

-This coalition has been working for 2 years determining how to move forward for proper school funding. Funding is a huge issue and OEA pledges it is doing and will do all it can politically and financially towards this end. Electing education minded legislators is of critical importance as stated above.

-This plan mirrors the HCA plan to be presented to the Governor and legislators.

-This plan would take away the over reliance on the property tax. Real estate tax is extremely unpopular with the less well off and older property owners. This would push to put funding back on the State where it belongs.

-If it is not moved to put this on the ballot, OEA will mount a campaign to get it on the 2007 ballot.

-OEA will attempt to get Republican support for a bipartisan backing.

B. HC LEGISLATION: (being written; will present late 2006 or in 2007).

1. We hear the more vocal opposition for the increased contribution legislation. There are approximately 10 who oppose openly, Allen said. Mostly , they oppose employer increases.

OEA has met with ALL Senators and 30 Representatives thus far. They have met with the more receptive representatives. These legislators have stated they were impressed with the HCA's plan and that HCA are presenting solutions to the STRS HC crisis. Good questions have been asked regarding the 5% such as if it was enough, why that amount, etc. OEA would not be going forward if they were not hearing support for this proposal. There is no wish to be without HC.

Two legislators were adamant about HSA and it was explained that once one retires, they cannot save and no one can save for their HC projected costs of $230,000 just for premiums and out of pockets.

It was stated that OEA IS doing its job and meeting one on one with legislators as they expect. It was made clear that NOW is not the time for letter writing, emails, etc.

Some legislators feel and Wachtmann stated publicly in The Dispatch: front page 5/30/06, that "The system is already extraordinarily generous." "Public pensions are much more generous than most private employers." Some feel teachers make too much money with too much time off and too many benefits. ((MAKE SURE YOU KNOW HOW YOUR LEGISLATOR FEELS ABOUT EDUCATORS' BENEFITS WITH HC AND EDUCATION FUNDING)).

Wachtmann stated to Curry in his letter that he was working on legislation to ensure retirees had benefits. I wonder if that is the State Plan discussed where it is decided what would be good for us in quality and costs.

Allen went on to say he feels there are simply some with no social conscience. Dave Parshall stated 1/2 of STRS retirees live on $20,000 or less. Deduct all our HC costs and not much left.

2. **OEA will present a campaign plan when it is time. There will be a need to be disciplined and on target. A strategic time line exists. First to plant seeds of support and then to lobby. NOTHING WILL BE DONE BEFORE THE NOV. ELECTIONS.

What YOU CAN DO NOW:

Focus on your own legislators and those you know. Plant seeds of support:

-Tell them you support the HCA's proposal for increased HC contributions.

-Tell them we really need HC in retirement.

-Ask them where they stand on the proposal

-Ask them what problems they have with the proposal

-Give feedback to HCA for their consideration

3. School Board Opposition:

-John Brandt, the biggest opposer, is gone.

-Pushback is due because School Boards don't want to be mandated as that is a block of money taken off the table for bargaining.

-Missing the point: Discuss with School Boards and legislators when the time comes or if you know some of these individuals personally that HC ISSUES WILL NOT GO AWAY by defeating this legislation BECAUSE it is a STATE ISSUE FOR THE UNINSURABLE.

SOMEONE has to pay for HC. If school boards won't help, the State will have to pay as a result of ER use in lieu of insurance.

-If this legislation fails, there will be NO HC when the HC fund runs out. Those able will leave increasing the risk pool and only those who cannot obtain HC or afford it will remain. The funds will be depleted and the poor and the ill will have to use ER's as their only HC. The state will have to pick up the tab.

-Some much time is being spent on this and that is time taken away from education issues.

-MOST IMPORTANTLY: The legislators would only be giving STRS permission to do this. STRS can change if conditions allow.

4. WHY MUST THERE BE ONLY PLAN A?

1. Actives have been surveyed. There is NO support for any other plan options. Reasons: The actives will see NO result for themselves in lesser amounts are approved. For ex., if 3% from actives only is approved, it would keep the fund alive a while longer but not long enough for most educators to realized benefit. Therefore, they will not support it.

2. 5% is the figure researched and well thought out to keep the fund solvent. OEA and HCA had to be convinced that STRS was doing ALL it could and that a plan existed to solve the problem. 5% will solve this crisis and this is part of what the legislators were specifically questioning with is it enough to solve this problem and will it keep the fund alive, etc.

3. Will raising the age requirement, sliding scales, etc., reduce unfunded liability. Age restrictions will not change matters as 58 is now the average age for retirement. The 35 yr. incentive is working to keep educators active longer already. Plus, these areas are STRS related not HCA issues.

Furthermore, speaking to these unpopular issues now will hurt the HCA proposal as educators do not want to hear more stipulations on them AND have to pay more from their salaries as well. The key is FOCUS and keep disciplined about what is needed: HC.

When we get off track, this hurts everyone and what everyone needs is HC. The key is keeping disciplined and on target for HC.

4. If Plan A fails, it will be discussed among HCA if any other viable options exist to help all in some way. For the present, to save HC and keep it going, 5% is the determined amount resulting from careful research.

I asked Bill L. about John and Joanne Bos's thinking on this: It still amounts to 5% but in a more deferred manner for School Boards.

Active contribution increases: Year 1: 1% Year 2: add'tl 1%

Active/ School Board contribution increases: Year 3: actives addt'l 1/2%/school boards 1/2 %

School Board increases: Year 4: addt'l 1% Year 4: addt'l 1%

They feel this would allow School Boards time to adjust and preplan.

Bill L. said it may be something for consideration by the HCA in the future.

The meeting ended with talk of collaboration. Allen initiated this stating that former STRS board members used poor judgement and most were gone. It is time to bind together and work for the common goal of all of us: HC. Dave and I concurred and Dave spoke to all of us getting on board for a common cause as the only way of helping us all. Going on in critical mode is not productive for us and we all need HC. (paraphrased).

Dave ended by suggested that we be represented on the HCA Board -- not to vote or be more than a sit in guest/member who can see first hand the workings and planning. Of course, issues needing to remain private to HCA would be so done. Perhaps, a question might be asked of a representative for members upon occasion. I remember sitting at such a meeting a few feet away when Jack Chapman asked the HCA how retirees might feel about something. We were right there. If a rep for us was present and allowed to respond, it may give some insight. Also, notes could be taken and perhaps points or ques. could be addressed at an determined appropriate time so not to distract.

Gary wrote the request down and said he would present it to the HCA for consideration.

Jim McGreevy and I spoke after for a bit. He was most agreeable and earnest in working together offering whatever role he might be able to play.

Please correct any point not felt to be accurate. This is based on notes and memory.

Before and after, we greeted and shook hands stating we were glad to have met. I thanked them for having us and they thanked us for coming.

Please forward to Gary Allen, Patricia Frost Brooks, Dennis Reardon.

Molly J.

__________

From Jim McGreevy, 6/1/06: A correction

Molly -

I'll forward your emails to all parties at the meeting.

I didn't take the volume of notes you did, but I thought you accurately captured what I heard in the meeting. The only "factual error" I noticed was the timeline of OEA's involvement with the Equity & Adequacy Coalition that pushed the DeRolph case beginning in the early 1990's. OEA was one of the founding members of that coalition and had contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars since then to fund legal costs and other coalition expenses.

I will do what I can to promote some role for CORE in the HCA process.

- Jim