'Transparency' and 'inclusiveness': maybe it depends on what the definition of 'is' is

June 23, 2008

You know, one thing Dennis Leone has been fighting for at STRS since Day One has been transparency, and we are seeing more and more rays of "sunshine" at 275 East Broad. But of course, Bill Leibensperger, in his public speech before the STRS Board last Thursday, gave Damon Asbury, our exiting executive director, all the credit for making STRS "more transparent in its operations" and "more inclusive in its decision-making."

Gee, Bill, did you happen to notice that the very day after your speech Damon told the Board he preferred the staff guidelines to be an Administrative Regulation instead of a Board Policy? I witnessed the Board's 10-0 vote against it (and acceptance of Leone's motion for it to be a Board policy instead)......and Damon did not fight it, but, hey, it was perfectly CLEAR exactly what he was after, and I hardly call that "transparency" or "inclusiveness" -- unless it means including a select, hand-picked few to bestow his transparency upon. What do you think?

Kathie Bracy

Editorial comment: Why is Damon credited for Dennis Leone's work?

June 22, 2008

At last Thursday's STRS Board meeting (6/19/08), one of the public speakers was OEA's Bill Leibensperger, who spoke on behalf of the Healthcare Advocates. He was there to commend Damon Asbury for everything he had done for us during his five years as executive director of STRS. That was all well and good, but then he went on to praise him for all the changes Dennis Leone had brought about!!!
For example:
...1. "A new culture has taken hold at STRS."
...2. "Today STRS is more transparent in its operations....."
...3. ".....more inclusive in its decision-making....."
...4. ".....and more accountable to its members and stakeholders."
...5. "Under your leadership, STRS has regained the trust and confidence of its members. You have truly changed the lives of STRS members for the better."

Not ONE of these changes would have occurred had it not been for Dennis Leone, NOT Damon Asbury. Had Damon had his way, I doubt seriously if ANY of these changes would EVER have taken place. Why does Mr. Leibensperger heap all this praise on the wrong person? Many retirees who are close observers of STRS have a pretty good idea why he might do this.

Did anyone notice that the top "leaders" of OEA (Gary Allen, Patricia Frost-Brooks and Bill Leibensperger) have all separately attacked Dennis Leone over these very issues? Does anyone remember how, in the recent past, Bill Leibensperger and Patricia Frost-Brooks addressed the STRS Board and specifically recommended, publicly, that the Board NOT adopt Dr. Leone's motions which were very carefully designed to accomplish the very reforms Mr. Leibensperger cites above?

Did anyone notice that Damon Asbury actually opposed the Leone motions that got through, that hit those very issues? Gee, and now Bill Leibensperger is praising Damon, giving HIM credit for all the things he resisted and Dennis Leone accomplished? Oh my -- where has Mr. Leibensperger been?

And by the way, where is ORTA these days? Their executive director shows up at meeting after meeting of the STRS Board, but why? She doesn't make speeches and she doesn't take positions, when to do so could be so very helpful to retirees. Never once has ORTA ever supported one single motion that Dennis Leone has proposed that would benefit retired educators in accordance with ORC 3307.15. Why? Could it be that ORTA blames him for the fact that their former president (and former STRS Board member) was convicted on ethics charges, along with a former OEA president (another former STRS Board member) and a whole group of former STRS Board members who also had very strong OEA ties? Hmmm.....now I think I'm beginning to understand why Mr. Leibensperger chooses to heap accolades on Damon Asbury for everything Dennis Leone accomplished but Damon resisted. Duh! Pretty slick.

I also attended the Friday morning session of the STRS Board meeting (6/20/08), where Damon Asbury made a formal recommendation to the Board that the STRS 16-page staff travel guidelines NOT be a Board policy, but instead, a part of Administrative Regulations. I couldn't believe my ears! This would give the executive director carte blanche to do anything he wants, without a policy in place! Sure, go to Honolulu and spend a couple weeks there at our expense if you want! Fly first class and take your spouse (or your significant other) and stay at the fanciest hotel you can find, in the fanciest suite they have; live it up -- eat and drink all you want at the fanciest restaurants in town -- we'll pay for it all!! Heck, why don't you rent a limo while you're at it, we'll pay for that, too. Yes.....can't you see it now? Gee.....bring back "Hairspray" and King's Island and baseball games and parties with booze while you're at it. How 'bout a bunch of you going to Africa for a couple weeks? You could spend an hour or two looking over a possible investment site, but have a good time the rest of the time -- take safaris, whatever. Sure, STRS will pay for it -- heck, why not?

What I don't understand is why, two weeks before the June Board meeting, Damon agreed with Dennis on about a dozen changes that needed to be made in the 16-page travel guidelines for staff, to make them more consistent with the travel policy for Board members, but he also felt strongly that this document should NOT be adopted as a Board policy. Dr. Leone stated very clearly in Friday morning's Board session that his chief concern was the fact that if the 16-page document was NOT a board policy, the executive director would have the power to change ANYTHING in it, at any time, without Board approval. Duh!! Just why was this so difficult for Damon to understand? The entire Board got it. After Dr. Leone made a formal motion, seconded by John Lazares, for the 16 pages to be adopted as Board policy, the Board (after hearing some concerns expressed by Board members Ramser, Meuser and Cervantes), unanimously approved his motion with a 10-0 vote.

To those who might say "But why must you have it in writing? It shows you don't TRUST your executive director!" I say it has absolutely nothing to do with trust; we are just plain stupid NOT to have it in writing, especially when you look at past STRS history!

Think of the words of Baron John Acton (1834-1902): "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Or the words of a former British prime minister, William Pitt the Younger, in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770, "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it." Then go back and examine the records of the past two executive directors.

And while you're at it, take a close look at exactly who was close to those executive directors and supported (yea, encouraged) their every move. We all know very well who those parties were and what they stood to gain by being "in cahoots" with the executive directors of that era. With policy in place (and reminding everyone that only the BOARD makes policy, NOT the executive director -- EVER), there is no question what the rules are -- for EVERYBODY -- and all decisions must be made accordingly. We "trusted" once upon a time -- and were left holding the bag. Never again!


I do wish Damon a pleasant retirement. He did his best.....as did his predecessor. Welcome, Mike Nehf -- you will be a badly needed breath of fresh air!!

Kathie Bracy

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

Dennis Leone on 'Spin City': Nearly all policy changes of past 4 years needed because of OEA and ORTA's look-the-other-way culture

From Dennis Leone, April 12, 2008
Subject: RE: Spin City...another name for Columbus, OH?

Yes, and given all that happened between 1995 and 2003 under the leadership of the Dyer, the Fab 5, and Endry, it is astonishing to read that OEA -- under the so-called Plan B -- wants a board that “focuses on strategic governance matters rather than operational issues” and “observes a clear separation of board and CEO roles,” yet OEA (and in particular, Leibensperger and Frost-Brooks) have publicly resisted all of the recent motions I made which were designed to do precisely those things.

I guess OEA and ORTA still would prefer the executive director to have the unilateral power to “adopt all further policies” instead of being responsible for operations and administrative regs. I guess OEA and ORTA would prefer for the executive director to have the unilateral power to give rehired retirees at STRS all of their accumulated sick leave from their previous school district, even if they were paid for those days upon retirement. I guess OEA and ORTA would prefer the executive director to have the unilateral power to adopt his own policies pertaining to severance checks for laid off employees and the payment of private/personal legal fees of STRS employees. I guess OEA and ORTA would prefer the board to vote on big ticket contract issues without so much as having a summary of proposals before voting

In fact, nearly ALL of the 25-30 policy changes that have occurred in the past 4 years were needed because of a look-the-other-way culture that OEA and ORTA were part of. OEA is an embarrassment to active teachers. ORTA is an embarrassment to retirees. Some things never change.

Dennis Leone

STRS Policy Amendment Passed -- at last!

From Dennis Leone, March 28, 2008
Subject: STRS Policy Amendment Passed

At the STRS Board meeting on March 27, 2008, I made a motion – which was seconded by Craig Brooks – to change existing board policy. Previous language stated that the executive director had the authority, unilaterally, “to establish all further policies” as long as such was “consistent with a reasonable interpretation of board policies.” The new language now says the executive director has the authority “to establish all operational procedures and administrative regulations” as long as such are “consistent with a reasonable interpretation of board policies.” This passed 8-0. (Puckett and Hayden were absent.) It is not perfect language, but it is much better than it was before. Setting policy is function of the board. Operations are a function of the executive director.

Dennis Leone

Editorial comment

Some questions following yesterday's STRS Board meeting
Kathie Bracy, March 28, 2008

If you were not present at the March 27 STRS Board meeting, you should have been, if only to hear the heated and lengthy exchange that occurred over Dennis Leone's efforts to remove language from the Board Policy Manual that essentially GAVE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE POWER TO ESTABLISH BOARD POLICY.

The most vocal objections to the language change (see Dennis Leone's comments in the post just above this one, "STRS Policy Amendment Passed -- at last!") came from OEA-affiliated Board members Conni Ramser and Mark Meuser (why am I not surprised?) with executive director Damon Asbury seemingly attempting to "justify" the language as it stood, and seemingly attempting to convince everyone within earshot that the executive director would never attempt to actually establish policy (Oh no? Shades of Herb Dyer and the "Old Board" -- many of whom ended up in court with convictions on ethics violations), as it would violate the spirit of Board policy.

Look closely here. Remember back when Damon was quietly slipping credit cards to Board members behind the backs of Board members Dennis Leone and John Lazares (of course they weren't being offered credit cards!) and Dr. Leone found out about it and made those Board members turn them in? Hey, they thought it was just fine for them to have those credit cards -- ethics be hanged! Seems to me one credit card may even have been a leftover from the "Old Board" days! Sleazy stuff going on behind our backs then. Who's to say it hasn't been going on all along and may STILL be going on? Now why would an executive director be surreptitiously trying to do little favors for some Board members and not others? I sure would like to know.

I personally would like to know exactly WHY two Board members -- Conni Ramser and Mark Meuser -- were so vehemently opposed to changing the language in the Board policy previously (and clearly) stating that the executive director is "authorized to establish all further policies, make all decisions, take all actions, and develop all activities as long as they are consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Board's policies." Since WHEN does the executive director establish ANY kind of policy? That's not his job -- that's the Board's job!! How else could those words be interpreted? Ms. Ramser and Mr. Meuser -- what were you thinking?!! And why were you thinking it?!?

I would also like to know WHY this Board has repeatedly attempted to sweep under the rug Dr. Leone's motion (basically to clean up irregularities in Board policy), which he originally introduced on October 19, 2007. WHY did this Board repeatedly insist on tabling his motion? Doesn't it say something that it was also listed LAST on a very lengthy agenda for yesterday's Board meeting and not even listed as a separate business item, but conveniently and deeply buried under the very last agenda item, "Old Business"? (Not to mention those responsible for placing it there probably figured most, if not all, CORE members would be leaving before the end of the long meeting and wouldn't be around to witness the fireworks.) What could possibly be going on here that they may not want us to notice?

To refresh your memory, here is the motion, as posted November 16, 2007:

Friday, November 16, 2007

Summary of Dennis Leone's motion tabled by STRS Board 10/19/07; to be reconsidered 11/15/07

Motion by STRS Board Member Dennis Leone that was tabled by the STRS Board on October 19 – to be reconsidered on November 15

1. In the event that retirees are employed at STRS, the executive director will ensure that said new employees begin their employment at STRS with zero days of sick leave.

2. Payment by STRS of private/personal legal fees of STRS employees will not occur.

3. The awarding of severance checks, severance payments, or severance benefits to current or former STRS employees will not occur absent a formal approval by the STRS Board, by majority vote, in public session.

4. Remove, from existing Board policy, the language authorizing the executive director “to act for the Board in all matters related to employment and compensation of personnel,” and substitute language stipulating that the executive director is authorized to act for the board “provided that such actions are consistent with Board-adopted policies.”

5. Remove, from existing Board policy – language stipulating that the executive director is “authorized to established all further policies, make all decisions, take all actions, and develop all activities as long as they are consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Board’s policies,” and substitute language stating that the executive director “is authorized to implement decisions that are consistent with Board policies.” (This change also is needed because other existing Board policy clearly states that the executive director “may not establish compensation or benefits that are not within Board-approved salary schedules or benefit provisions.” A policy containing the words “all further policies” cannot be allowed to supersede this policy.)

We are not alone........

From The CEA Voice, 3/3/08 edition
Columbus Education Association

OEA asleep at the wheel

The American Federation of Teachers recently voted to organize educators in Ohio’s charter schools. That means that the state’s growing number of independent public schools now can form their own OFT bargaining units. OEA missed this opportunity. The OEA Representative Assembly voted down a motion last spring to organize charter schools. CEA President Rhonda Johnson and other CEA delegates spoke in favor of the motion, but it was soundly defeated. AFT now will pick up members while NEA loses members to charter schools. The union already represents 50 charter schools in nine states. We believe OEA has missed a valuable opportunity to increase its numbers.

[Way to go, Rhonda!!]

An attack dog and a leopard, all in one day

From Kathie Bracy, January 9, 2008
Response from second letter of 1/9/08 from (xxx)

Poor Dennis -- he's labeled an attack dog and a leopard on the same day. Got any others?

OK, perhaps I shouldn't just ask for a list of "accomplishments" of the Board members who have issues with Dennis. Instead, I would like to see a list of accomplishments and/or motions they have presented to the Board. I also need to know which ones (accomplishments and/or motions alike) truly originated with them and which ones were fed to them by Damon or someone else. If I am to gain better insight into how these Board members think and operate, this would help.

Thanks --

Kathie

Molly Janczyk: A question for STRS Board members

From Molly Janczyk, January 6, 2008
Subject: Ques. for STRS Board Members

I keep asking: What is the record for any of the Board members who oppose continually the motions of Leone and Lazares. Who cares about polite niceties when lives have been untenably devastated for retirees today and for those facing retirement or thought they were.

So much time is wasted trying to control Leone instead of coming forth with input for solutions. None of them ever answer me with their suggestions for real work and resolution. None answer when I ask them what is the legacy facing them and then list the many, many accomplishments of Lazares and Leone.

I say create of place of serious work without ever present opposition towards change because all things chance and the choice is: stay 'part of the problem or part of the solution.'

What ARE the positions of each Board member as all I hear is what they are NOT going to do. That answer is always the same: TO NOT support Leone and Lazares: Lazares, whom all feel comfortable with and still vote against him as well. So, it is obviously just not because Dennis is overly passionate at times, is it? It is against change - it is fear of new and more transparent policies which may continue to erode control of the Board.

I ask each Board member WHAT CAN YOU OFFER towards this solution? I presented a policy for a beginning point:

So few instances are expected of Staff legal fees. Please consider and respond:

1. No STRS staff can present a legal bill to STRS for payment after the fact.
2. The Exec. Direc. can make legal fee decisions dependent on the advice of the STRS Legal Team and AG within the policy guidelines.
3. Should a case be unusual or questionable, the Board can be approached for advice by the majority.
4. Should the Exec. Direc. not act within the policy guidelines, his decision in the matter is to be superceded by the majority of the STRS Board asking advice from the STRS Legal Team and AG recommendations..

STRS Board members:

Add, delete, write your take on an approp. policy and then sit and take the points that all can agree on to write a policy that corrects the problem of STRS associates racking up legal counsel bills and then submitting them to STRS for payment AFTER THE FACT!

QUES: IN WHOSE MORAL OR ETHICAL CONSCIENCE CAN THIS PRACTICE POSSIBLY BE GOOD AND GO UNCORRECTED?

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.

Molly Janczyk re: Motions at STRS

From Molly Janczyk, December 24, 2007
Subject: Motions at STRS

I think when one Board member takes printed words, at times, out of context together with having no experience can really distort their meaning. I have found an outside attorney may not have that specific experience either and I have learned multiple legal opinions are best as different areas of specialty make many legal minds unprepared for a particular concern. This is WHY I went straight to the source: Patterson. I quoted Patterson and copied him for accuracy and he made no corrections knowing this was going out. I took careful notes asking and re-asking and reading what I wrote.

REPEATEDLY HE SAID: IT IS AT THE BOARD'S DISCRETION AND THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EXEC BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE EXEC. DIREC.

I don't think one individual interpretation should be held out to be more knowledgeable than the AG. At times a Board member sets her/himself up with definitive statements though they have had no real Board experience prior to STRS and then will not back down when found untrue or questionable(very OEA like).

I feel OEA is micromanaging the Board and trying to control it - pretty much the definition of micromanaging. I feel the more legislators hear that cks and balances are in place, the more legislators will feel more likely to trust STRS. I feel we have supported that STRS is under a new day striving for new integrity previously lost.

That new day came with policy changes of Leone and Lazares and ALL know that. For OEA to continue to try to give blanket liberties to one person is to again fall back into old patterns. None of us will do that, and legislators ARE not questioning STRS management to any of our members visiting ALL of them.

One person should never again be given 'carte blanche' authority. To present to legislators that there is a Board working with and authorizing the Exec. Direc. and the Exec. Direc. is acting upon their discretion gives all of us more confidence that all is above board and I think legislators see it that way too.

This is a 'trump card' OEA is using , in my opinion, to control us and keep control of the Board. Better to get off that train cause it doesn't bode well with any of us. Get on one of apparent collaboration by stopping the attempts to control and instead work with membership on common goals. IT IS OEA making a fuss and demanding silence. Any legislator is well seasoned in the type of debate it takes to make new policy and is not naive enough to think that such debate is sign of trouble at STRS but of making a better system which can be trusted.

I assure you debate among legislators is not a 'social tea' setting with all making pleasant conversation and no one ever raising their tone in passionate delivery on their points. To pretend that such Board chat is necessary is beyond comprehension to anyone witnessing politics in today's world. This does not show mistrust but improving and building a renewed system that went terribly wrong in some of its actions and lost trust - plummeting/crashing along with our assets and benefits untenably increasing our costs due to lack of vision and steadfastly finding a source of revenue for HC. Is anyone going to think we are so naive as to think former Board members didn't know HC was soaring being exposed to costs and development of HC budgets each year?

It is only when STRS and OEA resist reform to make a better system of open transparency that alarms go off as to WHY? Perhaps, because some legislators lost trust in OEA due to its blind eye to its OEA controlled Board mismanaging by lack of oversight and abusing their positions. Now, I guess OEA feels that they must control the Board to show any improvement must be due to OEA! Too late.

With repeated attempts to control the Board, questions arise as to what is going on at STRS that needs be keep quiet. If blame is to be found in raising alarm , it goes to OEA's continued mantra for Board members and membership to shut up and not open up all areas for total clarity and transparency.

OEA is making the problem-creating more division instead of sitting down together to find resolutions and doing whatever must be done. It can stop it but sitting down and asking what will it take to resolve this and compromising vs. standing behind a podium issuing monthly very forceful, toned directives to shut out the very Board members who changed old policies for ones creating more transparency and trust. Anything less paints a troubling picture to legislators.

Transparency and motions to bring more into the decision making process are good in our minds. I NEVER again what to see one person interpreting policy and Damon did and acting on his own only to be admonished after the fact and then months wasted on making new policy to ck his liberal takes. After the fact is too late, causes more problems and creates time consuming resolutions to correct.

HB 315 is an area of common ground and I ask legislators to deeply consider all the positions changes to ensure transparency at STRS. The stellar performance of the STRS Investment team has put STRS back into near solvency BUT STRS can never pay for retiree HC with such inflated costs for all. Educators need help and to merely look at STRS figures does not give an accurate view of making up for past losses incurred when the market crashed as well as paying $1.5 million per day for STRS retirees health care.

Molly Janczyk

More comments on 'OEA: In the spirit of open communication'

December 21, 2007

Dennis Leone: I wish to know which motions or policies have been recommended in the past 3 -4 months at Board meetings that “undermine trust and confidence.” Please tell me.
12/20/07

Comments from others:

• Kathie Bracy: I would like to know, too. Also, whose trust and confidence were undermined. Let's get this out in the open!!
• Good luck, you two! You are not going to get them to respond. . . I would bet money on it.
• I believe we are all waiting for that answer. Please tell us all in the 'Spirit of Open Communication.'

• A lump of coal for those who make charges and don't back them up!! This is more like the spirit of Bah! Humbug! than it is the spirit of open communication! Gutless and cowardly, I would say. (KBB)

• You read my mind, Kathie! Who indeed? Certainly not membership wishing for oversight and transparency. Staff works for and because of membership and has been doing a pretty darn good job by all accounts. So, who exactly is undermined???????

Seems since the changeover of Board members and more in depth oversight, STRS has soared and membership has been gaining trust. So, as Kathie says, WHOSE trust and confidence is being disturbed, here. Let's have some names and documentation for this statement. Research. No staff I have met (and I am frequently seeking staff for various items) behaves with me like they are undermined and the only comments I have ever heard are: "We want STRS restored to its former place of trust and respect." Of course, this doesn't happen in front of a microphone but it happens to me at STRS!

Instead of showing any feelings of being undermined, they are beyond helpful with the most agreeable and cooperative demeanors on all levels with few exceptions. Even Neville gave me all the answers documented that I asked him for a bit back. Russell and Slater and Mitchell are most responsive having lost that more reserved stance from long ago. The Staff is beyond helpful and they sure seem natural and eager to be of assistance.

Interesting, isn't it? Who is it that feels what motions undermined them and lost their trust? Let's think hard.........well, guess it is not that hard.

[If you need background information, scroll down and read letters, etc., dating from 12/13/07.]

Kathie Bracy to Bill Leibensperger: Exactly which motions is Ms. Frost-Brooks referring to?

From Kathie Bracy, December 14, 2007
Subject: Re: In the spirit of open communication

Thanks, Bill, for your letter and the text of Ms. Frost-Brooks' testimony to the STRS Board yesterday. I added both to my blog, with no omissions. I know many people will want to read them.

I was wondering if Ms. Frost-Brooks had written her presentation herself, since her words somehow had a very familiar ring, and knowing STRS Board policy dictates in a verbal policy statement presented by the Board president immediately prior to the Public Speaks portion of every Board meeting that speakers are to use their own words and not the words of someone else.

I know CORE members have taken this policy very seriously. I believe it came about at a time when some retirees wanted to speak for themselves, but were too far away and/or too ill to do so, and hoped that someone else could deliver their speeches for them. With OEA right next door, literally, it hardly seems the situation for Ms. Frost-Brooks or anyone else from there. I'm wondering why it's OK for STRS to bend the rules in this case -- for younger, healthier (and wealthier) people who are so close to the STRS building that driving there would be far more trouble than walking. I guess that's something I need to ask the STRS Board.

What I would really like for you to do is to send me a list of the motions Ms. Frost-Brooks specifically has in mind when she says:

The great work performed by the STRS Executive Director and staff in recent years should be reinforced by praise for finding ways to accomplish the objectives set by the Board. In doing its due diligence, the Board should be praised. However, any motions before the Board that would or could undermine trust and confidence between the Board, Executive Director and Staff, are not in the best interest of the system, and, in fact, may be unnecessary and counterproductive.

The significant external obstacles we face in achieving some of these objectives, especially those surrounding retiree healthcare, make this collaborative approach imperative. I urge in all of you the courage to trust. As the Board deliberates various motions today, at the January retreat, and into the future, we urge that these principles be kept in mind.

Since she did not make it clear, it would help to know exactly which motions she is talking about. It would certainly make it a lot easier to deal with them, so if you or she would be kind enough to provide such a list, I would be most appreciative.

Thanks again for writing.

Kathie Bracy

A letter from Bill Leibensperger and Patricia Frost-Brooks' speech to the STRS Board, December 13, 2007

From Bill Leibensperger, December 14, 2007
Subject: In the spirit of open communication
Good morning, Kathie,

Attached please find the complete text of OEA President Frost-Brook's testimony to the STRS Board on December 13. Rather than the annotated summary that currently appears on your blog, this version is offered for the sake of accuracy, to promote transparency, and allow your readers to come to their own conclusions concerning its message. President Frost-Brooks was directed by the OEA Representative Assembly to deliver this testimony through a New Business item that had no opposition. Allow me to explain what that means.

The OEA Representative Assembly is the supreme governing body of the OEA. These 1200+ elected delegates meet twice a year to adopt legislative policies and resolutions, debate and pass business items, and conduct the business of the Association. All representatives are elected democratically at the local level. When this body gives specific direction, officers are bound to carry it out. These directives apply also to the staff of the OEA, who perform their respective jobs in accordance to the direction of the members.

Therefore, it is not surprising that President Frost-Brook's remarks are the result of a collaborative effort. Hardly "ghostwritten," the testimony was a collaborative effort between her and the other officers, appropriate staff, and the makers of the motion of the new business item. Nonetheless, the message was delivered by the President, who is the embodiment of the OEA when speaking in public. This is the essence of a union.

Certainly within a democratic organization there is dissent. We value that, in fact. Such discussions make us stronger. The key to that strength is that we have these discussions within the organization so that we can present a united front to the world. Even so, it is understood and accepted that there will be individual members who will not support the majority view, Ms. Jancyzk being one as it appears. No doubt this letter and Ms. Frost-Brook's speech (which I hope you will post in their entirety) will elicit additional hue and cry from Leone/Lazares loyalists. That is fine. The OEA chooses to address issues, not personalities.

Molly suggests that somehow President Frost-Brook's testimony negates free speech. Although I don't quite follow the argument, I must say that the OEA as an organization, President Frost-Brooks, and I stand for this principle. We understand, however, that with every right comes a responsibility. The right to speak freely includes the responsibility to be accurate and fair. It is irresponsible to call names and make unsubstantiated accusations.

Let's not lose sight of what we can do together. CORE activists have been effective grassroots lobbyists for HB315. I suspect that with work on our relationships we will find many things on which to work effectively together. Let's do that!

Sincerely,

Bill Leibensperger
Vice President
Ohio Education Association

STRS Testimony
December 13, 2007

Good afternoon, Chairman Chapman, Executive Director Asbury, members of the Board, staff, and guests. My name is Patricia Frost-Brooks. I am a teacher on leave from the East Cleveland school district, a contributing member of STRS for 31 years and currently serving as President of the Ohio Education Association. I speak to you today on behalf of OEA’s 100,000 contributing STRS members and the many retired OEA members who are beneficiaries of the System. Please understand that I am not speaking as an individual, but as the official spokesperson of the OEA, representing 130,000 members.

Specifically, I have been directed by the OEA Representative Assembly which met on December 1 of this year, to deliver to you a resolution stating the following beliefs:

• The OEA supports the outstanding performance of the STRS Executive Director and Staff.

• The OEA believes that the STRS Board should reject 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.

• The OEA reiterates its support for the Health Care Advocates for STRS and the public testimony they provide to the Board.

• The OEA expects that after deliberation the Board will speak with one public voice that reflects the consensus or majority of the Board.

As the various stakeholders in retiree health care work diligently to gain recognition and develop solutions for the funding challenges that lie ahead, it is crucial that STRS serve as a foundation of strength in that effort. In order to fulfill that critical role, unified leadership by the STRS Board and Executive Director is essential to the effectiveness of STRS staff and STRS partners.

To that effect, the OEA urges that a collaborative environment be nurtured that allows for the Executive Director and Staff to do the jobs they have been hired to do as professionals. In order for them to best be able to help secure the retiree health care benefit, they must be directed not micromanaged, monitored not second-guessed, and supported not undercut. In conjunction with the work of the Health Care Advocates for STRS, this kind of cooperative professional spirit of goodwill provide STRS retirees the best opportunity for a secure retirement with affordable healthcare.

The great work performed by the STRS Executive Director and staff in recent years should be reinforced by praise for finding ways to accomplish the objectives set by the Board. In doing its due diligence, the Board should be praised. However, any motions before the Board that would or could undermine trust and confidence between the Board, Executive Director and Staff, are not in the best interest of the system, and, in fact, may be unnecessary and counterproductive.

The significant external obstacles we face in achieving some of these objectives, especially those surrounding retiree healthcare, make this collaborative approach imperative. I urge in all of you the courage to trust. As the Board deliberates various motions today, at the January retreat, and into the future, we urge that these principles be kept in mind.

On behalf of the OEA and our STRS members, I thank you for your consideration and efforts to address the complex challenge of retiree health care.

Jim N. Reed to STRS Board members (one letter shown here): Thank you for supporting Dennis Leone's motion

Jim N. Reed to Tom Johnson, November 21, 2007
Subject: Thank you for your support of Dr. Leone's motion.

Dear Mr. Johnson,

As a STRS recipient and a 42-year public school teacher I want you to know how thankful I am for your support of restoring "Checks and Balances" to the STRS Boardroom with your approval of the "untabling" of Dr. Leone's motion and then your affirmation of the principle.

I could not read all the faces of Board members when Chuck Chapman addressed you last Thursday and indicated sizeable support for the candidacy of Dr. Leone for Executive Director. I believe there are thousands of STRS-literate retirees and many actives who would give their support for such a campaign. That possibility should not be overlooked.

Dr. Leone has demonstrated his leadership abilities both before and during his Board time. He has been publicly recognized by numerous organizations for his tireless efforts on behalf of education and educators. His appointment would be a positive step toward the fulfillment of the continued efforts to restore full credibility to our wounded but recovering retirement system.

Your Board has made some very significant contributions to the restoration of trust and confidence to the one-time "Cadillac" of retirement systems. You have given us cause to believe there is hope for the future, if not for my generation but for that of my teaching daughter and son-in-law. I know one thing for sure. Educators must continue to be observant and vigilant and Board members must insist on transparency so that mutual trust and respect can become a formula for security during and after the classroom.

Jim N. Reed

Richland County RTA to STRS Board: Pass Dennis Leone's motion

From the Richland County Retired Teachers Association, November 12, 2007

The members of the Richland County Retired Teachers Association strongly urge the STRS Board to take off the table Dennis Leone's motion as of October 19, 2007, to limit the ability of the STRS Executive Director to establish, on his own, STRS employee compensation and fringe benefits without STRS Board approval, in an open meeting. And to pass this motion during the November STRS Board's meetings.

It is our belief that the STRS Executive Director has clear policy guidelines on the extent of his authority. The STRS Board needs to play the "watchdog" role more effectively and affirm their responsibility in supervising the spending of retirees' money.

(42 RCRTA members' signatures)

Summary of Dennis Leone's motion tabled by STRS Board 10/19/07; to be reconsidered 11/15/07

Motion by STRS Board Member Dennis Leone that was tabled by the STRS Board on October 19 – to be reconsidered on November 15

1. In the event that retirees are employed at STRS, the executive director will ensure that said new employees begin their employment at STRS with zero days of sick leave.

2. Payment by STRS of private/personal legal fees of STRS employees will not occur.

3. The awarding of severance checks, severance payments, or severance benefits to current or former STRS employees will not occur absent a formal approval by the STRS Board, by majority vote, in public session.

4. Remove, from existing Board policy, the language authorizing the executive director “to act for the Board in all matters related to employment and compensation of personnel,” and substitute language stipulating that the executive director is authorized to act for the board “provided that such actions are consistent with Board-adopted policies.”

5. Remove, from existing Board policy – language stipulating that the executive director is “authorized to established all further policies, make all decisions, take all actions, and develop all activities as long as they are consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Board’s policies,” and substitute language stating that the executive director “is authorized to implement decisions that are consistent with Board policies.” (This change also is needed because other existing Board policy clearly states that the executive director “may not establish compensation or benefits that are not within Board-approved salary schedules or benefit provisions.” A policy containing the words “all further policies” cannot be allowed to supersede this policy.)

Jim N. Reed's speech to STRS Board, November 15, 2007

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Within this Boardroom I believe some unacceptable decision making has made a debacle of the basic principles of the Rules of Law known as Separation of Powers and its subsequent product, the Balance of Power. As though retirees have not had to swallow enough retirement system embarrassment and damage in the past ten years, we are currently witness to a Board-Executive Director assault on one of the most elementary and crucial tenets of policy making and its administration.

What is clearly written as STRS Board Policy has been effectively annulled by this Administration and voting members of this Board. By tabling Dr. Leone's motion with Mr. Lazares' second, this Board questions its own viability to conduct business in the best interest of more than 400,000 stakeholders and to carry out its legal responsibilities as designated in ORC 3307.15.

I would strongly encourage this Board to re-examine, reconsider and unanimously support the five issues as proposed in Dr. Leone's original motion from last month. It behooves you to do so in the spirit of the Rule of Law and in the moral and ethical obligation you have to provide a performance compatible with your oath of office.

By the accounting of the Board's own records, this administration has apparently usurped authority from the elected and appointed representatives of active and retired educators. Consequently, as constituents we have been adversely affected by this legislative submission. This appears to be a blatant trampling of a basic right owned by members of this retirement system, the right to have our pension funds protected and expended for our benefit. Your tabling and argumentative position on these issues indicates contempt for the process that protects the career investments 400,000 educators have in their retirement system.

We cannot any longer afford, figuratively or literally, to have our caretakers shirk their duty by a shameful negligence to adhere completely to ORC 3307.15 and to comply with the basic Rule of Law principles. In our struggle to return trust, confidence and security to STRS Ohio it is mandatory that there be a Board rejection of "business as usual." The decade-old entitlement philosophy must go. Retirees, prospective and current, may not survive a dejà vu all over again!

In 2008 Your Ohio STRS Ohio Health Care Plan Options booklet suggests there are "Other steps you can take to manage your health include reducing stress levels…"

I would suggest reducing stress and health care options amount to a kind of oxymoron. Included among other booklet promises is, "We provide you and your family (spouse) access to quality health care coverage…but spouses pay the full cost of the health care premium." (A Non Medicare spouse premium can be over $8000, and even a Medicare-age spouse over $3600 annually.) Stress level reduction is challenged with annual premiums for many families going from less than $500 to nearly $10,000 within the last ten years!

With the prominent practice of paying bonuses to staffers in insurance companies' Cancellation Departments for all the "rescissions" they can produce and to hard working claims rejection specialists, the average retiree is continually living, or dying, on the edge.

It appears the lifespan of the Health Care Promise heard by hundreds of thousands was nearly DOA. From 1974 through the 1990s the affordable, second-to-none health care package gave many educators the hope of a secure retirement. A lack of foresight and a shameful and abusive mismanagement of pension funds provided only a false positive for those who followed into retirement in the new millennium.

If I sound quite sensitive to the dilemma of my profession's retiree health care status, it's because I am, but I'm certainly not alone. As a stakeholder, I'm sensitive to being misinformed, misguided and sacrificed by past caretakers, and I'm sensitive to any arrogant, frivolous or unsubstantiated expenditure of current funds by the present Board and/or Executive Director.

This sensitivity allows for no tolerance for fiscal misconduct, regardless of the amount. It has no tolerance for entitlement. It expects total transparency, especially when it is being maligned as micromanagement. Hundreds of thousands of retirees should expect no less and demand sincerity and execution of another promise in the recently mailed STRS health care booklet, "We focus on you and your family's unique needs after you have finished your teaching career."

Paul Boyer's speech to STRS Board November 15, 2007

Good morning, Dr. Asbury, Board members, retired teachers and guests. As you know, I am Paul Boyer of Lima, Allen County, 18 years of teaching, retired in 1985, speaking for myself and the Allen County Retired Teachers Association.

I want to speak specifically of Dr. Leone's motion for language to require enforcement of existing Board policies that are designed to restrict the ability of the STRS executive Director to establish, on his own, STRS employee compensation and fringe benefits without formal Board approval.

When Dr. Leone made his motion in the October Board meeting, rather than allowing it to come to a vote, another Board member, who is not elected but is sitting in as the representative of a state officer, made a substitute motion to table the motion, and this passed, effectively cutting off debate on the motion. This motion to table was not too surprising, as this Board member has not really been very positive in his actions over the past few years.

When are you Board members going to WAKE UP and realize that ORC 3307.15 states: "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 to participants and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the system." I have reminded you numerous times about this wording and if you do not understand it, then you have no business sitting on this board.

You, the Board members, are the fiduciaries, and I do not see anywhere that the law has given the Executive Director or any other employee the powers of a "fiduciary." In other words, you have absolutely no power to delegate to any employee the right to spend this money without your prior approval. We, the retired teachers, who now have banded together as CORE, have fought this for the last four years or more, and we are getting tired of you Board members allowing OUR money to be spent for items before you have approved them. Furthermore, it is absolutely ridiculous to approve any large expenditure of money to pay for any contract or expenditure by any employee without your having the information on that expenditure in writing before you. You cannot vote on "hearsay;" it must be in writing.

For instance, I refer to the decision to pay the private legal fees of STRS employees and the payment of $93,000 in cash severance pay and free health insurance for laid off employees. Where was the Board's vote on these expenditures and others?

I am sure that all of you Board members knew what your responsibilities would be when you decided to run for election to the Board. Now, how about living up to those responsibilities and vote in favor of Dr. Leone's motion when it comes up again? Remember, we do have the power to see that you are not re-elected to the Board.

To the STRS Board: CORE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DR. LEONE’S MOTION OF 10-19-2007

CONCERNED OHIO RETIRED EDUCATORS (CORE)

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DR. LEONE’S MOTION OF 10-19-2007

TO: STRS Board Members

November 2007

On October 19, 2007, Dr. Dennis Leone made a motion (which John Lazares seconded) for language to require the enforcement of existing STRS Board policies that are designed to restrict the ability of the STRS Executive Director to establish—on his own—STRS employee compensation and fringe benefits without formal Board approval. The motion was tabled.

CORE urges the STRS Board to approve the motion at its November meeting for the following reasons:

1. There is a serious conflict of at least five policies of the Executive Director’s authority. Three policies require Board approval and two policies permit the Executive Director to act then request Board approval. There may be legal and/or ethical issues due to the conflicting policies.

2. The five policies in question need to be reviewed as soon as possible by the STRS Internal Auditor and the Attorney General’s Counselor for legal and ethical issues and problems as well as the date of STRS Board approval for each of the policies and the history of how each of the policies was developed. Of concern, is the possibility that Ohio Revised Code has been violated due to the conflicting policies. The STRS Internal Auditor and the Attorney General’s Counselor must present their findings to the STRS Board in a timely fashion along with recommendations to resolve the conflict of the policies and any legal or ethical issues.

3. An Executive Director’s administrative duties are governed by Board policy. It is inconceivable that the STRS Board would be able in good conscience to approve a contract for an Executive Director while there are conflicting Board policies. Therefore, the STRS Board must act quickly to have the legal and ethical questions answered and resolved prior to offering any Executive Director Contract in the future.

CORE again urges the STRS Board to resolve this conflict of policies affecting the Executive Director’s Administrative duties promptly. Such action ensures that STRS administration operates legally, ethically and effectively.

Respectfully,

David Parshall, CORE President
Mary Ellen Angeletti, CORE Vice President

XC: STRS Internal Auditor

.......Attorney General’s Counselor, John Patterson