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.

OEA, FCRTA, CEA, CEA-R, OEA, OEA-R, ORTA Central Office, OFT Central (Cols.): want to see us shut down?

From Molly Janczyk, February 29, 2008
Subject: Subject: My Opinion:

I have racked my brain as to WHY the organizations will assist OEA's candidate Tim Myers by doing nothing in the STRS ACTIVE BOARD ELECTION: One thing became clear in my mind:

OEA, FCRTA, CEA, CEA-R, OEA, OEA-R, ORTA Central Office, OFT Central (Cols.), apparently have decided it is better to return to the former quiet and 100% cohesion voting pattern than to go another term with independent thinkers who may raise an issue, promote change, make a wave, etc. It has been an uncomfortable time having to hear dissent on issues and they can no longer tolerate such debate. It matters not if it is productive; it is just plain uneasy for them to endure questions, opinions, research and standing for change until old ways are reviewed and freshened for current times.

CORE and its leaders have disturbed the status quo, forced the removal of the former OEA choice for Exec. Direc. and STRS Board members who formed a block approval for policies at STRS. ORTA Central, OEA and OEA-R did nothing about the misuse of membership funds by the OEA Board members and Exec Direc Dyer. We stepped up and rocked their world bringing media attention to their lack of action and this cannot be tolerated.

ALL the changes at STRS have been due to CORE and its leaders, Leone and Lazares. Policy changes regarding travel, annual checks for sick and vacation leave, bonuses and merit raises for anyone at STRS who simply did their job, severe reduction and elimination of subsidies paid for Staff cafeteria, fitness and childcare on site: all paid by membership. Ethics policy now in place and the passage of SB 133 to deny any Board member who overspends to be removed from the Board and never to allow those who overspent to return. ALL this should have been done by STRS, ORTA, OEA whose STRS Board members were found guilty of ethics violations while the organizations sat silently and watched. Silence often equals complicity.
There seems to be a meeting of the minds of all organizations to do all possible to shut us down. The decision ensures OEA's Tim Myers will get elected and build back to a majority of OEA STRS Board members and there is nothing we can do about it.
In my mind, this began with the 'coup' we were drawn into bringing CEA member Tai Hayden to the board. Tai sits on the OEA Exec. Comm. but we were strongly told Tai held no love for OEA and it was to keep Tim Myers of OEA from being elected. Now, it seems in hindsight all knew Tim would not be appointed and it was a coup to get Tai on the Board by appointment and then run OEA Myers because OEA has the power and money to put Myers' name out to those who do not know him giving him a better chance of being elected than appointed. Tim did not win an election within OEA a bit back with an OEA insider telling me 'Everyone knows how Tim is' (paraphrased) speaking a bit disparagingly of him. Now that same person feels Tim is best for the job. Of course! No matter OEA runs, the loyal guards promote. Tim has called us names and been disrespectful at meetings. No matter, he is the candidate and will be elected. It was a grand plan and by all appearances, we were duped -- plain and simple.
Now, we have an election for an Active representative to sit on the STRS Board. Every educator will know Tim's name with most receiving information straight to their mailboxes and to their homes with "Ohio Schools" Magazine displaying full page ads for Tim. OEA and their local building reps will talk up Tim and then gather their staff together for voting parties in one room, probably gather the ballots and hand deliver or mail by bunches. Many educators will not know Dr. Dan Vincent even is a candidate until they receive their ballot and seen their is another candidate. They will vote as they were told. Slam dunk.

In America, public elections for public seat representation is supposed to allow both candidates to be heard. We, of course, have ONLY ourselves to try to reach educators. NOW, ORTA comes out with a statement that it is inappropriate for their leadership to appear to endorse and distribute flyers for Vincent. They do 'allow' individuals to help circulate flyers. Shocking to me, is that some of that 'leadership' will allow ORTA to dictate their acts.

NO ONE has asked for endorsement. We only ask that persons help allow educators information flyers on the OTHER candidate so educators can make up their own minds rather than have this dictator style election occur. One 'leader' told me he would only do so if he had info on both candidates. What a laugh! OEA's candidate has every advantage getting into school mailboxes and homes along with building reps promoting him. CORE Candidate Dr. Dan Vincent enjoys no such privilege and the ONLY way he has of being heard is through membership: educators! And, yet there are educators refusing to help or doing so minimally.

To those wonderful and fair minded RTA officers and members, THANK YOU! We love you and your willingness to simply be fair! We appreciate your hard work and your thanks for change and better policies for your futures and for the futures of young actives. I have learned about you over the years and thoroughly enjoy meeting and adding new contacts each year. YOU are the backbone of ORTA and with you change will occur. You are independent in your thinking and believe in American elections where all parties have a right to be heard by their voters. We only disagree with some 'leadership' outdated policy and want to continually remind all the county membership how much we are ever welcomed and helped locally.

IT IS NEVER YOU, the locals, with whom we disagree! You are the heart and soul of STRS and ORTA. WE fight for you and some of you know this as you have directed questions and concerns to us which we have sent straight to the correct person and remained involved until an answer was given. Leone and Lazares are the only Board members who preface all decisions with :" How will this look to and affect retirees with small pensions who can not afford meds, etc."

We only want to be an alternative to membership to help when others do not. We attend monthly STRS Board meetings for you and give another perspective that you will not hear from OEA and ORTA Central. We let you know how Board members vote and think. We give you additional information to broaden your base to make your own decisions. THAT is WHY we formed and WHAT we continue to do for you.

THANK YOU, RTA MEMEMBERSHIP FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING AND ALLOWING ALL CANDIDATES TO BE HEARD IN THE 2008 STRS ACTIVE BOARD ELECTION ! NO ONE can dictate your acts and there are no consequences except your own conscience and doing the right thing!
All who refuse to allow info of BOTH candidates to be heard in an American school are complicit in the election of OEA's Tim Myers. I have been foolish to think that ORTA Central Cols. and its extreme loyalist, CEA, OFT Central would NEVER disallow voters to learn about both candidates. I am stunned and beyond dismayed. This is an OEA driven and dictated election and that is what all the organizations seemingly want. To keep one candidate from being heard is so beyond anything I can imagine that any citizen would do, that I cannot wrap my head around this kind of one sided thinking.

ORTA attends our meetings, offers nothing and only responds when we are helping them. Otherwise we get ignored and there is no reason to believe that ORTA Central will ever hear us because they have written their directive and would never retract. Not possible. Union and ORTA Mantra: NEVER EVER ADMIT ERROR! I encouraged open meetings and now reject them. THEY would never allow us to attend their meetings and I do not know why they come except to see what we are doing. They are not nor ever will be anything but their own organization with their own mentality. I hope CORE meetings will once again be closed to all who do not WORK FOR and EMBRACE CORE PRINCIPLES. That is ANYONE who fits this premise and all others have their own places to be. If one is not working for us, it seems they work against us. I hate to say that and detest that statement.

ORTA Central has determined this is ok and rights their conscience with printing a statement from both candidates as if that is in any way equal treatment: ORTA Quarterly goes to RETIREES which helps actives, NOT! ORTA Central and top leaders are determined followers and will obey. Those 'leaders' will not distribute flyers to actives and simply state this is a candidate in the 2008 Active STRS Board election for you to research and consider to make an informed decision on candidates for voting.

They rationalize and justify this and there will be no changing their minds. ORTA Central, CEA, OFT Central , CEA-R, OEA-R, FCRTA and ORTA top leadership will ensure this win for Tim Myers. That's it folks. We are problematic; don't fit the mold and need to be discarded. Give you congrats cause it is going to happen. OEA IS going to control the Board again.
Molly Janczyk
STRS Retiree
CORE
ORTA LIFETIME
OEA LIFETIME
CEA LIFETIME

Molly Janczyk to STRS Board: Stop blaming and start reaching out to all

From Molly Janczyk, February 4, 2008
Subject: Comments: Report to OEA-R On Recent STRS Board Activities

Regarding the report below:

I spoke with some attendees and Board members at the Retreat.

John Lazares, for one, said he spoke up to the presenter pointing out this was over-reaction. He said, "We will still need our checks and balances which some call micromanaging." He felt the presenters were getting their info from some Board members.

John tries to be fair to all and unbiased. He was a big help in moving along the vote on Legal Fees stating: "We are very close; what do we need to do to get this done?" He asked for wording all could agree upon.

Craig Brooks also was a motivating source to pass the Severance Option stating clearly #1 states such and #2 states such.

I think both these men are good examples of where the Board should be: Questions, discussion, then what will it take to get this done?

It is not for a union to decide what is big and what is small in members' minds. I agree time should not be wasted and facilitation to move items along with questions and statements above should be used to clarify and vote on issues.

ALL must come with open minds having researched properly according to the Stanford Principles knowledgeable enough to understand needed areas of concern vs. simply ready to follow majority. I do not believe in unity for the sake of unity if something is clearly wrong. That is how we got into this trouble.

I believe that any highly experienced and qualified Exec. Direc. has had experience with working Boards vs. simply agreeable ones. I do think ALL should make efforts to engage, respect, hear and work with each other while debating and following their well researched high standards of learning on each topic in order to make determinations.

Inquire, monitor, discuss, listen, and leave personal feelings out of it because they have NO place when deciding what is in the best interest of membership IF Board members are there for the ORC: ALL are there solely for membership benefit and must always ask only that of themselves. None of us is right all the time and all of us must find ways to resolve issues. Put out solutions, policies, rework and redefine until all can agree. Stop blaming and start reaching out to all. It is a must as this is what you see across from you is what you have to work with and what you must use to make inroads for STRS membership.

This is the DUTY of every Board member regardless of personal slant or affiliation. Union has NO place on the Board. Making decisions based on union experience has NO place on the Board. Only clear, open minds ready to learn all they can about an issue and how it impacts membership-nothing else according to 3307:15.

I hope to see more of the facilitation I saw from Lazares and Brooks at the retreat. It got to the point following discussion and moved to resolve in a timely manner. Bring what you need to the table to move productively. You ALL have so little time really in the big picture to effect change. This is it! It is not a dress rehearsal.

"WHAT CAN WE DO TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MUCH TO DO!"
(Mooney)

Molly Janczyk re: Baldrige Principles and Random Acts

From Molly Janczyk, January 11, 2008
Subject: Random Acts and Baldrige Behaviors

We can go to sources and nitpick lines forever.

For ex.:

Baldrige: Random Acts

Random acts is within the context of Random Acts of Improvement.

Jim suggests in my opinion that these are here-and-there issues which may or may not stay in effect. For ex., we may again be headed toward an entitled OEA driven STRS Board which may not like Leone's Travel Policy or Lazares' Ethics Policy, both now part of STRS by laws.

Let me quote some common threads on reading various resources for Baldrige Principles. Jim can then take some threads to support his, in my estimation, less favorable take on Leone results.

Behaviors for Baldrige:

1. Be Proactive: take initiative rather than reacting to situations

I feel Leone and Lazares do take this initiative and that Meuser and others react to this initiative negatively

2. Begin with end in mind: long term goals (new policies to correct past abuses: Leone and Lazares) need be a 'true north' principle and formulate personal mission statements that document purpose. Challenging leadership to set clear and compelling vision goals. (Leone and Lazares certainly do this while others are comfortable with status quo regardless of behavior and content saying: "Well the Exec. Direc. now knows what we want so we don't have to write a policy. Pretty sad business procedure).

3. First Things First: prioritize long term goals vs. less important issues. Activate how and what will be implemented. (All Leone and Larares' policies and motions focus on long term corrections of past problems of mismanagement and abuse).

4. Think Win Win: Solutions should benefit staff and sharehlders.

***No organization can be effective without clear approach for identifying and satisfying requirements of its customers/ shareholders: (retirees)

This needs innovative ways to break barriers between the organization and sharereholders and achieve mutually (organ./shareholders) beneficial outcomes.

5. Seek to Understand: build a culture that promotes understanding (that sure didn't happen with OEA bashing Leone for his 2003 Report on spending abuses at STRS by the 5 OEA Board members convicted of ethics violations with a statewide letter impugning his character and questioning his integrity; refusing to retract it when all points were researched, proven and verifiable. Then NEOEA questioned Leone's candidacy when a simple call to STRS verified it hoping, in my opinion, that it would raise doubts and lessen votes. Neither Leone nor Lazares were welcomed to the Board with any friendly gestures but instead greeted with snotty dismissing behavior and remarks such as : "I am not happy to see you here!" Leone has been called names: attack dog, crackpot, etc. and met with automatic opposition without even considering his motions in the minds of many onlookers. OEA is quick to blame all this on Leone who takes their behavior with a grain of salt but refuses to back down from their bravado attempts to dismiss him with false statements such as "Dennis, when this goes down, the motion is killed" when that is not the case. Some Board members speak out of what seems to be ignorance of procedure and policy.

What does Leone do: Speaks with certainly and strength so as to be heard and will not back down when he knows something is right. He refuses to compromise on issues which retirees tell him are important to them because he listens to retirees and bothers to respond which most Board members do not. Lazares and Leone speak always for retirees: "What would retirees think of this?" or "How does this affect retirees?" is a constant from their mouths, always aware of their customers: shareholders: retirees.

OEA calls Leone's and Lazares' motions micromanaging hurling remarks at them month after month at Board meetings trying to suppress their right to deliver their promises to us in accordance to the ORC: act solely on behalf of retirees for their benefit.

Promote understanding with managing by FACT, organization and learning; measurement and analysis and knowledge all requirements for decisions based on systemic process of collecting and analyzing relevant data. (All Leone and Lazares strengths and demands vs. voting on personality and personal feelings).

6. Synergies: methods the organization uses to identify and improve opportunities for teamwork (what does OEA and its Board members along with some other Board members do to promote teamwork vs. antagonism and disapproval directing their remarks of personality style?)
7. Sharpen the Saw: spirit of innovation and renewal promoting open and honest assessment of strengths and opportunities for improvement as a starting point. (clearly Leone and Lazares' style ((and CORE)))

Random Acts of Improvement : personal mission statement documents; this is a relentless stakeholder driver quality effort and not just random acts going in various directions as suggested reliant on today's Board. Any future Board may change any number of issues and policy.

This system may be systemic or planned or be implemented in random acts.

Suggestions for success:

1. Appoint committees to study issues considered 'dead horse' issues.

2. Switch tactics regarding issues which seem 'dead horse' issues. Use new ways and new standards and not what has always been done.

3. Visit sites showing effective efforts

4. Increase standards for 'dead horse' issues

5. Create test to measure efficiency

6. Compare today with 10 yrs ago

7. Tighten reins

8. Stop blame (OEA tactic pointing finger for 5 yrs at Leone)

9. New behavior and skills

10. GENERATE SHORT TERM WINS AND RECOGNIZE THOSE WHO MADE THEM A REALITY (That would be a novel approach for OEA)

11. All this builds toward an effective and efficient organization for shareholders.

The random acts to which Jim refers, (Do you want random acts or long term goals ) by Leone and Lazares ALL were towards long term goals of correcting past abusive behavior of the charged and convicted former OEA Board members, management problems and overspending. These changes were demanded by shareholders (retirees) and Leone and Lazares seem alone in making these policy changes on their behalf.

So, the answer to Jim's question is : YES! We do want these random acts building a better and more efficient and effective STRS as evidenced in the past 5 yrs. Those corrections are solely because of Leone and Lazares and CORE along with some Board members who finally approved (some were solid the whole time) this motions.

There is nothing in Baldrige that does not exemplify Leone and Lazares and they seem to be the members who most clearly and steadfastly adhere to its principles.

We can seek some policy and pull lines out of it for stating to the Board. But, in reality: WHAT DID OEA AND ITS BOARD MEMBERS ALONG WITH THEIR BLOCK SUPPORTERS DO TO CHANGE THINGS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF STRS FOR ITS SHAREHOLDRES: RETIREES?

We have asked and asked for items to post and circulate in a fair effort to promote these accomplishments but none have come to us.

We have asked time and time again for STRS Board members to take some word or phrase from Leone's legal issue motion or from my attempt at a beginning to resolve this issue and begin dialogue towards solution.

Nothing: True to form.

What does OEA and OEA-R want?

I think they want to misrepresent Leone's motions, raise question to his integrity and continue to throw out remarks to diminish his power base. I think he embarrassed them to the CORE and created internal shock waves from which they have not yet recovered.

I cannot imagine why else 5 years have been spent trying to take this man down with not one recognition of his record and accomplishments:

• Awards for investigating STRS and writing his report

• Awards for educator advocacy

• Continual and constant invitations to speak at RTA and to actives

• Many internal changes in policy at STRS

• Recognition statewide for his accomplishments but never, NEVER from OEA NOR ORTA in any real sense

WHY? Change. People fear it instead of welcoming it for improving matters. WHY? OEA, OEA-R, ORTA NEVER worked to stop the spending abuse of which they were aware, I am sure, and were thrown in the spotlight when Leone and Lazares did.

Their solution was to attack in a mean, vicious and character assassination which some actually try to explain away. Their solution was to try to raise questions about these 2 men and question their motives which have long been proven: To do the right thing.

Must we continue to hear this bashing month after month in what they think is a veiled attempt to control the Board and squelch Leone? Must we hear lines from principles theories now thrown out without context in desperate attempts to continue to excuse their behavior.

What is truth is:

These minds are not going to change nor is their behavior. We are stuck with them until they are gone. A new generation will come but long down the road.

Until then:

• Each new attempt you throw out will be researched and a retort back to show how it also applies to Leone and Lazares' constant quest for a better organization based on retiree requests.

• Each attempt will end with: WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO STOP THE SPENDING ABUSES AND MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AT STRS (I especially love those who say they were here before Leone: (Tim Myers: also the insults to Leone and Angeletti writer) Well, WHAT DID YOU DO? Turned the other way is my guess.

Each attempt will say: What are your specific steps towards resolution and compromise vs. just saying what you cannot do.

The new Exec. Direc. will hopefully be a man of the future and vision. There are excellent staff members at STRS but none were able to stand up to the entitled alliance culture of Dyer and the OEA-controlled Board. I guess they feared losing their jobs and security. It is hard to say no when your family depends on your salary. Some of them have told us that they wish for STRS to be returned to its former premier status of membership trust. Some have told us things we cannot share. We hope the new Exec. Direc. is a man of strong character who will not be turned by a dollar or questionable incentive offers polluting the staff with exceptions to policy and behaviors in subjective decisions. Only a top notch quality Exec. Direc. can run a top notch pension system posing no questions to its membership.

As Bill L. calls it: 'Molly's Missive'

Dennis Leone, Molly Janczyk, John Curry; discussion re: legal fees and STRS Board policies

Dennis Leone to Molly Janczyk, January 1, 2008
Subject: RE: Legal Fees

Very well stated Molly. I just wish my fellow board members would think this through like you have. It is so disappointing that three or four board members fail to understand really what is going on. Naivete at its worse. You are correct – a general policy that Meuser et al want to protect staff CANNOT deal with all of the zillion of scenarios that can occur (some of which can be the result of staff misconduct and/or poor performance). That is why my policy recommendation is worded the way it is – to protect the board and the pension system. As you said: What’s the problem? Of Ohio’s 611 school districts, do you know have many school boards have a policy that Meuser et al. want STRS to have? Zero. Supts and boards won’t let it happen. All teacher unions would love such language – then OEA and OFT would not need as many lawyers.

DL

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

I would rather a Board with many views and perspectives then ONE Exec. Direc. who may or may not like me. Plus it comes with advice of the AG and I am sure Neville and the Legal Team. No one person on the Board can make a decision and it is majority, not individual, which is better, to me.

I am sure many Staff members have been cursed and even threatened as has happened with one former STRS employee who contacted me which I immediately passed to Damon who contacted security and the police even extending it to me for protection since this person is unstable. He was not threatening me but Damon felt it appropriate in case he transferred his anger to me somehow. The former employee issued many threats to me towards Staff even naming them. I always passed it on the Damon. He somehow got my name as communicating with STRS. This has been going on for years now. He contacted me recently again but I ignored him and passed it to Damon. Unfortunately, he lives near me.

The point is while we would never want to take a chance, these threats are just that. There was an incident years ago with a retiree sitting outside of STRS with a gun being denied disability again. It was more suicidal, I believe.

We had threats from parents working in urban areas thick with drugs, weapons and alcohol. Some teachers were hit and off work for weeks. We never had the ability and few even thought of it to seek outside counsel with OEA paying our bills. Frankly, I never even knew anyone who considered it. With low income folks, it would only have resulted in a warning and perhaps restraining order which can be obtained free anyway. Not like money is coming out of it. So, if an employee is threatened, I don't know what outside counsel is going to get them.

This seems only to fight for their jobs if a problem arises and they are fired. And, rarely, if ever, does that result in a retraction of the firing. Look at the principals etc. accused of taking money from their 'general funds' supposedly for use for staff. Still fired. Generally, in this day and age, paper trails are long and detailed for firing someone and good luck getting them reversed because other employees do not stand up for you fearing for their own jobs.

The Laura Ecklars and Sandy Knoesels (sorry both of you-just using you for examples is all since you spoke out on this at meetings) do their jobs well and are protected as a result. There simply is not a chance that either of you or those hundreds like you who are in any danger. If a mess occurs somehow and you are the scapegoat, good luck, however, because there is little likelihood that a Damon or whomever is going to take the fall for a Staff member and supposed facts will line up against you in a flash. We have all seen such in businesses. The same would probably hold true for an educator against OEA. What would happen? The individual would pay for their own counsel.

A general policy simply cannot cover all scenarios in this issue. Some issues, yes, more comprehensively. But ANY policy is going to have exceptions which must come to the Board. This particular issue is as determined by the Attorney General and stated by NEVILLE (though some inexperienced and certainly not legal certified persons seem to think they know better ) to be CASE BY CASE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD.

Say whatever you like: STRS Legal Staff say policy should read 'Unless otherwise requested by law, no associate legal fees should be paid without Board approval' and the Attorney General Office say it is case by case.

No STRS Staff or Board member or OEA or OEA-R individual has come up with facts to negate these legal statements. It may not be their choice but that doesn't change the legal stand. Let's stop this back and forth with 'wishes vs. legal opinion.' If and when you have a substantially supported legal stand with which Neville and the AG cannot disagree, let's talk. Until then, I go with the legal statements by Neville and AG Patterson.

OEA: OEA-R: OEA BOARD MEMBERS: Give me an approved legal statement not just a phrase from a book interpreted by one person to displace Neville and Patterson and have them both say: Yes, this overrides what I said and then put it in writing as policy to present the Board for consideration.

Until then: enough.

From Dennis Leone, January 1, 2008
Subject: RE: Legal Fees

What I believe you are hearing from Meuser et al. is that THEY, AS TEACHERS, feel their school boards have not done enough to support them. Many of them feel this way. In fact, Laura Ecklar said precisely what they wanted to hear – which was that she does not want her employment dictated by the “whim” of a board member who may not like her. Think about this one: As you know, Sandy Knoesal has had to deal with many disgruntled retirees over the years about health insurance. I suspect that some have cussed at her, while others have yelled at her. Sooooooooo, I wonder if Meuser et al. believe that if SHE feels she is threatened, that it’s okay for her to demand legal advice, and – if she is not satisfied with what staff lawyers tell – she then can go outside and get her own legal advice……..then expect the board to pay for it. As a pension membership organization, the removal of subjective factors HAS to be more strict.

DL

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

I just really don't get this. I cannot fathom why OEA is pressing for this blanket policy to be overseen by an Exec. Direc. we don't even know. Like I said, some OEAers must not have been happy with their representation in this past, it seems to me. But, this is a system for membership, not staff. Staff does a great job working for the membership who are the system and for whom they were hired just as we were hired as public servants for children and community. Now, we expect someone to look out for us.

Dennis Leone to John Curry, December 31, 2007
Subject: RE: Legal Fees

Good point, John…………….and, as you know, NO teacher would go out on their own, pick a law firm, determine an hourly rate, then turn in a bill to OEA after-the- fact. OEA would say “go jump in the lake” and would NOT listen to a teacher saying – “but I was discharging my duties, so you have to pay for my legal representation.” OEA would say no out of principle due to the teacher making a decision that he/she was not empowered to make.

Dennis Leone

From John Curry, December 31, 2007
Subject: Re: Legal Fees

Molly....to expound on what you say below one must also realize that the OEA furnished attorneys to educators who request them is NOT an automatic coverage. The educator has to run his/her account of the incident by the OEA first and then has to "hope" they will receive representation....it's not automatic...IT CAN BE REFUSED! It is determined by others in the hierarchy of the OEA. It is determined on a case by case basis...sound familiar???

John

Molly Janczyk comments on Patricia Frost-Brooks' speech to STRS Board December 13, 2007

From Molly Janczyk, December 13, 2007
Subject: OEA: Pres. Frost-Brooks' Speech to the STRS Board: 12/13/07

I read Kathie's comment at the top of her blog and smiled. Yes, I, too, think there is a 'ghost writer' on Broad St. [Comment reads: Thought for the day: why do I keep wondering (but not too hard) if there is a behind-the-scenes speech writer/ghost writer down on Broad Street?]

I think Frost-Brooks' speech was indeed 'crafted' as well. Crafted to be pointed -- very pointed to all who do not 'walk the line.' Of course, we ALL know WHO that is on the STRS Board. We know who questions and fights for oversight and transparency which many in membership elected them to do and who steps back so as not to tread on toes. What others call micromanaging, we call oversight and due diligence. When some say allow employees to do their jobs, we ask (with good reason) for transparency.

Yes, to a retiree who said today that he wanted policy to speak, I agree. But, when it is found that policy does not cover all aspects or needs tweaking, I also say, Yes, then it needs to come back to the Board for defining and perhaps more discussion and decisions made for special circumstances regarding some staff with different job descriptions than others.

Such conditions may apply to STRS Investment Staff who, at times, may need overrides for special trips to other countries. However, to have a policy in place with allowances not normally needed, seems an invitation to overuse at times as well. A thought for deliberation on how to resolve such needs.

I personally feel Frost-Brooks insulted her membership since many are not on her Exec. Board or attendees at meetings. I was not represented by her speech today and I am a decades long OEA member and Lifetime OEA-R member -- yet she, I felt, indicated she was representing all members. I know many others felt she did not represent them either. So, handpicking who you rep is convenient for such agenda statements.

I am a member of a much newer organization, CORE [Concerned Ohio Retired Educators, www.concernedohio.org], that does not speak for others without putting issues out for all to read and have a chance to express themselves. Then majority is heard and then determinations presented. I do not recall receiving anything from OEA or OEA-R as a decades long and Lifetime member for my input on Frost-Brooks' perceived, and what has now become a monthly, mantra on what they feel is micromanaging. A few at the top of the organization make the decisions for unknowing membership.

Do members' opinions, other than loyalists, deserve to be heard? It is fine to say you speak for a group when only a handful of the group has been polled. Like when one speaks for HCAs. Does one ask all the HCAs or one person in each group known to stand with one dismissing all others? As always, numbers can be used many ways to strengthen one's position. I can ask only those whose answers I want to hear and say I am speaking for a group.

I am ashamed of my old organizations' leadership for OEA and OEA-R. These same organizations demanded involvement from membership decades back when I was one of many helping 'grow' them. But, time and power somehow clouds issues and degrades pure intent and integrity. Organizations do not, we learned, call attention to 'their own' who commit indiscretions saying they deserve things because they work so hard. Heads are turned. When others uncover misdeeds, embarrassment brings a heavy onslaught and circling wagons vs. cleaning house and taking responsibility.

A new organization [CORE] formed as a result. One motto: "We never want to become what we fought to dismantle." We did dismantle hugely! We are here to stay; to provide oversight, regardless of what anyone else wants to call it; and demand transparency, regardless of what others wish blindly approved. We will be vocal for retirees, current and future, to restore STRS to its place of integrity.

I feel and many agree, that Steve Mitchell has led a valiant effort to rebuild STRS; and yet these dollars, though seemingly so large, do not restore STRS to its pre-tumble status any more than a person who has lost much of their finances. To begin, steps had to be taken to meet immediate needs and liability, and funding ratio suffered and still have not fully recovered. STRS can never pay for HC in today's market for its retirees without a dedicated revenue, no matter the amount, anyway, without a fund dedicated to HC.

We relish the hard working Staff at STRS and wish nothing but good for them. We only ask we be treated on a more balanced level with them. STRS exists because of us; not for Staff. Fairly compensated, of course, as we should be for building this system with our dollars. The 'shareholders' suffer. We need help.

SHAME on any organization that undermines free thinking and discussion and speech. SHAME on any organization that comes asking for solidarity of support regardless of one's moral and ethical standing. I, for one, demand knowing how individual Board members vote and why! I do not want Board members voting to keep peace or make nice or against their principles. EVER! I sure want them to tell me why they voted differently on issues. Otherwise, SHAME ON ME FOR NOT WANTING TO KNOW! That will never happen again. Those days are gone -- comfortable and fun as they may have been. Era past.

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

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.