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.

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