Dave Parshall's speech to STRS Board, April 23, 2009

Public Speaks Message April 23, 2009, by David Parshall, 41 year STRS member.

STRS Board Members and Director Nehf:

(The following words represent my views and are not necessarily those of CORE.) It has been many months since I have spoken to the board in this public manner. During this time I have attended all of the board meetings and other public meetings of the board. I listened to the speeches of the four OEA/OFT board members during the March 20 board meeting These speeches were just more evidence that they lack the ability and wisdom to sit on this board no matter how well-meaning they may be. I, along with thousands of your stakeholders, find ourselves on the edge of a cliff looking down into a very deep canyon, and feel that we can no longer remain silent in hopes that someday these board members will come to finally realize some common truths. I wonder even today if these board members fully understand just how close this board came to a total meltdown after the 5 to 5 vote. All stakeholders owe Mr. Nehf a huge amount of gratitude for stepping up and saving the day. I have personally thanked Mr. Nehf for his actions, and do so again.

Now let us back up a little and see what we can agree upon.

I fully understand:

...1. That our investment people here at STRS are fine, dedicated professionals who, through their personal actions since August of 2008, did not cause STRS to lose over 31 billion dollars.

...2. That having in-house fund managers actually saves us money.

...3. Because of the skill of our staff, STRS actually lost 0.3% less than most other pension funds.

...4. That we are in unique economic times far different than the historic 10 to 15 year recession cycles that have plagued our history since colonial times. The most similar historical economic event was the Great Depression. Changes in Wall Street were made afterwards that have kept us sound for fifty years.

So how did we get ourselves in this mess?

Well, the greatest single factor is that over a period of 3 or more decades greed was systematically allowed to trump principle. These words are not just mine, they are the words of Dr. Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel of the TARP.

Now, the big question -- how does this board fit into the current national and state situation?

Like it or not, you have become a part of this corrupt financial system. This industry has been allowed to set their own standards for far too long, and have sent out consultants to tell the public that these are the standards and that we have to follow. Willing Congressmen from both sides of the aisle were bribed to do away with regulation and break down the Chinese Wall that stood between Main Street banks and Wall Street since the 1930s. Alan Greenspan has publicly apologized for playing a major role in this mess by not realizing the depth of human greed. Keep in mind this is the industry that coined the phrase, "This stock is a pig, get on the phones and put lipstick on it". The compensation for our fund mangers is outrageous. Do you really think that anyone here at STRS is more valuable than the president of the United States?
You as board members have failed to realize that at last transparency is coming to the financial world. The discussions should not be about the 25th percentile, rather to pay bonuses when the fund grows back to 53 or 65 billion, or what floating benchmark should we use, but rather why are we paying any bonuses at all, considering the base salary and perks that STRS offers? We at least need to totally restructure our PBI program and be a leader for reform. If I hear one more time that we have to pay these salaries to keep the best and brightest, I will just scream. This has always bordered on extortion. Why would any of our investment staff want to leave a secure position today to go out into the mess that has become Wall Street, especially with more than 20 years in OPERS and a secure retirement in sight? CalPers is hiring Wall Street fund managers at bargain prices.

The bottom line is as long as we have union-controlled STRS board elections, especially for active seats, we will not get the truly qualified members on the board that we need. This must be overhauled so that the election process is totally open and allows for all candidates to have complete access to both actives and retirees. Change is coming with or without you. It is time to stand back and see the forest. These are serious times and we need qualified people making serious decisions for us. I thank you.

'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

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?

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

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

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

Molly Janczyk: This is not a social club

From Molly Janczyk, November 1, 2007

Kathie Bracy’s complete documentation has been circulated, including the all-important reference to existing board policy on page 54 of the Board Policy Manual that already restricts Damon from establishing compensation and benefits that are NOT within board-adopted compensation schedules and benefit provisions. Any reasonable mind should be able to see that issuing severance checks and free health insurance was contrary to this policy, in my opinion. While the so-called policy was developed by Herb [Dyer] in 2002, as I understand this, and used to lay off 2 people in 2002 (again without board involvement or a board vote), it was Damon who admittedly revised the invisible policy on 9-11-06 (also without board knowledge, board involvement or a board vote). Why did he revise it? My understanding: A few months earlier, the board cut staff perks in 6 areas, which meant that if he didn't revise his procedure, laid-off employees would have perks that current staff no longer had. He was less than forthright, in my opinion, for not telling the board what was going on in 2006. Turning a blind eye is not forthcoming to membership nor is it following their fiduciary duty. Why was a tabling action needed to vote on whether legal fees should be paid in the future, or whether the exec. director can allow a rehired retiree to bring in 200 days of sick leave that he already was paid for in a severance check from his school district?

It seems circulating incomplete data to make points is not forthcoming. It seems that some Board members are not comprehensive in their understanding that their first duty is to retirees and not staff or management.

It is often said that personalities should not be reason for action of any kind. True. Board members, let the law speak to you and not personal feelings! Hear the message and not let personal attitudes be your guide. No matter what, right is right and only be exercising your fiduciary duty which some call micromanaging, is what you are there for. Let me remind you of all the changes which have occurred due to the label of micromanaging!

SOME areas of change:

•..Improved oversight of expenditures by the Exec. Direc. who needs to ask the STRS Board regarding large vendor contracts now fought for by Leone and Lazares.

•..Ethics Policy now in place due to John Lazares

•..SB 133 with Leone language in the bill regarding former convicted Board members of Ethics violations.

•..Eliminated subsidies paid by retirees for childcare (almost eliminated), fitness and cafeteria: Leone report

•..Revised policy for annual reimbursement of unused vacation and sick leave for staff: Leone and Lazares

•..No documentation; no vote on large vendor contracts stopping the policy of blanket approval without knowing content. LONG fought for by Lazares and Leone taking months for other Board members to approve due to?????????????????????? What was called micromanagement; we call it proper oversight and just plain smart to know what one is approving to remove possible ramifications.

•..Credit cards, car use: eliminated or greatly reduced: Leone and Lazares

•..Travel policy restricting money spent: Leone

•..Changes to bonus policies : Leone and Lazares

((CORE has stood behind Leone and Lazares making its wishes known at each STRS Board meeting in support of our two elected Board members sent to STRS to change status quo)).

Where in this are the names of other Board members some of whom have fought against change and greater oversight citing STRS Staff and STRS legal advice for their reasoning vs. taking it upon themselves to thoroughly research outside of STRS sources wishing to maintain perks for staff and management? Where did Board members go to research outside their organizations and STRS to maintain independence and search for unbiased information on all sides before voting?

TWO Board members seek truth without prejudice regardless of popularity or being swayed to play nice and get along and stop micromanaging: Leone and Lazares who have withstood overwhelming frustration just to get Board members to read the wording and act prudently and judiciously on behalf of membership. So, when I hear personalities, I agree! Stop letting personality interfere with truth and honesty and transparency and act : "SOLELY ON BEHALF OF MEMBERSHIP": according to the Ohio Revised Code: 3307.15

This is not a social club; it is a passionate move for change at STRS and has been hard fought by CORE's Board Members: Dennis Leone and John Lazares. I have heard NO other Board members' names resulting in positive changes or policies on this Board.

Where IS YOUR NAME for change, oversight, protection and prudence?

Status quo, rubberstamping, silence or do you have the heart to stand for membership and when your stand meets resistance, do you have the courage to stand up for it or buckle to go along due to pressure NOT to micromanage or get too specifically into language and policy. It is easier to obey what you are told.

Leone and Lazares come monthly to hear nothing but resistance and face brick walls. Month after month fighting for simple right: Do document; no vote on contracts. Language which already exists against actions. etc, etc. How would you feel walking into that room every month? It is not simply a difference of opinion or personality when it is simple plain common sense issues.

Yet it takes months to stand against those brick walls. Constant frustration gets the best of all at times.