Saturday, December 03, 2005

Tom Curtis reflects on STRS Board past, present and future

From: Tom Curtis
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005
Subject: 120305 Curtis Resp To Janczyk; Re Important Decisions To Be Made About STRS Candidates

Hello Molly,
You are absolutely correct in stating that there are some important decisions to be made concerning whom we support for the upcoming STRS election.
I have made my choice perfectly clear. I am in support of Professor Thomas Hall of Miami University for one of the two seats that will be elected in the spring. I have not decided on a second choice to date, but will not support Conni Ramser for reasons I will address in this communication.
I feel Thomas Hall has skills and knowledge in the areas of economics, investments and financial decision making that would be beneficial to the STRS board. I have felt this way since the time he placed himself in the running as a candidate, to fill the remaining two years of Jack Chapman's seat in 2004.
After reading the vita's of the five candidates for that position, I clearly felt Thomas Hall was the most qualified candidate to bring value to our board, of those being considered.
Obviously he was not chosen by the then strongly OEA influenced board. Conni Ramser, an OEA executive committee member, one of the least qualified, as far as business and financial background are considered was chosen. This was due to political pressure, certainly not by her qualification of background and her ability to bring value to our board. As controversial as my next statement may be, I find it to be of great importance when deciding whom we elect to the STRS board from this date forward.
It is my opinion, after being involved on a monthly basis at most all STRS board meetings since June 2003, no active teacher with little to no background in business and finance has any business being on the STRS board. They have nothing to offer and are constantly in a learning curve that could not possibly be fulfilled in a four-year term.
I say this because an active teacher has so many other demands on them in their own classroom or school setting. In reality, an active educator with no background in business and finance is causing harm to both the school systems they are employed with and to the STRS board.
They are hurting their school system by being away from their duties for at least 3-5 business days each month. They are hurting the board, because they will never fully understand what is taking place in most discussions. Discussions about the highly important issues that must be faced by those on our STRS board for the next 5-10 years.
In my opinion, it will take this long to rid the STRS with all of the management people that developed a feeling of entitlement during the OEA reign of Herb Dyer's tenure. These individuals have dragged their feet for the past three years and have shown no mercy to retirees. Quite simply, they need to be replaced and we need a new executive director with a vision that follows the true spirit of 3307.15.
Damon Asbury's contract expires February 18, 2007. It is my feeling that he should never be considered for the position. He can be very congenial, but he is very unqualified to lead the STRS. He has no vision for such. He was awarded that position by a highly inept OEA dominated board against the will of the membership who had requested, but were denied a national search for a new director at the time he was the acting executive director once Herb Dyer was gone.
I have found from my 3-year experience working with CORE and attempting to work with the OEA and ORTA leadership, that the STRS needs a strong unified and decisive board focused on issues of importance. Not a board full of highly concerned individuals about who and what organization they represent and what that organizations agendas are. We have had that for the past 10-15 years with the OEA leadership at the helm and look where we are today. Board members are there to solely and exclusively represent the best interests of the membership, period. They are not there to be puppets of any union or other organization that feels they have a stake in the STRS.
Who a candidate is or is not affiliated with means little to me, with the exception of those with strong affiliation with the OEA. In my opinion, the OEA leadership is most responsible for the poor financial situation we find the STRS in at present. The OEA made no attempt to bring any investigation or charges against their own people on the board who held our STRS board captive for over a decade and made many very poor and foolish business decisions. Decisions the STRS board now has to deal with. For example, the STRS management and Staff are the best paid and receive the best benefits, bar none, of any of the five public retirement systems. These employees have offered no concessions during our struggle to become financially responsible over the past three years.
To the contrary, our STRS staff has been paid outrageous bonuses for the job they have supposedly done. In some cases this is very justified, but certainly not the vast enormity of individuals receiving such. All changes have only been made because Dennis Leone, John Lazares, CORE and others have pushed them to do so. Had we all not been there, any of the changes that have occurred to date would probably have not been made. If you know anything at all about what has transpired over the past three years at the STRS, you know what I have just stated to be the truth and not what the STRS Newsletter has stated and given credit to.
The OEA leadership has totally stonewalled us concerning their derogatory remarks about Dennis Leone's position paper of 2003 and has never provided any proof of their derogatory allegations about him and his position paper. (If you have not read this document, please kindly email me at tcurtis2@neo.rr.com and I will gladly send it to you by email only)
In short, the OEA has totally ignored the outrageous misspending their own people permitted from 1992 to 2004.That in my mind is totally irresponsible. I in turn wish to have nothing to do with the OEA at present, until an entire leadership shift has been made. I also hold the OEA fully responsible for us not having a guaranteed health care benefit at this time. This is inexcusable on their part.
In closing, I wish each and every educator and/or member of the STRS would make an effort to become knowledgeable about what has taken place at the STRS during the reign of Herb Dyer and the OEA controlled board (1992-2004). That has been the number one mission of CORE. CORE is here and has been here for the past three years trying to make a difference. We have been up against a "turf war" with other organizations, but that is of little concern to us. Our mission has never been about turf; it has been about people, the members of the STRS. CORE is about changing the leadership and direction of the STRS, so it serves the membership, as it was meant to in the mind of the founders of the STRS and according to the ORC section 3307.15.
Take care,
Tom Curtis

Article: OHIO INVESTMENT SCANDAL - BWC poured $346M into venture funds (June 27, 2005)

"However, Ohio's State Teacher's Retirement System, which also invested in the same fund, has written off 75 percent of its investment because of poor performance."

From: John Bos
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 4:32 PM
Subject: Read all of the article to learn about STRS investment in Hedge Funds. 75% written off according to Laura Ecklar

Article published Monday, June 27, 2005

Nontraditional holdings suffer a 15 percent loss

Risky investments by the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation didn't end with rare coins and a Bermuda hedge fund. Add bagels to the list.

Bureau officials have more than $346 million in venture capital funds, which typically provide start-up financing or loans to firms that have had trouble borrowing from conventional sources.

The list of firms in which the bureau has an interest includes the Colorado parent of the Einstein Brothers bagel chain, which is struggling to emerge from years of red ink.

The venture capital funds are among $951 million in nontraditional investments that the bureau holds, according to a June 7 report.

Representing 7 percent of a $14.3 billion portfolio, they include the rare coins that have made the bureau the object of nationwide ridicule and sparked investigations into missing coins and political cronyism.

The investments are to provide a return, that combined with annual premiums paid by Ohio employers, are used to pay for the medical and living expenses of injured workers. Ohio is one of only a handful of states that operates its own insurance program for injured workers.

While none of the other investments is as unorthodox as rare coins, the sheer size of the nontraditional picks has stunned experts familiar with portfolios of pension plans and private insurance companies.

"What the state fund in Ohio has done is highly unusual and would be viewed as far out of the norm for a private insurer," said Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group representing the nation's $400-billion-a-year insurance industry. Little, if any, of the portfolios of private insurers are in hedge funds and venture capital funds, he added.

Pension plans typically devote no more than 4 percent to nontraditional investments, added Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.

"They are high-risk investments," explained Laura Ecklar, spokesman for the $58 billion State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio. "They have a potential for high returns but also carry high risks."

Investment analysis
While nontraditional investments are designed to offset lackluster returns from the stock and bond markets, the bureau recorded a 15 percent loss from those picks as of late May.

An analysis of the bureau's investments by The Blade shows:

  • Most of that loss was caused by a single Bermuda hedge fund operated by Pittsburgh-based MDL Capital Management, but nearly 40 percent of the bureau's 65 venture capital and private equity funds have suffered losses totaling $18 million.

  • The poor performance of one venture fund in the bureau's portfolio prompted investors to oust the manager, while another fund was written off as worthless after the bureau logged more than $1 million in losses.

  • Potentially adding to risk, managers have been pressured to promote economic development in the state and other causes.

    A review of the bureau's venture capital picks and other nontraditional investments are the first priority of a three-member team appointed by Gov. Bob Taft to review bureau investments in the wake of the scandal, said Tom Hayes, who is overseeing the effort.

    A report will be issued by Aug. 1 on the value of each fund and how its performance compared to similar investments, said Mr. Hayes, director of the Ohio Lottery Commission.

    Already, the team and consultant Ennis Knupp & Associates of Chicago have learned that two huge funds managed by American Express Asset Management were misclassified as venture capital funds, which are often referred to as private equity funds.

    In fact, the funds, with $550 million in bureau money, were hedge funds. The state agency said it plans to withdraw from hedge funds, which engage in unorthodox investment strategies that many experts consider too risky for public funds.

    Overall, the review team has discovered that the bureau's reporting on venture capital funds and other nontraditional investments has been sketchy and insufficient, a problem that Mr. Hayes blamed on inadequate computer software and a dozen-person investment staff that is much smaller than at similar-sized funds.

    Portfolio breakdown
    Like most pension and insurance company funds, the bulk of the Workers' Compensation Bureau's portfolio is invested in relatively safe investments such as bonds and stocks of major corporations.

    The breakdown, as of June 30, 2004, was 53 percent bonds, 27 percent U.S. stocks, 12 percent international stocks, and 7 percent in rare coins, hedge funds, and other nontraditional investments.

    The total includes four dozen funds holding domestic stocks, 20 with bonds, and nine with international stocks. Most of those funds have consistently earned money, although not as much as before the stock market bubble burst in 2000. They are managed by dozens of private managers, most of whom are affiliated with well-known firms including John Hancock and J.P. Morgan.

    Those investments, along with the Workers' Compensation Bureau's nontraditional picks, gained 4 percent in fiscal 2004, according to a bureau annual report on June 30, 2004.

    The decline in returns on traditional investments has prompted pension fund managers nationwide to investigate nontraditional investments ranging from risky hedge funds to timberlands, according to investment professionals.

    Venture capital funds are also drawing interest. The big attraction: returns that are unavailable in traditional investments.

    Typically such funds, whose officials usually are more involved in the management of target companies than other investors, don't begin to yield strong results for five to 10 years, investment professionals said.

    Targeted firms range from start-ups with no collateral, to already established firms seeking to expand, to successful companies ripe for a buyout. Over the years, the class of investment has contributed to stellar success stories like FedEx and AOL.

    The list of venture capital recipients, however, includes numerous bombs that were never heard from again.

    As of December 31, venture investments nationally were providing 1.5 percent annual returns after five years; 13 percent annually after 10 years, and 14 percent after 20 years, according to figures distributed by the National Venture Capital Association.

    The Ohio bureau's venture capital investments overall, made as long ago as 2000 and as recently as April, showed gains of 5 percent, according to a report provided by the agency.

    Conflicting reports
    But it is unclear how reliable that data is because it is based on difficult-to-verify reports from venture fund managers. Also, the BWC reports, which were hurriedly generated in the wake of the resignation last month of administrator James Conrad and other forced resignations and suspensions, contain contradictions and mistakes.

    The BWC initially provided to Governor Taft and reporters a report claiming that nearly all of its venture capital funds were a wash - that they had neither made nor lost money. But when The Blade questioned the data, it was provided with a second, more detailed report reflecting profits and losses.

    Investment executives at the bureau downplayed the discrepancies last week, saying they reflected two different accounting treatments.

    However, they were unable to explain why the first report showed one of the hedge funds, managed by American Express Asset Management, losing $8.5 million, while the second report showed it gaining $3.2 million. They promised to look into the matter.

    Additionally, bureau officials acknowledged, they incorrectly listed as a distribution of profit from one fund $204 million that actually reflected a transfer of money from one fund to another by bureau personnel.

    And some venture investments in the bureau's portfolio have failed to meet even the modest expectations of funds early in their history.

    When former stockbroker Sheryl Marshall and her partner Paula Groves formed a venture firm in Boston in 1999, they spoke about the great potential for profit among businesses operated by women and minorities. News accounts described their Axxon Capital Advisors LLC as the largest venture capital firm led by women and catering to women and minorities.

    The Workers' Compensation Bureau signed on in early 2001.

    But four years later, the bureau has written off its investment in a fund operated by the firm as worthless, listing losses at $1.5 million. Ms. Marshall didn't respond to phone messages or an e-mail.

    The biggest single venture capital loss so far is $2.5 million lost in Primus Venture Partner V of Cleveland. The loss is listed at $2.5 million so far, although the bureau still hopes to recoup $9 million of an original $12.8 million invested in December, 2000, from its share of companies in the fund's portfolio.

    Loyal Wilson, founder and managing partner of Primus Venture Partners, contributed $2,000 to both of Mr. Taft's successful campaigns for governor.

    The contributions played no role in winning the business, said Steve Rothman, Primus finance chief.

    Losses in early years
    The firm has a policy of not commenting on fund performance, but "It's typical that funds show losses in the early years and show gains at the end of the day," he said.

    Another big loss involved the bureau's 2001 investment in the Chancellor V fund managed by New York-based Invesco Private Capital. The bureau lists losses at $2.3 million, but still hopes to recoup $8.2 million from its share of remaining investments by the fund.

    Fund officials wouldn't comment, but a news release announcing Chancellor V said it would "focus on early and expansion stage venture investments" in fields such as information technology, communications, and high-speed internet.

    Another fund that has suffered losses is the Chicago-based Northcoast Fund II. The bureau says it lost $326,000 on an investment of $5.4 million. The bureau now lists the value of the fund, also known as the Midwest Economic Opportunity Fund, at $4.1 million - or 25 percent less than the original investment.

    However, Ohio's State Teacher's Retirement System, which also invested in the same fund, has written off 75 percent of its investment because of poor performance.

    "It's been a challenge," said Laura Ecklar, spokesman for the pension plan. Members of the fund partnership replaced the manager with a firm that specializes in floundering venture capital firms, she noted.

    Potentially adding to the investment risk at the bureau, experts said, are moves by administrators - encouraged by politicians - to use the $14 billion fund to help diversify Ohio's economy.

    Last year, the bureau announced it would move $31 million into seven private equity funds that have said they will loan money to new Ohio companies involved in technology-based industries, biomedical and fuel cell research, and similar advanced fields.

    'Helping create jobs'
    "This is a solid investment in Ohio's future," Governor Taft proclaimed in a news release touting the investment. Funds selected, he said, "are committed to helping create jobs."

    But the purpose of the Workers' Compensation fund is to pay expenses of workers injured on the job, noted Mr. Brainard, of the Retirement Administrators group.

    "Such an investment has to be made with the beneficiaries of the plan being the first consideration," he said. "Promoting economic development in Ohio is a worthy objective. But it has to take a back seat to those who rely on these monies."

    One of the firms selected for the money, Pittsburgh-based Draper Triangle Ventures, is represented by Brian Hicks, a former top Taft aide who is now a statehouse lobbyist, according to state records.

    So far, the firm has drawn $450,000 of $5 million committed by the state in October, according to figures provided by the bureau.

    Draper Triangle officials were unavailable for comment.

    A venture capital firm with links to Ohio University in Athens has drawn $20 million in bureau investments for four separate funds.

    Lottery Director Hayes said he had heard of no instances in which the governor or members of his staff asked officials to invest in a fund for promoting Ohio companies.

    But, he said, unlike in the private sector, portfolio managers at the bureau are asked to consider factors such as whether a prospective investment will advance the cause of women and minorities.

    Some venture funds are clear winners. The state yielded $7.2 million from San Francisco-based Fremont Partners III in which it invested $6 million in early 2002. Among the fund's successful investments: building products maker Tapco International, sold last fall for $715 million. And the roll isn't over. The fund continues to hold interests in a number of valuable firms.

    Funds typically have a specialty, ranging from financing entrepreneurs with a good idea but little track record to loans for expansion programs at established companies. Most funds invest in a range of companies, often involved in telecommunications, biomedical research, and other high-tech ventures.

    While the state's venture capital portfolio includes clear winners and losers, only time will tell how some will turn out.

    The bureau placed $17.4 million with Halpern, Denny & Co., Boston, in December, 2000. The Halpern Denny III fund has produced a profit of $8.8 million so far, excluding expenses, and the bureau estimates its market value at $7.9 million.

    Partner David Malm concedes that one company in which the fund has invested, the New World Restaurant Group, has suffered $163 million in losses over the past five years. But he insists that the Golden, Colo., chain, parent of Einstein Brothers, has turned things around. And it represents just one of the firms in which the fund has a stake, he said.

    Contact Gary Pakulski at: gpakulski@theblade.com or 419-724-6082.

  • Article: We Should Stop Playing With Public Pension Plans: Joe Mysak

    The following article predicts dire consequences for future pensioners. It makes one think--especially now that Ohio has not only the "defined benefit" that is overwhelmingly preferred by STRS members, but it also has the "defined contribution" plan that it touts to younger STRS members--especially with examples in it STRS booklet that cites cases of STRS members being able to have over $750,000 in his/her account upon retirement.

    Nancy Hamant

    Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- It may be that the only thing worse than doing nothing about public pension plans is doing something about them.

    The latest ``something,'' according to rating company Standard & Poor's, is switching from defined-benefit to defined- contribution systems.

    The company published a report on the subject, ``Public Employers Are Exploring a Switch to Defined Contribution Pension Plans,'' in November.

    You may remember how this defined-contribution business swept through the private sector more than two decades ago. We're doing away with the stodgy old defined-benefit pension plan, the companies told us. We're going to replace it with a regular contribution of a percentage of your salary. You do the same and it all goes into a private investment account that will just grow and grow and grow until you retire. When you're 65 you'll be a millionaire!

    This approach somehow never caught on with states and municipalities, most of which still run their own public pension plans on the defined-benefit system. Only four states -- Alaska, Florida, Michigan and Ohio -- have defined-contribution plans, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.

    More states and localities are thinking about such plans now, though, as the costs of their retirement systems increase. ``The main attraction of defined contribution plans to employers is obvious from the name,'' writes Standard & Poor's analyst Parry Young. ``The contribution is defined, allowing for greater certainty in financial planning.''

    Investment Risk

    States and municipalities couldn't just dump their existing plans over the side, of course; they would begin defined- contribution plans with new employees. So are they all going to take this route?

    Not so fast, says S&P, and for the same reason most people in the private sector are scratching their heads every time they open their 401(k) plan statements: ``The switch to defined contribution in effect transfers complete investment risk from the employer to the employee.''

    And while some public employees might succeed in building a nice nest egg that will carry them through their retirement years, many won't.

    Public Assistance

    Here's where it gets interesting, from a credit perspective, according to the rating company. If investment performance flags, ``then the retiree could be looking at a lower-than-expected standard of living, which is not a happy prospect.''

    Decidedly not. We're probably not talking about cutting back on things like, say, the annual vacation to France, either, but on more humble requirements, like food.

    And if the shortfall in savings is large enough, S&P says, the retiree may need public assistance. ``Governments, unlike corporations, cannot so easily write off the needs of their retired employees if projections fail to come to fruition,'' says the rating company.

    Which means? ``These unanticipated increased employer costs to make up for below-average retiree wealth could offset, partially or totally, the earlier direct benefits from lower, more predictable contribution rates gained through a direct contribution conversion,'' the report concludes.

    Playing Games

    Well, that's just great. And you know S&P is right. You know that expecting everyone to save the perfect amount for their own retirements is unrealistic. Wishing that everyone would behave responsibly, on the one hand, and that the investments they choose appreciate sufficiently so that their savings last a lifetime, on the other, won't make it so. There are going to be casualties.

    The one thing predictable about the future of public pensions in the U.S. is that there's going to be more hysteria about the subject, more headlines, more frantic searching for magic answers.

    There is no such thing as public pension perfection, and there is no secret formula for achieving it. States and municipalities have to guard against giving away the store in terms of benefits. They have to be sure to make the annual contributions to their pension plans. They have to avoid using gimmicks to attain short-term budget relief in exchange for long-term headaches. They should stop playing games with their pension plans.

    That would leave more cat food for the rest of us in our dotage.

    Article: Cincinnati charter school closed


    Article published December 1, 2005

    Sponsors in Lucas County blame chronic problems


    Another Ohio charter school sponsored by the Lucas County Educational Service Center has been ordered closed because of a long list of chronic problems, including overspending and allowing prayer in the school.

    The educational service center's governing board, Ohio's largest sponsor of charter schools, voted 4-0 Tuesday to permanently shut down the Nation Building Technical Academy, in Cincinnati. Board member Judy Hansen was not present.

    Operations at the school, formerly known as NBARTA, have been suspended since May 25.

    Nation Building Technical Academy can appeal the closing order to the Ohio Department of Education within 14 days.

    Jim George, director of the county service center's community school division, said the technical academy's spending exceeded its revenue and has outstanding debt of more than $100,000.

    The academy could not pay its staff, failed to hire certified staff, allowed prayer in school, and lacked a written curriculum.

    In addition, Mr George said the academy claimed to have more students enrolled than it actually did - resulting in overpayment of state reimbursement funds. He said the academy enrolled "about 54 students."

    Nation Building Technical is the second charter school to be closed recently by the Lucas County ESC. In October, the service center permanently shut down the International Preparatory School - the oldest and largest charter school in Cleveland - because of a lengthy list of problems there, including missing taxpayer money and low test scores.

    Service center board member Joan Kuchcinski said more of the remaining 101 charter schools that the agency sponsors statewide could face probation or suspension as the board continues to closely examine their financial and academic records.

    "They will be scrutinized and looked at very closely to make sure they are meeting their academic goals and they are fiscally responsible," Ms. Kuchcinski said.

    There are 297 charter schools operating in Ohio, including 31 in Lucas County.

    Article: Charter-school operator cuts jobs as growth slows

    " The state doesn’t require charter-school management companies to disclose how much money is spent directly on students and how much is kept as profit." Imagine that! John
    Thursday, December 01, 2005
    THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

    Suffering from stagnating enrollment, the largest operator of Ohio charter schools has laid off almost 10 percent of its employees, including about 18 at three Columbus charters, a spokesman said yesterday.

    But how those cuts affect White Hat Management’s bottom line remains a secret.

    Based on October enrollment at White Hat schools in six states, including 31 in Ohio, "it was now appropriate to make adjustments," said President and CEO Mark Thimmig.

    He wouldn’t provide enrollment numbers but said they were about the same as in 2004. In fact, "I believe we may have had a few more students going into this period last year," he said.

    State figures show 15,673 students attended the White Hat schools in Ohio last year, including the three Life Skills Centers in Columbus.

    Asked why White Hat would need layoffs if enrollment is about the same, Thimmig said the firm had grown quickly, adding about 1,000 employees during the past several years "in anticipation of what our needs would be." The company employs nearly 2,000 people statewide.

    At the three Life Skills Centers in Columbus, enrollment is down about 20 percent over figures from a year ago on file with the Ohio Department of Education. The Life Skills schools cater to dropouts and people at risk of quitting school.

    The number of students fell at each of the Columbus schools, which together were paid for a total of 1,098 this month, down from 1,377 for November 2004.

    Thimmig didn’t have exact figures for the Columbus-area layoffs but said that each of the three schools lost about six employees. The reductions were based on each business unit’s enrollments, he said.

    The schools’ contracts call for a teacher-to-student ratio of 1-to-45 and two aides in each classroom.

    "Wherever they’re going to cut, I’m sure that it’s not going to be in a place that will take them out of contract," said Patricia Hughes, sponsorship director of the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, which holds the charter contracts that allow the Columbus schools to operate.

    The foundation’s board will request information about new teacher-to-student ratios when it meets Jan. 11, Hughes said.

    Although the Life Skills Centers are public schools, White Hat is a for-profit company. Its founder and chairman, David L. Brennan, says the firm is making money but won’t say how much. The state doesn’t require charter-school management companies to disclose how much money is spent directly on students and how much is kept as profit.

    Last year, White Hat received $109 million in state education funds that followed students from public school districts.

    bbush@dispatch.

    STRS Board Calendar through August 2006

    From the STRS Ohio website:

    Board Calendar

    The State Teachers Retirement Board meets monthly (with the exception of July) at the STRS Ohio offices in Columbus. Meetings are open to the public.

    While the Retirement Board generally meets on the third Thursday and Friday of the month, the meeting dates are subject to change. Additional meetings may also be added to the calendar. For the official board meeting dates, watch the STRS Ohio News (on the home page) for the public meeting notices. www.strsoh.org

    Scheduled dates for the remaining 2005 Retirement Board meetings are:

    Dec. 8 & 9

    Scheduled dates for the 2006 Retirement Board meetings are:

    Jan. 19 & 20

    Feb. 16 & 17

    March 9 & 10

    April 20 & 21

    May 18 & 19

    June 15 & 16

    July — no meeting

    Aug. 17 & 18

    Sept. — TBA

    Oct. — TBA

    Nov. — TBA

    Dec. — TBA

    ACTIVE TEACHERS: Get the REAL story on OEA here!!!


    From Tom Curtis
    12/03/05

    Hello Tom,

    Sounds like grandpa was a very wise man. The OEA is primarily responsible for where retirees find themselves today. They have willingly taken our dues money throughout our career, supposedly to support and protect us, when in fact; they were fleecing us every step of the way. It sure would be interesting to know just how much money the OEA has taken from Ohio teachers throughout all of it's years of operation. It would have to be in the billions. That is HUGE! The knowledge that such a HUGE flow of dedicated income has gone to the OEA makes me sick.

    What do we have to show for paying into the OEA for all of these years? I can think of only a few positive benefits for the dues paid throughout our careers. On the other hand, I can certainly list numerous detrimental outcomes to both active and retired educators. Let me list a few.

    * Actives do the OEA's grunt work at the local and state level for FREE, while the OEA leadership and upper management are grossly overpaid. Few at the local level even know what goes on at the OEA. (Example: Last year, most actives did not even know who Rollo Beach was. Further, they did not know he was the OEA endorsed executive committee member running for an active seat on the STRS board)

    * The OEA has always increased dues, thus taking more from the active teacher each and every year. If they did not increase dues, they asked for PAC money donations. Result, the teacher always paid more in.

    * The leadership of the OEA managed to take control of the STRS by funding the election expenses of their own past and present executive committee members. They easily placed these people on the STRS board by using our dues or PAC money. (They have spent millions in doing such. They have spent roughly $150,000 in the past two years and have been unsuccessful in seating any of their candidates)

    *The OEA has held a majority control (5 of 9 board members) of the STRS board from 1992 to 2004. They may have held a majority prior to 1992; I have not researched that to date.

    * The OEA is responsible for hiring Herb Dyer in 1992.

    * The OEA is responsible for permitting Herb Dyer to retire in January 2004, thus permitting him to leave the STRS with an outrageous $550,000 severance package. He should have been fired for his misdeeds and prosecuted for his failure of fiduciary responsibility. They let him go scot free.

    * OEA-trained board members voted to spend our funds in ways that were extremely poor business practices, thus permitting management and staff to become the highest paid work force of all five public retirement systems in Ohio.

    * OEA-trained board members voted to hire the largest staff of all five public retirement systems in Ohio.

    * OEA-trained board members provide a false hope for a health care benefit for the rest of our lives and then failed to fund it properly.

    * OEA-trained board members have been looking for another dedicated flow of income to fund the health care stabilization fund as far back as 1992.

    * The OEA leadership has chaired the Health Care Advocacy Committee for three long years. The only result they could come up with is to increase the amount the active teacher and the employer pays.

    * OEA provides little to no representation for retirees; we are faceless to them.

    * The OEA is responsible for teachers not having a guaranteed health care benefit.

    * We had no support from the OEA when their own people misspent our retirement funds; they attempted a cover-up by failure to acknowledge that any wrongdoing had taken place.

    * To the contrary, the OEA in writing, slandered Dennis Leone's position paper, "STRS Organizational Matters and Spending Practices" of 2003 and called it full of "allegations and misrepresentations". Yet, the OEA has never provided one shred of evidence for their claims.

    * The OEA is responsible for SB190, which disproportionately provides for retirees and may well be extremely detrimental to the future liquidity of the STRS.

    * The OEA did not support SB133. To the contrary, they opposed SB133 to the very last minute, because they did not want to give up the majority control they had for over a decade of the STRS board.

    I could probably list numerous more reasons why the OEA has been detrimental to Ohio educators, but the list above should be very sufficient in showing just what they have done for us.

    In reality, the OEA has been very costly to the educators of Ohio and should be held accountable for such. Will the educators' of Ohio ever have enough unity to do such, probably not? This is exactly why the OEA can and continues to take advantage of the educators in Ohio. We have been and continue to be sheep.

    Take care,
    Tom Curtis


    From: Tom Cooper


    Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005
    Subject: Re: 120205 Curtis Resp To Doyle; Re Ted Strickland

    Thomas Curtis wrote:I have now realized, the OEA is nothing more then a parasite on the teacher's back. In my opinion, they have been more detrimental to our progress in wages and benefits then one would ever have dreamed.

    I am sure that OEA officially supported Taft the first time he ran..I remember being stunned...I'm not sure about the second run, but why would they change? If any one knows/remembers who OEA supported officially for Taft's second run, I would like to know. I think NOW, while we have proof, is the time to inform actives that OEA does not act in teachers' best interests. I can think of NO reason why OEA would even consider supporting a guy who is so anti-teacher, and my grandpa always told me when things with the government don't make sense, find the money trail, and you'll find the answer.

    TC

    Article: When Health Insurance is Not a Safeguard - 10/28/05


    Isn't it time to join the other industrialized countries in this world with national health care system - or, do we stay the course and allow the insurance companies, hospital CEO's, pharmacy benefits managers, and pharmaceutical companies to continue to line their wallets off human misery? John

    From the New York Times Online

    "From 2000 to 2005, employees in the most common type of insurance plan, known as preferred provider organizations, saw their premiums for individual coverage rise 76 percent, to $603 from $342, while their deductibles - the amount they pay out of pocket before insurance kicks in - rose almost 85 percent, to $323 from $175, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. By 2003, a survey by the Center for Studying Health System Change estimated, 20 million American families had trouble paying their medical bills. Two-thirds of these had health insurance."

    1998, Zachery Dorsett's parents thought their son was an average child who was having trouble getting over a passing illness. He was 7 months old, and it was his second case of pneumonia.

    The Dorsetts, Sharon and Arnold, were concerned about Zachery's health, but they were not worried about the financial consequences. They were a young, middle-income couple, with health insurance that covered 90 percent of doctors' bills and most of the costs of prescription drugs.

    Then the bills started coming in. After a week in the hospital, the couple's share came to $1,100 - not catastrophic, but more than their small savings. They enrolled in a 90-day payment plan with the hospital and struggled to make the monthly installments of nearly $400, hoping that they did not hit any other expenses.

    But Zachery, who was eventually found to have an immune system disorder, kept getting sick, and the expense of his treatment - fees for tests, hospitalizations, medicine - kept mounting, eventually costing the family $12,000 to $20,000 a year. Earlier this year, the Dorsetts stopped making mortgage payments on their ranch house, in a subdivision outside Indianapolis, because they could not afford them. In March, they filed for bankruptcy.

    "Zach was really mad at us when we told him we were going to lose the house," Mrs. Dorsett said. "We told him we had to make a choice: whether to pay for medical bills or the house."

    She added: "I didn't want the kids to hate their father for working all the time, but I also didn't want them to think we were irresponsible. I was worried about Zach feeling guilty or his sister blaming him that she has to leave her friends. But whatever we gave up is a small price to pay for his health."

    Never have patients had so many medical options to extend, enrich or alter their lives. But these new options are expensive, and with them has come a change for which many Americans - even those with health insurance - are financially ill prepared.

    After decades in which private and government insurance covered a progressively larger share of medical expenses, insurance companies are now shifting more costs to consumers, in the form of much higher deductibles, co-payments or premiums. At the same time, Americans are saving less and carrying higher levels of household debt, and even insured families are exposed to medical expenses that did not exist a decade ago. Many, like the Dorsetts, do not realize how vulnerable they are until the bills arrive.

    Lawyers and accountants say that for the more than 1.5 million American families who filed for bankruptcy protection last year, the most common causes were job loss and medical expenses. New bankruptcy legislation, which went into effect Oct. 17, requires middle-income debtors to repay a greater share of their debt.

    The Fight for Solvency

    The Dorsetts' filing came after years of accumulating relatively modest bills, often just co-payments on doctor visits or prescriptions. Almost since Zachery's birth, they had finished each year with more credit card debt than they had the year before. Even when they took out a second mortgage to pay off their credit cards, by the end of the year they were in debt again, with higher mortgage payments. And each year, their projected expenses were greater.

    On a late summer morning, Mrs. Dorsett, now 32, sat with her son in Room 4013 at St. Vincent Children's Hospital in Indianapolis as a colorless infusion of immune globulin, a treatment made from blood plasma, dripped slowly into his left arm, supplying the antibodies that his immune system does not produce.

    The monthly infusion, which has become a regular part of his childhood along with soccer practice and family camping trips, costs $54,000 a year, of which the Dorsetts will pay more than $5,000.

    "My friends don't understand it," Mrs. Dorsett said, looking back at the family's relentless, inevitable process of insolvency. "They think, How could it get so bad so quick? Unless you have a sick kid, you don't know what it's like."

    For the Dorsetts, this is what the end looked like, according to the family's bankruptcy filing: They had $1,431 in their checking and savings accounts; they owed $29,146 on various credit cards; and after refinancing their house to pay down their credit cards, they could no longer afford the payments on their house or car.

    Mr. Dorsett, who works on commercial heating and air conditioning systems, sometimes stitching together 90-hour weeks, earns $68,000 a year. It is more money than his father ever made, but not enough to cover the bills, especially with the monthly infusions starting.

    Mrs. Dorsett recounts the impact their medical expenses have had on the family: They buy their clothing at yard sales, and skip vacations and restaurant meals. Mr. and Mrs. Dorsett argue, like many couples, mainly about money. Mr. Dorsett has had to work nights and weekends, with little contact with his wife and children; Mrs. Dorsett has tried to create a home for the children.

    "We don't live a frivolous life, but I need to make my kids' life normal," she said. "They still need bikes. My husband says, 'Kids in the third world don't have those things.' I say, 'We don't live in a third world country.' "

    As the bills mounted, it was Mrs. Dorsett who forced her husband to acknowledge that he could not simply work more hours. "I showed him, even if I went back to work, we'd still be in debt in 10 years," Mrs. Dorsett said. "Our kids could not go to college."

    In a study of 1,771 people who filed for bankruptcy, reported this year by four researchers at Harvard and Ohio University, 28 percent said the cause was illness or injury. Most were middle class, educated and had health insurance at the start of the treatment. Many lost phone service, went without meals or skipped medications to save money. Although the study relied largely on people's own accounts of their finances, the figure suggests that as many as 400,000 American families file for bankruptcy each year because of medical expenses.

    "Not only are the bills higher, but the way we pay for care has changed," said Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the study's authors. "My mother always carried a bill with the doctor, but every dollar she paid went to principal.

    "Today, the doctor takes a credit card, and a family might be paying that off at extraordinary interest rates. So people may recover physically from major medical injury, but may not recover financially."

    A Shift in Burden

    Though health care costs have been rising for decades, changes in insurance starting around 2001 have put more pressure on consumers, especially those who need the most treatment, said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan research group financed primarily by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

    The families driven into bankruptcy by these costs include those dealing with both rare and common medical conditions, and others who simply saved too little or owed too much in the false confidence that there would not be unforeseen medical problems, or that their insurance would protect them.

    In Pfafftown, N.C., Glenda and Robert Lee Gantt filed for bankruptcy protection after Mrs. Gantt's rheumatoid arthritis forced her to give up working as a security guard. In Houston, Roy and Patsy McKanna filed for bankruptcy after helping their adult daughter pay for breast cancer treatment.

    "We were just trying to keep them from sinking until things got better," said Mrs. McKanna, 71. "They took bankruptcy a little more than a year before we did. We managed our budget for 52 years. You never know what life's going to throw at you."

    In the 1990's, as medical expenses rose faster than inflation, insurance companies limited costs of coverage by limiting patients' treatment options through the system known as managed care. Even as hospitals and drug companies introduced expensive new treatments, out-of-pocket costs for patients actually fell during the decade.

    But as consumers have objected to the limits imposed by managed care, insisting on more choice, the trade-off has been higher insurance premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs, said Arnold Milstein, medical director of the Pacific Business Group on Health.

    Dr. Milstein said companies had two rationales for shifting expenses to consumers: to "share the pain" that came with higher overall costs and to encourage patients to seek care judiciously.

    "But what if you're unlucky enough to get sick?" he said. "Now you pay a lot more out of pocket. One of the unintended consequences of cost-shifting is that sicker people - the ones who most need insurance - are the ones who end up paying more of their bills."

    From 2000 to 2005, employees in the most common type of insurance plan, known as preferred provider organizations, saw their premiums for individual coverage rise 76 percent, to $603 from $342, while their deductibles - the amount they pay out of pocket before insurance kicks in - rose almost 85 percent, to $323 from $175, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. By 2003, a survey by the Center for Studying Health System Change estimated, 20 million American families had trouble paying their medical bills. Two-thirds of these had health insurance.

    Twists of Fate

    Mr. and Mrs. Dorsett never expected to be part of this group. They met more than a decade ago at a gas station where she worked part time while studying to be a nurse.

    Mr. Dorsett liked to talk on his way home from work. Both wanted to have a big family. They married with plans to have six children. Mrs. Dorsett hoped to finish her studies and work as a nurse; Mr. Dorsett thought she should stay at home with the children.

    But shortly after Zachery was born, they knew something was not right. He got the same illnesses or infections as other children, but while others got better, he would get worse. A cold would turn into bronchitis; a sinus infection would require 45 days of antibiotics, and often turn into pneumonia. He needed follow-up doctor visits, refills on prescriptions, X-rays, CAT scans - each time ringing up co-payments of $10, $15, $30 or more.

    On a blazing summer evening, the Dorsetts sat at their kitchen table. Their one extravagance, a large-screen television, occupied the children: Zachery, 8; Dakota, 5; and Jessica, 4. Mrs. Dorsett bought the television with her mother as a present for her husband, from money she had earned baby-sitting. Mr. Dorsett, she recalled, had complained about the expense.

    At 40, Mr. Dorsett has a ruddy complexion, buzzed blond hair and a light beard. As he nursed a can of supermarket-brand cream soda, he seemed to wish he could turn back the calendar, find some alternative to bankruptcy court. It is a source of recurring friction between them: Mr. Dorsett never wanted to file; Mrs. Dorsett convinced him that there was no alternative.

    "I make good money, and I work hard for it," Mr. Dorsett said. "When we filed for bankruptcy, I felt I failed."

    He said one of his hardest moments was telling his father about the bankruptcy. His father had worked two or three jobs during hard times, but always managed to pay his debts. Arnold Dorsett made more money than his father ever had, he said, but what good did it do him?

    "At work," he said, "the single guys say our insurance is good. Well, it's good for them, because they don't have kids, or don't get sick. When you have a kid who's chronically sick, it's totally different."

    On his long days, Mr. Dorsett usually skips lunch rather than spend $6 or $7 at a fast food restaurant. He wishes he could take the family to the Grand Canyon, or afford a house where the girls could have their own bedrooms. But when asked about his sacrifices, he said the luxury he missed most was time, not money. "Zach and I had no relationship until two years ago," he said. "Dakota hardly ever talked to me. I was putting in 80, 90 hours a week, not having a relationship with my children."

    While Mr. Dorsett works, Mrs. Dorsett juggles child care with the seemingly endless wrangling with insurance companies and, until the bankruptcy filing, with creditors.

    Managing a Medical Mystery

    On an August morning at home, Mrs. Dorsett prepared a lunch of corn dogs and macaroni and cheese while Zachery got ready for soccer camp. By all appearances, he is a healthy-looking boy with a somber disposition. Though he has missed as many as 42 days in a school year because of illness, he has friends and keeps up with his classes, his mother said. His worst problem at school, she said, is pushing himself too hard.

    Until earlier this year, no one knew what was wrong with him. His immune disorder, known as common variable immune deficiency, can be detected through a simple blood test, but as Mrs. Dorsett took him from doctor to doctor, usually with small problems that would not go away, the doctors looked elsewhere. Some treated only the immediate symptoms; others made Mrs. Dorsett feel she was overtreating her child.

    "I felt there was something wrong," she said. "But you can't walk into a doctor's office and say you think you know what it is because you saw it online. They're the ones with the prescription pads, and I didn't want to make them mad."

    As the family went from one doctor to the next, without a diagnosis of the root problem, the insurance company often questioned the expenses. Why did Zachery need four doctor visits or five rounds of antibiotics for an ailment that most children shook off in a couple of days? Mrs. Dorsett spent days on the phone, often in voice-mail loops, and often long-distance, pleading her case.

    "Like when they refused to pay for antibiotics when he had pneumonia" last year, she said. "The antibiotics cost $373, and we didn't have it. But we couldn't just not give it to him. I knew the review board would come around eventually, but he needed the medicine right away. Finally the doctor gave us samples."

    She managed the expenses, like many people, by constantly applying for new credit cards, rolling the debt from the old cards into the new ones, which usually came with low introductory interest rates. In a good year, they would have the rolling charges on their credit cards down to $5,000 or $6,000, but the charges always went up again.

    Gradually the debts started to catch up with her. When she fell behind on one of her heavily used cards, the company raised the 2.9 percent interest rate to 14 percent. Suddenly, she could not find a card with a low interest rate or a line of credit of more than $5,000, when the family balance exceeded $13,000. She tried playing dumb with the company, saying she was sure she had sent the check. "But they weren't buying it," she said.

    With Mr. Dorsett's insurance, Zachery's bills were not astronomical, but they were just beyond what the Dorsetts could afford. Finally, Mrs. Dorsett asked one of the hospitals for assistance. "They said all I could do was go to churches," she said. "Which is worse, filing for bankruptcy or - I'm going to say it - begging at churches?"

    Now, Uncertainty

    Since the couple filed for bankruptcy protection in March, the creditors have stopped calling for money. The Dorsetts filed for, and were granted, protection under Chapter 7, which means that a trustee will liquidate their nonexempt assets to pay their creditors. But as in most Chapter 7 cases, there are no assets to liquidate.

    In the meantime, since they are resigned to losing their house, they are putting aside the money that would have gone to the mortgage for the next round of big expenses. For the first time since Zachery's birth they are saving money.

    Even now, credit card companies still offer them cards, which they have turned down. But because of the bankruptcy, they know they will not be able to secure a mortgage on their next home. Many of their friends, and especially the mothers in Mrs. Dorsett's preschool group, do not know about the bankruptcy.

    Even with their debts cleared for the moment, there are no guarantees that the Dorsetts will be able to stay above water. The immune globulin may keep Zachery out of the emergency room this winter, but it may not. They have no credit to buffer unforeseen expenses - a sudden car repair, a slowdown at work, braces.

    Mrs. Dorsett tried to put the best spin on the contingencies that loom over their lives: "If we get another house for under $800 a month, if nothing else happens, if the treatments work, we'll make it."

    And if things do not work out, they will face that another day, and for many days after that.

    Friday, December 02, 2005

    Artlcle: Pension bailout could be costly- Legislative session could be needed to solve $300M bailout headache

    By MATT GOURAS - Associated Press Writer - 12/01/2005

    "Bob Vogel, director of governmental relations for the Montana School Boards Association, said they are not happy about the hit to local property taxpayers. He called it a "necessary evil."

    HELENA - The taxpayer bailout of the state's public employee pension systems will cost nearly $300 million over the next six years under a plan that could be headed to a special legislative session.

    An interim legislative panel unanimously approved the plan Wednesday, which includes a one-time infusion of $125 million into the retirement systems for public employees, teachers, sheriffs and game wardens.

    It also would order an increase in the employer contributions, money that comes from state and local governments and is paid for by taxpayers.

    By 2011, that increase will be costing taxpayers about $40 million more each year, according to an analysis done by the governor's office. Much of the money will be coming from local property taxes used to pay benefits for teachers.

    A total of about $288 million would be put into the retirement systems through 2011 - and the problem still wouldn't be fixed.

    Potential deficits in the state's teacher and public employee retirement systems rose to $1.4 billion earlier this year. Blame has been heaped on investment losses when the stock market tumbled after the 2001 terrorist attacks, benefit increases and lack of oversight.

    The thorny issue served as the backdrop to a dispute earlier this month when Gov. Brian Schweitzer filed a lawsuit to block a key hiring decision made by The Public Employees Retirement Administration. PERA withdrew its offer to hire Terry Teichrow as its executive director.

    As the stock market rose in the late 1990s, groups working on behalf of the employees helped lobby for hikes in their pension benefits. The Legislature obliged without putting any money into the system to pay for the increases.

    The bill is now coming due.

    "I am not satisfied with the (proposed fix), because all it does is put the burden on taxpayers," said Rep. Verdell Jackson, R-Kalispell.

    Jackson, on the State Administration and Veterans' Affairs committee that approved the plan Wednesday, said he voted for the bill to keep the issue alive, in hopes he can find another way to fix the problem. He had been seeking to cut the retirement benefits.

    Lawmakers have been told it would be unconstitutional to reduce the retirement benefits once they have been increased for existing employees. At the same time, the state is required to make the pension system whole again.

    "We are between a rock and a hard place," Jackson said.

    Jackson said lawmakers will also need to reform the retirement and investment boards that helped with the decisions that led to much of the deficit.

    He said veteran lobbyists hoodwinked inexperienced legislators, who replaced veteran lawmakers following term limits, when they helped push through the pension benefit increases in 1999-2001.

    "The lobbyists don't term out," he said.

    Schweitzer, expressing frustration at the way the problem developed, has promised to fix the pension system.

    The Legislature may be coming back to Helena for a special session to fix school funding and the pension issue could be included in the call.

    "It's clearly one of our top concerns," said Sarah Elliott, press secretary to Schweitzer.

    Bob Vogel, director of governmental relations for the Montana School Boards Association, said they are not happy about the hit to local property taxpayers. He called it a "necessary evil."

    "Local taxes will go up to pay," he said.

    Vogel asked lawmakers to consider using more state tax money to fix the system, and less from the school districts that employ the teachers.

    The committee also is looking at closing "loopholes" that allow teachers to get big increases in their retirement benefits at the end of their careers, sometimes by retiring and then coming back to work.

    Carroll South, executive director for the Board of Investments, said Schweitzer has made it clear to him that he is to be vocal with opposition to pension changes that could create deficits.

    He said he didn't feel there was anything he could have said in 2001 to stop that round of increases - without risk of "being run over by the train."

    "When you look at the support that bill had ... I'm not so sure it would have been safe for me to stand up and say 'wait a minute,"' he said.

    Article: Lawmakers Seek Inquiry on Pensions

    New York Times

    December 1, 2005

    By Mary Williams Walsh

    Two members of the House of Representatives asked the research arm of Congress yesterday to investigate whether the federal agencies that enforce pension law have failed to police a crucial part of the pension business: the consultants and money managers who help decide how money is invested.

    The request by Representatives George Miller, a California Democrat, and Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, underscores a flaw in the pension law.

    The law divides the authority for pension plans among three federal agencies, which look at such issues as whether companies are putting enough money into pension funds and whether they are keeping employees informed about the plans. But the money managers are regulated by a fourth agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has no authority over pension law.

    This regulatory problem is as old as the pension law, 31 years. But it has become apparent only recently, as a series of record-size corporate pension failures has put new burdens on the federal agency that insures pensions. Even now, with Congress trying to close loopholes in the pension law, the focus has been on how to make sure companies put enough money into their pension funds, not how the money is invested after that.

    In a letter to David M. Walker, the head of the Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, the congressmen pointed to the collapse this year of the employee pension plans at United Airlines.

    They noted that a union that represents some United employees, the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association, had specifically asked federal regulators to look into whether United's pension consultant had been acting solely in the interests of the plan participants, as the law requires, or had been steering blocks of pension money to certain money managers for business reasons.

    The union put its request last summer to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which guarantees company pensions, and to the labor secretary, Elaine L. Chao, who is chairwoman of the guaranty corporation.

    "We understand that the P.B.G.C. has to date declined to undertake a forensic audit of United's plan to ascertain whether there were, in fact, conflicts of interest, hidden financial arrangements and unlawful activities," the representatives wrote.

    They said this was particularly disturbing because United's pension failure came at about the same time as the S.E.C. issued a critical report on the pension consulting business.

    The report, based on an 18-month review, found that more than half the pension consultants in the S.E.C.'s sample were being paid by money management firms, even as they claimed to be screening and selecting money managers objectively on behalf of their pension fund clients.

    The S.E.C. referred about a dozen of the consultants to its enforcement division for further action, but it did not name them.

    The two representatives said the S.E.C. report raised questions about whether conflicts of interest among United's consultants and its money managers had contributed to the failure of its pension fund. That failure caused record losses of about $10 billion, which will be borne by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and the employees of United.

    Not only had the guaranty corporation not made a review of United's consultants and money managers, they wrote, but "we are not aware of any plans by the P.B.G.C. to systematically assess whether pension consultant conflicts of interest or undisclosed financial relationships existed at any of the terminated plans now under its control."

    The representatives said they had been asking the S.E.C. whether any of the pension consultants referred to the commission's enforcement division were used by United's pension fund, but so far they had not received an answer. They also asked the Government Accountability Office to determine whether the pension agency had used any of those consultants.

    A spokesman for the accountability office confirmed that it had received the request for an investigation and would work with the lawmakers on defining the scope and timing of an investigation.

    The pension guaranty corporation has taken over nearly 4,000 defunct pension plans in the last three years, digging itself into a $23 billion hole. The guarantor is not at risk of running out of money anytime soon, but Congress has been working on legislation that would improve its finances as well as close the loopholes in the rules that govern how much money companies set aside for their pension plans. But progress has been slow.

    The pension law requires the officials of company pension plans to make sure the money is invested with "care, skill, prudence and diligence." In practice, many plan sponsors work with outside consultants, who help them devise an asset-allocation strategy and pick outside money managers to carry it out.

    This division of labor appears to be causing confusion about which regulatory agency should monitor the investment of pension money.

    Article: Charter-school operator cuts jobs as growth slows

    " The state doesn’t require charter-school management companies to disclose how much money is spent directly on students and how much is kept as profit." Imagine that! John
    Thursday, December 01, 2005
    THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

    Suffering from stagnating enrollment, the largest operator of Ohio charter schools has laid off almost 10 percent of its employees, including about 18 at three Columbus charters, a spokesman said yesterday.

    But how those cuts affect White Hat Management’s bottom line remains a secret.

    Based on October enrollment at White Hat schools in six states, including 31 in Ohio, "it was now appropriate to make adjustments," said President and CEO Mark Thimmig.

    He wouldn’t provide enrollment numbers but said they were about the same as in 2004. In fact, "I believe we may have had a few more students going into this period last year," he said.

    State figures show 15,673 students attended the White Hat schools in Ohio last year, including the three Life Skills Centers in Columbus.

    Asked why White Hat would need layoffs if enrollment is about the same, Thimmig said the firm had grown quickly, adding about 1,000 employees during the past several years "in anticipation of what our needs would be." The company employs nearly 2,000 people statewide.

    At the three Life Skills Centers in Columbus, enrollment is down about 20 percent over figures from a year ago on file with the Ohio Department of Education. The Life Skills schools cater to dropouts and people at risk of quitting school.

    The number of students fell at each of the Columbus schools, which together were paid for a total of 1,098 this month, down from 1,377 for November 2004.

    Thimmig didn’t have exact figures for the Columbus-area layoffs but said that each of the three schools lost about six employees. The reductions were based on each business unit’s enrollments, he said.

    The schools’ contracts call for a teacher-to-student ratio of 1-to-45 and two aides in each classroom.

    "Wherever they’re going to cut, I’m sure that it’s not going to be in a place that will take them out of contract," said Patricia Hughes, sponsorship director of the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, which holds the charter contracts that allow the Columbus schools to operate.

    The foundation’s board will request information about new teacher-to-student ratios when it meets Jan. 11, Hughes said.

    Although the Life Skills Centers are public schools, White Hat is a for-profit company. Its founder and chairman, David L. Brennan, says the firm is making money but won’t say how much. The state doesn’t require charter-school management companies to disclose how much money is spent directly on students and how much is kept as profit.

    Last year, White Hat received $109 million in state education funds that followed students from public school districts.

    bbush@dispatch.com

    Dennis Leone: For the record (ORTA)

    From: Dennis Leone
    Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005
    Subject: Re: Board minutes

    For the record: What I have said to ORTA is that I would be happy to co-author an ORTA Quarterly column with Jeff Chapman as long as ORTA first steps up and fosters genuine collaboration among retirees. Given the things that ORTA has done in the past two years that caused friction, it is not as simple as ORTA saying it hopes the division of the past STRS election can be put in the past. The matter, in my mind, has little to do with whom ORTA has endorsed in past elections. There are more important things than that.
    ORTA's desire to mend fences is the key. That's the common theme I've heard from the 49 RTAs I've addressed over the past 2 years. There are many ways that this could occur. Among other things, I have suggested that ORTA sponsor a collaboration reception to try to bring people together. That would be a good start.
    If ORTA is not interested in fostering genuine collaboration, then life will go on -- and other retirees who ARE interested in collaboration (and worried about the future) are prepared to step up with new and direct communication ideas for retirees in all 88 counties. I learned this in a meeting with some retirees on Thursday in Mansfield. I am willing to be part of such new forms of communication to keep retirees informed about STRS issues and to mobilize action. Do I personally want or expect an apology from ORTA? No, I do not.
    Dennis Leone

    John Bos to John Curry: Who should pay?


    John and others,

    If STRS is responsible for the legal costs of the employee bonus law suit, would it also be true that STRS is responsible for the legal costs of the Medco court action.

    Is it reasonable to assume that Petro wanted to be the LEAD legal representatives on this case to pay for his office and provide more PAY TO PLAY money for his governor's campaign fund!!!

    I think that this is a significant issue since the other retirement systems still use Medco and would not agree to be a part of the legal actions.

    John Bos
    12/02/05

    A MUST-READ FOR ACTIVE TEACHERS!!! Tom Curtis, George Doyle, RH Jones on Strickland, Petro, Montgomery, charter schools; also STRS, OEA and ORTA


    From: Tom Curtis
    December 2, 2005

    Hello George,

    Yes, I was sitting there last night listening to Ted Strickland, thinking exactly what you said. We have had two Governors who ran with big promises of funding education, received the big educational vote, then did not fulfill their promise. They simply moved on to bigger and better things.

    Unfortunately, that is at least 50% our own fault. Teachers have never stood up and banded together and said, NO, we will not accept this. We want what we were promised. We have always gone along; stayed in our classrooms and fulfilled the promise we made to be there and educate our young.

    Nor have we ever attempted to recall a Governor who promised such, but did not deliver. We have NO power or money. That is what this country is all about today. Take from the poor and make the rich richer.

    This is so sad to face, as we just simply do not choose to exercise the strength we could have. We have the possibility of the power necessary to bring about change; we just have never exercised it. If all teachers walked out of their classrooms and simply demanded that they receive what they have been promised, we would have the power to do such. Would teachers ever do it? Absolutely not! Far too many teachers are simply very passive, non-confrontational people and will settle for whatever they receive and consider themselves OK with that. That is admirable on the teacher's part, but is does not pay the bills once you retire.

    When you retire, they just keep on abusing you and kicking you in the teeth. That becomes very painful. It is very hard for me to be civil with those that operate the STRS, because they full well know they are screwing us and they just don't care. Their attitude is simply, we have the money and you have no power to force any changes any quicker then we desire to make them, and only if we choose to do so. Those fine OEA board members we have thrown out recently placed us in this position. They permitted the STRS management to handle them and raise the cost of operation far beyond any of the other four pension systems. Now the management is not willing to give any of that up. Again, why should they, who are we the membership?

    I have now realized, the OEA is nothing more then a parasite on the teachers' backs. In my opinion, they have been more detrimental to our progress in wages and benefits then one would ever have dreamed. They have misspent our money just as much as the STRS. A teacher pays dues to the OEA for an entire career and what do you get from the OEA? I know what I have gotten, absolutely nothing. Now that I am a retiree and no longer pay dues, I am nothing to them. They no longer feel any obligation to represent me. That is shameful and disgusting to think of the amount of money the OEA has gone through in the past thirty years and this is the situation they left us in.

    Here is a good example of how little teachers back one another. One third of all retirees need to insure a dependent, which is roughly 30,000 educators. Many of us who have had our spousal and dependent child subsidy removed have been at the STRS each month since mid 2003, attempting to bring about a change in that issue. We have banded together and are known as CORE. Do we have the support of all 30,000 who have been affected? Well, you can answer that for yourself, but no, we do not. Where are all of these remaining people? They all certainly cannot be unable to attend due to age or health limitations. Many will not even back those attempting to bring about change. No, they are just not confrontational people, as the ORTA leadership so referred to CORE this whole time. We are classified as not being diplomatic. Well I ask you, what has being diplomatic gotten the ORTA leadership recently? They do not want to rock the boat. That is why those of us actively involved each month have to be almost overly confrontational to even be heard.


    Teachers who are only lightly affected by the changes in the cost of HC could care less about those of us who are suffering the most. My cost for health care for my wife and I for 2004 was just over $13,000. That is over a third of my pension. How many other retirees give a hoot about that for me? No, their attitude is this, I got mine, isn't good to be me; too bad about you, I can't be bothered. Well, as you can tell, I have managed to get myself worked up about this situation again and I need to move on.

    Take care,
    Tom Curtis

    From: George Doyle
    Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005
    Subject: RE: 120205 Curtis Resp To Jones; Re Petro's and Montgomery's Stand on Charter Schools

    Tom:

    Candidates can say anything, but doing it is another thing!! We have already experienced two so called "Education Governors" and look what has happened to education. SHOW ME THE MONEY!! as the saying goes.

    George Doyle

    From: Thomas Curtis
    Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005
    Subject: 120205 Curtis Resp To Jones; Re Petro's and Montgomery's Stand on Charter Schools

    Hey Bob,

    I went over to Alliance last night and listened to Congressman Ted Strickland speak at Mount Union College. After giving his introduction about where he came from in Ohio and how he has gotten to where he is today, he began to layout what he plans to do as Governor, if elected.

    First, he started with his 5 principles for his candidacy.

    1. Believes in a high standard of public service.
    2. Wants to focus on core issues important to every Ohio family.
    3. Will build on Ohio's strengths.
    4. Will be an active Governor accessible to the people.
    5. Will demand results.

    He went on to say his highest priorities are jobs, education and health care
    and gave examples of areas he plans to develop or continue to support already existing development.

    He said he will be a law abiding Governor and obey the Supreme Court ruling and fund schools properly. He will attempt to get the legislature to abide by such as well. If the legislature will not work to that end, he will continue on a statewide crusade for proper school funding. He will force all schools to be held to the same high standard of testing and operation. He wants to focus on an early childhood or pre-school program to get children better prepared to enter public schools. He also wants to make sure every student can afford to attend a state college at an affordable cost.

    During the short question and answer period he was asked about vouchers and charter schools. He is totally against vouchers. No way will he support that issue. He is against for-profit schools, but not totally against not-for-profit ones. Strong believer in public education and feels if that were to change it would be the demise of education in Ohio and the rest of the country.

    He seems to be a strong candidate and would seem to have much appeal to the voter. He said very little against the Republican candidates other then indicating that a few of them want some constitutional amendments he feels would be very detrimental to the state.

    Take care,
    Tom Curtis

    From: RH Jones
    Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005
    Subject: Petro's and Montgomery's Stand on Charter Schools

    To all:


    The Beacon, yesterday, 12-1-05, front & A8 pages, lists GOP gubernatorial candidate, Jim Petro as saying: "Providing choices for primary and secondary education through charter schools and vouchers ---". The Beacon, today, 12-2-05, front & A4 pages, lists GOP gubernatorial candidate, Betty Montgomery as saying only: "---improving our educational opportunities from preschool through college."My take on these two candidates: Petro at least came right out and backed charter schools while Montgomery cleverly avoided the charter school issue with a veiled comment. And, I wonder how she will improve educational opportunities while at the same time saying that she would reduce state spending. To me, however, she seems to be a politically "savvy" Republican candidate.Complete profiles of all the candidates can be found on the politics pages of the web at: www.Ohio.com

    RHJones

    Larry KehresMount Union Collge
    Division III
    web page counter
    Vermont Teddy Bear Company