Saturday, January 21, 2006

Ryan Holderman: Clarification of Dyer's conviction

From: Ryan Holderman
To: One & All!
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006
Subject: Clarification of Mr. Dyer's conviction!
Dear One & All:
I want to clarify something that I said in my earlier E-mail. I said, "It was during the period when OEA had a five member control of the Board that Executive Director Herb Dyer, recently convicted of felonies related to his tenure at STRS, let it be known that he felt STRS should get out of the "health care business!" I was using the word felony in the general sense of a serious violation of the law. Legally, Mr. Dyer was convicted of a misdemeanor. The article below outlines that charge.
Sincerely, Ryan Holderman
Ex-chief of teachers' retirement system pleads no contest
The Columbus Dispatch
Thursday, September 1, 2005
The former executive director of the State Teachers Retirement System was found guilty of an ethics violation today for failing to report gifts of meals and golf from 2002.
Herbert L. Dyer, 66, of Powell, appeared in Franklin County Municipal Court and entered a no contest plea to one misdemeanor charge. He said he failed to report nearly $400 in free meals and one golf game paid for by a contractor working with the retirement system.
Judge Michael T. Brandt fined Dyer $700 and ordered that he pay $394 in restitution to the pension fund by mid-September.
Dyer, who resigned in 2003 amid accusations of extravagant spending by his agency, was investigated by the Ohio Ethics Commission for accepting meals for him and his spouse, travel and tickets to a Broadway musical between 1998 and 2003. The gifts were provided by the Frank Russell Corp., a real-estate adviser.
The charges, which were brought by the city attorney's office, are for not disclosing the source of the gifts on his state-mandated ethics statements. Assistant City Prosecutor Lara Baker agreed to dismiss four other counts in exchange for the plea.
``I took into consideration that he had filed many other disclosure forms that were above board,'' Brandt said after the sentencing.
Court records show Dyer paid his fine before leaving the courthouse. He was making $153,000 a year before his retirement.

A little levity from John Curry (we sure need it!)

News Bulletin: Jimmy Petro challenged Kenny Blackwell to a duel recently.

The distance: 10 paces

The weapon of choice: the crucifix!

Will let you know the outcome once the winner is declared -- this may take a while! John

Molly to Damon: Board thinking of dropping HC for current retirees?

From: Asbury, Damon
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006
No -- they are committed to seeking a contribution increase to continue HC
From:Molly Janczyk
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006
To: Asbury, Damon

Molly Janczyk: Reflections on STRS Board

From: Molly Janczyk
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006
Subject: STRS Board Members: PTS: Reflection & Election denial of Ramser for a 2nd term

It is my fervent hope that all those affiliated with the current board will discuss issues in the forefront of STRS memberships' minds advising them to never again:
1. Vote on issues with no documentation or contracts in front of them which they have had ample time to review-esp. after learning items were voted on and approved when they board did not know of some items included in the contract.
It seems, however, that Meyers and Fisher see little wrong with costs thrown in here or violations there with companies doing business with STRS reflecting a corporate mentality in my opinion which has no place on a pension board.
2. Ask themselves what message it sends to vote raises for staff when membership is suffering catastrophically selling homes, refusing medical attention and meds due to costs. Retirees who served full careers have to return to work if able to pay for HC and absorb 800% increases since retiring with no warning.
3. Remain silent when rules for board procedure are being blatantly ignored to overrun board members who make substitute motions and who disagree. All should be outraged against power plays and disregard for correct procedure-not just 2 board members.
4. The Chair and Co Chair, Brown and Ramser, are trying to enforce appearances of board unity when voting is not unanimous. This is America and all have free speech.
5. I am adding one of my own, a NEW one: What about issues that are given to MOST but not ALL Board members to consider and VOTE ON? I want ALL ELEVEN Board members, not just the CHOSEN ones, to know what ALL the issues are, and to have the opportunity to discuss and vote on them with the other Board members!! Do we need a Board that keeps some of its OWN members out of the loop altogether when an issue comes up that may be controversial? I sure as #%&! don't!!! Game playing at its very worst!!! WHERE IS THE SUNSHINE LAW??? Kathie Bracy
The above issues are deep concerns of STRS membership and need attention for future meetings. The old board of rubber stamping is gone and this type of lingering mentality by the current Board Chair, Brown, and Co Chair, Ramser, is offensive and childish. Consider Dec.'s reported tantrum by Ramser and Brown's lack of knowledge with both of them objecting and denying discussion.
These actions did not go unnoticed and will have consequence. I strongly suggest STRS membership NOT VOTE FOR CONTINUED BAD BEHAVIOR OF CONNI RAMSER for another term on the STRS board. She was not elected the first time and appointed by the old STRS board, OEA dominated.
I request that the Governor and the Sen. Pres and Speaker of the House who appointed Fisher and Meyers speak with them or replace them with membership minded appointees.
I hope that Zelman speaks with Puckett on all these issues or replaces him as his tenure is long on this board. Puckett did stand for membership on the raises yesterday.
I trust that the other board members will reflect and see how this type of voting is inappropriate and harmful to membership money being spent without review or known purposes just as they would want such with their funds and according to ORC. law.
Further, I trust these well intentioned members will consider standing up for wrongs being evidenced on the part of the Chair and Co Chair denying all board member rights as they would wish for themselves in the same circumstance.
Getting along is not why any board member is elected. Right is right and never negotiable. We need strength for membership and careful deliberation of all sides of issues with intense research of ALL facts covered by a vote BEFORE voting.
Molly Janczyk

Molly asks Dennis re: rumor that retiree HC will be eliminated

From: Dennis Leone
To: Molly Janczyk
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006
I have heard no discussion of absolutely eliminating health care since I have been on the Board. It has often been said, however, that absent a new source of revenue for the health care stabilization fund, it will be completely empty by 2018 -- which means that as of that year, there would be no health insurance.
In recent months, there has been quite a bit of talk about whether, on a long term basis, the pension fund will remain solvent for those who have not yet retired. Some board members have said that pension solvency must remain our No. 1 priority, and it may mean that at some unknown point in the future, we won't be able to have an STRS health care plan. I hope things never get that bad. Reducing the 55-year unfunded liability is a major, major problem.
Dennis Leone
From: Molly Janczyk
To: Dennis Leone
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006

Four Board candidates visit CORE 1/19/06

Candidates (left to right) Mark Fredrick, John Brackett, Mark Meuser and Tom Hall during interview session at CORE meeting 1/19/06. Endorsed: Fredrick and Hall

(Photo by Tom Curtis)

More scare tactics by OEA; this time on health care (who do you believe?)

From: Molly Janczyk
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006
Subject: HC SCARE by OEA: SB190: Other Board Issues:1/20/06:
1. The recent information sent out by OEA to scare its membership was directly dealt with by Dennis Leone. OEA said STRS is discussing dropping HC for retirees and that this would never happen if OEA was on the board.
Leone: Damon, (Exec. Direc. Damon Asbury): I feel political reasons are why OEA put out that STRS is considering dropping health care. DID ANYONE EVER STATE THAT THIS WAS A CONSIDERATION?
2. The SB190 Buck Consultant study was presented yesterday at STRS. Data was requested on this issue last year by Steve Buser, STRS Investment Appointee. He is concerned that the new board is blamed for this request when he made this request BEFORE the new board was seated based on his questions. Leone stated this rumor that the 'new board' wished this was passed for political reasons and scare tactics.
[[Preliminarily from attendees yesterday: Please correct any item not accurately set forth based on attendees present.]]
*SB190, effective 2000, cost STRS $2.3 Billion to bring up existing retirees to 2.2% and make it retroactive to 1999.
*This increased the unfunded liability from 23.1 years in 2000 to 27.5 years in 2001.
*Buck Consultant Rep McNichol (sp) tried to show a monetary gain on a piece of paper that the attendees could not see. Leone said the attendees should be able to view the paper and so they were invited up to see a small sheet of paper unable to really see the point attempted to be shown.
*Needed returns to help pay for the plan and unfunded liability was raised from 7 and 1/2% to 7 and 3/4% in 2000. They have now been raised to 8%. STRS states this reduces the costs of the 35 yr. incentive plan.
*The current unfunded liability is 55 years. IF there had never been a 35 yr. enhancement, it would be 37.7 years now. If the 35 yr. enhancement was stopped fiscal year 2006 (7/05), unfunded liability would be down from
55 years to 39 years.
*Investment STRS Board member Buser stated this created a 2 class retiree system. All retirees pay the same amount into the system but 35 yr retirees receive much more in return. If there is to be another plan, he suggests beneficiaries pay more upfront into the system to make it more equitable for all. He feels not nearly enough is paid into the pension system by those who wish the 35 yr. enhancement to pay for the plan longterm.
*Other factors visited on SB190:
-Is the 35 yr. incentive the real reason actives staying longer or would they stay for 35 yrs. anyway due to increased health care costs of retirees. They would probably stay anyway for cheaper HC costs if able bodied vs. retiring to huge health care premiums and out of pockets and RX's.
-STRS, I believe, said there were gains made with the 35 yr. enhancement to the system BUT insignificant and costs to STRS would increase significantly longterm as payout continues and contributions don't support the payouts.
-Payouts will get much higher as salaries get much higher.
Dawn Leibensperger, (Bill's wife), approached Tom Curtis asking about one of Mark Meuser's interview questions with CORE. It confirmed for some of CORE members, suspicions that Mark was sent to find out questions and goings on. It doesn't matter as we are open in our dealings but it is disappointing if that were Mark's only motives. We let Allen and Bill L. know before interviews that it was felt they were attempting to slip in through the back door. Sadly, it is not necessary as we would have welcomed Mark anyway. Mark, himself, did not hesitate to announce he alliances to his credit.

Lara Baker responds to Evelyn Cuthbert

From: Lara Baker
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006
Subject: RE: Lara Baker: Sidaway trial

Ms Cuthbert:
It is true, to the best of my knowledge, that the reason for the defendant's request for a new court date was a conflict with an out of town trip, however, I do not know the purpose of her trip. In any event, as the last court date was at my request in order to obtain additional information and to further investigate, I indicated to defense counsel that should the new date be a problem I would have no difficulty agreeing to a continuance. I can assure you that this is common practice -- I needed the last continuance and he did not object, in exchange I agreed to be accommodating in the new court date -- that is how professionals deal with one another and I would have given (and have given) the same consideration to members of the public as well.
As for your remaining remarks, once again, I appreciate your concerns regarding the Boards' exercise of its fiduciary responsibilities but my role is limited to the prosecution of alleged violations of Ohio's ethics laws as currently defined by statute. If you are concerned that some of the practices engaged in by the Board should have been prohibited by law but were in fact allowed, then my suggestion would be to lobby your local representative for a change in the law. As it stands, I can only prosecute those offenses currently on the books and I can only do so if I have the evidence necessary to prove a violation beyond a reasonable doubt. In your comments you at once criticize the length of time it has taken to prosecute Ms Sidaway and others while at the same time you state, regarding Mr Dyer, "Could it have been made regarding the time it would have taken to obtain the information needed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Sometimes it is a matter of time and asking the right questions needed to obtain this kind of information and a passionate ability to argue a case." I was compelled by the statute of limitations to initiate cases against Mr Dyer and Ms Sidaway at the time that I did. However, I have used the time since then to continue our investigations into Ms Sidaway's behavior, as well as other members of the Board and members of the STRS staff. In other words, I am using the time that you have suggested that I use to ask the right questions and to ferret out, if it exists, evidence to support the various allegations raised. I take my job seriously and I take the charging of a criminal offense seriously. I am sorry if you feel otherwise.
Once again, I appreciate your comments.
Lara Baker
Chief Legal Counsel, Criminal Division
Columbus City Attorney's Office

Evelyn Cuthbert to Lara Baker: Please answer the question!

From: Evelyn Cuthbert
To: Lara Baker
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006
Subject: RE: Lara Baker: Sidaway trial
Dear Ms Baker
You failed to answer the original question: Was the case continued this time because of Ms Sidaway's vacation plans--Yes or NO? If yes, Ms Sidaway certainly seems very afraid of her indictment and of the ability to successfully prosecute her case---NOT. She is vacationing--worry free. Many of us who are retired teachers and or their spouses can't afford vacations let alone getting free tickets to ball games, dinners, booze, and retirement parties on other people's money and God only knows what else.
I am still awaiting all the others who were going to be indicted for ethical violations at STRS. When or are there others still to be indicted--Yes or NO? Guess I shouldn't hold my breath--now should I?
I am hard pressed to believe that everything STRS does is good and done for the retirees. What I saw was greed, misspending and lavishness at our expense. I am skeptical with all the arrogance in giving bonuses like money grew on trees and then having someone like Dyer telling us to go to the movies less and eat out less because there was less money for the retirees. I am especially skeptical after hearing Herb say that the money belonged to the board to do with as they wished and believe me they did. The only changes made today at STRS were due to people like Dennis Leone and John Lazares who stuck their necks out and worked relentlessly with determined retirees to stop these practices. These changes were forced on the administration at STRS and not done on their own accord or of their own initiative. If many of the practices at STRS weren't unethical and illegal they should be. We also feel they were very immoral. The inspector general wanted to investigate STRS but our govenor who admittedly doesn't care what his constituents think of him wouldn't let that happen. I can only wonder why with 2 other state politicians seated on the board.
As for Mr. Dyer: we are all devastated as to the tap on the wrist for his unethical behavior and to get such a light sentence because his wife died was unbelievable. You stated your decision was based upon what you thought you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Could it have been made regarding the time it would have taken to obtain the information needed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Sometimes it is a matter of time and asking the right questions needed to obtain this kind of information and a passionate ability to argue a case. If the case with Herb was so weak why prosecute it at all? It ended up being another joke and slap to the retirees.
Wonder how many people died because of the outrageous bonuses given to STRS employees for just doing their jobs further depleting the fund? Bonuses that continued despite all the loses in the investments at STRS and for years. Outrageous bonuses that were many times the yearly salaries of these poor teachers thus having to raise the premiums and health care deductibles making these poor teachers choose to delay or not get healthcare and or testing done because of the added outrageous cost. As you know, medical instituions nowadays don't have to accept payment plans--you can still be turned over to a collection agency even when making regular payments. They want you to charge your account to a credit card and make payments to them.
As for faith in the judicial system----I have NONE. I continually tell people to mobilize and vote these judges and prosecutors and any other politicians out that don't do their jobs and not to seek remedy in the judicial system unless you have deep pockets for high priced attorney fees who know how to play the law game. Many of us don't have that kind of money. What used to make sense no longer does. Laws are made to help the accused get the lightest judgment possible IF found guilty and at times barely none if plead and not for the victims they caused.
Evelyn Cuthbert
Wife of a retired teacher who must work after retirement thanks to Herb

Ryan: Let Betty come and explain herself

From Ryan Holderman, Jan. 19, 2006

Dear One & All:

I am in favor of giving Betty Montgomery a hearing. We should give her the
opportunity to explain herself. We should also be prepared to ask very
frank questions not only about STRS but about the culture of greed and
corruption that permeates the political arena in this state!

Should be very interesting!


Tom Curtis on CORE meeting & candidates 1/19/06

From Tom Curtis
January 21, 2006
Thank you Mary Ellen and Molly,
I was so very pleased with everything that took place on Thursday with our two meetings. We had a great turn out. Blin Scatterday thanked CORE more then a few times for inviting ORTA and indicated to me that CORE & ORTA needed to be working together. He said we can get a lot more accomplished that way and I agreed. I felt his comments were sincere and feel that we have begun to put aside some of our differences. Ann Hanning also thanked CORE and complimented us on our program, as did Lou DiOrio. All three of them spent some time talking with Tom Hall afterwards. I feel as though we made two good choices in the candidates CORE endorsed. As you know, I already felt that Tom Hall was a strong candidate, but I was very impressed with Mark Fredrick, as were most others. Mark Meuser only came to find out what our questions were and who the competition was. OEA is so transparent and arrogant, but best of all, as John Curry said, they are running scared.
I verbally thanked Joyce Baldwin for all of her help numerous times the past two days. I will follow with a nice thank you to Joyce and copy to Damon. I will thank her for all of her efforts in helping us to have a very professional setting for our interview meeting room. She said she would again reserve the Sublett Room for us in February. I told her we would confirm if we needed the front section again as soon as we would know. I also thanked Matt for setting up the microphones and taking care of our audio needs. He said he found it very interesting to listen to the candidates. I will send a separate note to Damon commending Matt's fine handling of our audio needs.
I have arranged to send Joyce the other 5 candidates' names and an invitation for them to come to the STRS and speak to CORE on February 16th. She will mail a letter to each person. The letter will ask them to respond by email, phone or snail mail by the 31st to me. I will keep you informed of the responses I receive.
If all of what I have said above works for both of you, I will get those notices handled this weekend. If you have something to add, please let me know.
Mary Ellen you took great minutes. The two of you are the best! It is a pleasure volunteering with both of you. What a machine!
Sincerely, Tom Curtis

Betty Montgomery requests audience with CORE

From: Molly Janczyk
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:48 PM Subject: Betty Montgomery requests audience with CORE

Betty Montgomery has requested an audience with CORE via John Lazares. The CORE ADV Board approved this request and presented dates of the CORE/STRS Board Meetings for the next 3 months for her consideration. CORE has been critical of Montgomery actions as a former STRS Board Member. She requested an opportunity to address these concerns.

When we receive an answer, we will inform you as to whether a date can be confirmed.

ALL ARE WELCOME to attend and address Auditor Montgomery, who is running for Governor of Ohio.

Tom Curtis' speech to STRS Board 1/19/06

Good afternoon board members, executive staff and guests. My name is Thomas Curtis. I am speaking today on my own behalf. I am an STRS disability retiree with 27 years of service.

Today I wish to address issues concerning the board that are very unsettling to members who have personally witnessed such, since September 2005.

In my opinion, both the Chair and Vice-Chair of this board have attempted to silence both Dennis Leone and John Lazares from presenting any motion they do not find acceptable. This is inexcusable and unprofessional behavior on their part and must be addressed by the entire board and ended from this date forward.

In October, Dr. Leone attempted to respond to a public speaker. He was immediately ruled "out of order" by the Chairman. Dr. Leone was not restricted by board policy, as the Chairman indicated, of responding to a public speaker. This action by the Chairman caused for much lost time by the entire board; involved a vote for a motion that was not needed; was not justified and made the entire board look foolish in the eyes of many in the audience.

In my opinion, this board needs to step back to the very basic nature of the reason each of you exists in your capacity. I am asking you to step back and find an interpretation of ORC 3307.15 that each and every one of you can agree upon. This is what each board member, executive staff and staff member of this retirement system is charged to abide with by law and should be the only determining factor when motions are voted upon.

Therefore, I make a motion that this issue be added to the agenda and held a high priority topic at the February 2006 retreat, until such has been accomplished.

On November 2, 2005, a meeting was called so the board could vote on the acceptance of an offer to approve an agreement concerning the payment of the 2002-2003 non-investment staff bonuses. No such document existed at any time during that meeting. Yet, the motion was made to accept it, seconded and passed by the board, by I believe a 7-3 vote. Was there an objection to the motion, yes? Did the objection keep the Chair and Vice-Chair from going forward with the vote, NO! What I just described I believe to be illegal.

Because of this unprofessional circumstance, additional language was included in the final document that was not part of the discussion at this meeting and cost the membership yet more money.

In addition, the board would not permit the public or the media to be present for this meeting. This I believe was a violation of the Sunshine law.

I would like to remind the Chair and Vice-Chair that the two board members you have attempted to silence were placed on this board by the vote of the membership to do exactly what you have attempted to censure.

Both of you were appointed to this board by a highly OEA influenced board and not by the membership. That highly OEA influenced board abused our funds and either has or hopefully will be charged with ethics violations very soon. Vice-Chair, you have been trained by and supported the OEA your entire career. You have failed to denounce those of your OEA membership who sat on this board and repeatedly abused our funds.

Her only response to me was that Dr. Leone’s motion had nothing to do with the motion on the table. This is absolutely untrue!

My last concern is why these two board members hold these two key positions? They were not elected by the membership and two other board members were eligible to hold those positions, Mike Billirakis and John Lazares.

Mike Billirakis is the senior member of this board and is the only one with any longevity of one year or more experience on the board. He clearly holds the responsibility to be the Board Chair and should be.

Thank you for the time to offer my concerns.

Minutes of CORE meeting 1/19/06: Four STRS Board candidates interviewed; two endorsed: Hall and Fredrick

The CORE Advisory Board met at STRS on Thursday, January 19th, 2006 at 11:45. In attendance were Kathie Bracy, Dave Parshall, Chuck Chapman, Nancy Boomhower, Betty Bell, Tom Curtis, Chuck Angeletti, Mary Ellen Angeletti, and Ryan Holderman substituting for Nancy Hamant who is in Texas for the winter.
The 11:45 meeting was dedicated to meeting and interviewing four of the nine STRS Board candidates. Tom Curtis served as moderator for this part of the CORE meeting. Tom opened the meeting by welcoming the large crowd of CORE members and visitors attending in the Sublett Room. He recognized special guests Blin Scatterday of ORTA, Ann Hanning of ORTA, and Lou DiOrio of the Ohio Council of Higher Education Retired as well as STRS Board members.
Next he introduced each of the candidates and thanked them for coming. They were Dr. John K. Brackett from the University of Cincinnati & a professor of African-American Studies & Renaissance Italy, Mark Fredrick from the Cleveland Municipal Schools & an English teacher, Dr. Thomas E. Hall from Miami University & a professor of Economics, and Mark Meuser from Gahanna-Jefferson City Schools & a math teacher.
Each of the candidates were then asked eight questions sent in by CORE members to which each gave a two minute answer on a rotating basis. At the end of this question and answer period and because there was ample time, Tom entertained questions from the audience and five more questions were answered in the same format as before. During this question and answer session, Mary Ellen Angeletti, Nancy Boomhower, Ryan Holderman, and Molly Janczyk served as scribes for each candidate. The session was also tape recorded for CORE's review. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 so that all could attend the resumption of the STRS Board meeting on the 6th floor.
Following the Public Speaks portion of the STRS Board meeting, the CORE group met again in the Sublett Room to hold our regular monthly meeting and also to discuss the candidates from the morning interview. CORE members shared what they considered to be pros and cons for each candidate, and there was lengthy discussion and good participation.
Mark Fredrick was dynamic, well-rounded, and connected with his audience. He was adamant that he would be an independent thinker, and his answers centered on his desire to work for the membership. Mark is also endorsed by OFT. He assured us that he would be well-informed on all of the issues before voting, or he would not vote. As a literature teacher, he is experienced with plowing through stacks of reading material and finds this an exciting challenge in which he is personally vested for both himself and his wife as educators.
Tom Hall has a strong background in areas pertinent to being a Board member, namely economics, finance, and the stock market. His resume contains an impressive list of books and articles he has written on financial topics. He is determined to find solutions for STRS membership benefits and health care. He expressed concern that STRS problems were uncovered and confronted externally instead of internally, and he said he would work to ensure that such a situation never occurs again. Professor Hall's schedule at Miami University is due to become freer as he will only have classes two days a week versus three days a week.
Mark Meuser was gracious, and we are happy that he came to meet us. Many of his statements seemed well-founded and grounded in wishing to help the membership of STRS. He stated that he was endorsed by OEA and would probably vote according to their thinking most of the time. It was because of this statement that members felt CORE could not endorse him as voting along 'party lines' is not what CORE is about. We are interested in independent thinkers. CORE was very interested in Dr. Brackett and Dr. Hall as they are both university professors. It is important to have a higher education level member on the Board as many are not as versed in STRS issues, and they would be representing an entire body of membership.
John Brackett seemed to be a learned gentleman but his lack of understanding of STRS issues was a concern to CORE. While Professor Brackett would no doubt be a quick study, it was felt that Dr. Hall's economic, investment, and finanacial background made for an easier transition and therefore was an additional asset for him. Of the four candidates, CORE members favored Tom Hall and Mark Fredrick. Both Hall and Fredrick expressed outrage at the past spending abuses by the STRS Board and staff and were well aware of Dr. Leone's efforts in exposing these abuses.
Bev Rice moved and Nancy Boomhower seconded a motion to endorse two candidates. This motion passed by a vote of 26 to 4. Paul Boyer moved and Leon Knore seconded a motion to endorse Tom Hall's candidacy today. This motion passed by a majority vote. Ryan Holderman moved and Molly Janczyk seconded a motion to endorse Mark Fredrick today. This motion also passed by a majority vote.
Discussion then ensued regarding the passing of petitions by CORE members for both candidates. These petitions must be obtained from STRS and are due to be returned to STRS by Feb. 27th. CORE will hold another similar candidate meeting in February IF any of the other five candidates request CORE support. The same questions will be asked of those candidates as were asked today.
Dave Parshall reported that no contributions were received in December probably due to the time of the year so the balance of the CORE financial fund is the same as reported in December. We need to be more proactive and pass out more CORE yellow pamphlets which have the membership form in them. Lots of these pamphlets were taken today.
There were no suggestions made today concerning additions or changes for the CORE website ( or for the blog site (
Dave Parshall announced that the next Damon/CORE meeting will be held Thursday, March 16th from 11:00 to 1:00. Anyone who would like to attend this meeting is welcome and should try to be at the Sublett Rm. by 10:30 that morning.
It was announced that the Hazel Sidaway trial has yet again been postponed until February 14th and 15th at 10:30 a.m. in Room 15A at 375 S. High St. in Columbus. We encourage attendance at this trial.
The membership was reminded that the Buck Consultants Study is due to be shared tomorrow, Friday, January 20th at the STRS Board meeting during the morning session. Many are planning on attending to learn of their evaluation of the effects of SB 190 (the 35 year enhancement rule) on the STRS pension system.
Old business issues were discussed. It was determined that active employee contributions to STRS cannot be raised without legislative action. It was also determined that CORE could endorse three candidates for the two open STRS Board seats.
Correspondence to CORE was discussed at today's meeting, and it was decided that Dave Parshall would share it with STRS Board members Leone and Lazarus and then report back to CORE.
The meeting was adjourned around 3:00. The next CORE meeting will be Thursday, February 16th, 2006 at 11:45.
Respectfully submitted by Mary Ellen Angeletti

Molly's notes on January 19, 2006 STRS Board meeting, including public speakers, Aon Compensation Study

January 20, 2006
John Curry Comments:
The problem will be to ensure that the new money really gets to the Health Care fund ! Can you imagine a public school board voting on spending money without having in front of them documentation of the expenditure ? Amazing!
-- John Curry
From Molly Janczyk
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006

Details regarding the Candidate Interviews and following endorsements will be sent by Mary Ellen Angeletti. There is much for her to compile and write so it will take a bit.
I am sending this out to CORE, STRS BOARD MEMBERS, OFT, ORTA in the hopes that membership of these organizations will include what Board Members are individually doing regarding STRS issues of concern to them. We are hearing that retirees are not hearing about Board Members action's.
Jeff Chapman writes for the ORTA Qrterly and we hope he will include specifics for the membership on all items including Board Members asking: "How does this affect retirees?" Many members, incluidng me, would like details of those who fight for us. I am sure actives wish views from all sides as well.
There were some interesting issues in the AM.
Leone and Lazares requested to reverse their yes votes for approval on an issue due to minutes of last month's meeting including an item that was not included in the facts presented for last month's vote. So, due to this item being in the minutes and not presented for the vote last month, they made the request for change of votes from yes to no resulting in a
9-2 vote on the issue vs. last month's 11-0.
Leone used an example of voting without documentation or contracts by saying, For ex. using the recent issue which was voted on without contracts in front of us: 'Perhaps it included paying for room and board of the workers.' Damon responded, 'It does.' Both Leone and Lazares tried to stop this vote without contracts in front of them, but no other board member felt it necessary. So, now hidden costs have been included to be paid with membership earnings and could have been prevented/negotiated or least known.
The AON Compensation Study:
'Analysis indicated STRS' benefit program falls between prevalent and above average market practices and can be considered reasonable. To retain and recruit staff, STRS must offer benefit plans which are reasonable and attractive relative to those offered by other public and private employers.'
AON recommended salary adjustments to current compensation of:
up to 62.5% level of private and public salaries to total: $1,796,431 with 60% in March 2006 and 40% in July 2007 for non investment staff.
up to 75% of public salaries to total: 60% in March 2006 and 40% in July
2007 for a total: $2,100,000.
Potential investment PBI increase to target 25% of private funds: $4,136,000.
Lazares said: "The law says we must take care of retirees-current and future. Retirees need to know a secure retirement system will be there. Retirees have been hit hardest losing HC, 13th ck., and now you want to give a raise to staff. What message does that send? We tell them the system is in trouble, and we want to give staff raises? Retirees have lost everything.'
Lazares: 'Steve Mitchell, how long have you been here?' Mitchell: '37 yrs.' Lazares: 'You're still here so it can't be that bad.'
Lazares: 'I just read where STRS is one of the weakest systems in country. Steve Buser, you said we are in trouble with the unfunded liability.' Buser said, 'Yes, serious trouble.'
Lazares to Frank Russell rep in room: "You told us if we don't get 8% a year, the unfunded liability will go to infinity." Rep says, 'Yes.'
Lazares: ' But, you want to give STRS staff a raise?'
Puckett: 'We can't do that politically.'
Fisher: 'Do we want to go forward with these talks about raises?"
Lazares and Leone: "No, I don't!"
Others silent.
Matter dropped.
Consider: Leone and Lazares could both have retired and been rehired or taken other higher paying or addt'l paying positions. THEY CAME TO THE BOARD TO HELP SAVE THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INSTEAD BECAUSE MEMBERSHIP ASKED THEM TO. They did their jobs representing us proudly.
Public Speakers 1PM:
1. Hermann Fisher: Thanked Damon and staff for daycare info. Quoted subsidies membership paid down to $130,000 annually from over $500,000 annually.
Presented a plan to reduce to cost neutral: Free parking goes with daycare cost to attrack other near by employees in area. STRS already has free parkling.
COLA: 3% simple: no raises to that ever based on first year of retirement. So, what's wrong with providing COLAS for STRS staff annually, period.
2. Bill Leibensperger: OEA Sec/Treas.
29 yrs of service.
Congrats to leadership ; heard from over 10,000 respondants re: Inc. contributions and most favorable and understand need for legislation.
Thanks to Damon and Terry Beirdeman for their ties getting HCA into legislators on this issue. HCA advocates confident in the plan and approach. We need to respect the legislative process and prepare sound presentations. With time, we feel we can muster up legislative support.
We understand the urgency to form solid arguments against opponents. We deal with real people and cannot be trapped in ideology.
Any changes to benefits will kill this plan for current and future retirees.
(STRS said in the summer of 2003 or 2004, I believe, that all areas would be looked at. A study is being presented tomorrow: 1/20 on whether SB190 saves STRS money or is a wash).
3. Tom Curtis: will send speech online but: Issues unsetling:
* The chair and co chair of this board attempting to stop Leone and Lazares since 9/05. Brown ruled Leone out of order when he was not (both Leone and Lazares have many yrs. of experience on boards and rules of procedure). This action lost time and looked foolish to membership.
((NOT TO MENTION NO OTHER BOARD MEMBER SPOKE UP ON THIS MATTER. m.j.)) Step back and looks for ways to work together and find a common interpretation of ORC.
* This is a new board but votes without proper documentation in front of you is against the law.
*Public and media were denied access to meetings they should have been allowed to attend violating the Sunshine Laws.
*Remind the Chair (Brown) and the Co Chair (Ramser) that Leone and Lazares were ELECTED to this board and you both were appointed.
*WHY are these 2 the chair and co chair when other board members were available: Billirakis and Lazares. Billirakis is the longterm senior member and should have served as Chair.
4. Ralph___________: Retiree. We appreciate you despite criticisms.
2000 brought changes in the pension system resulting in financial irresponsibility and detriment to system and loss of 13th ck. Oppose Boards of Educ. contributing more than 14%. If actives wish to, fine. Talk of salaries and incentives difficult. Compare pension systems to like pension systems. I say chart that said we have more employees and less results. Need good criteria if incentives offered to the top quality employees. STRS has lots of intangible benefits as well. You lose staff no matter what. Pay reasonably. Mark Twain said: do what is right and satisfy most people and astound the rest.
5. Paul Boyer: will send online: Points: Incorporating Medicare D saved thousands for us; keeping increase of premiums to 3%: THANK YOU. Lower generic costs and Tier 2 and 3 same rate: THANK YOU. Realize this is for 2006 and we will see what you can do later.
Criticism: not able to attend recently but have kept advised to issues.
*Violation of Roberts Rules of Order for a board member to be declared out of order when making a sub motion. As long as motion on flr., any member can make a substitute motion which must be considered first before the original motion.
*Also concerted effort by some and top two officials of this board to shut out 2 duly elected members of the board. Every member has = voice and any desire to shut out any member is wrong.
*Voting on financial items without any printed documentation in front of you on the issue is another concern.
WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS KIND OF INTIMIDATION ((to get vote approval. m.j.))

6. Betsy Cook:
2003: became aware of misspending. I said I will be vigilant and I became a member of CORE. Thanks to them, I don't have to travel monthly.
CORE has opened the eyes of thousands of the membership, gotten them involved, and brought changes to STRS: CORE called for fiduciary respon., end to rubber stamp voting, consideration for membership, and a new board.
CORE now asks for all to work together so that STRS Board hears what members need. I am a former OEA member, WORTA member, CORE member. My number 1 priority is affordable HC and a sound pension system.
Continue to make cuts where you can, evaluate salaries, employee HC and benefits to see where money can be saved. Every time I come to this outlandish building................evaluate this building and how to save money and recouped. STRS spending is beyond my comprehension: the salaries, building, perks, furnishings are presenting a lavish fortune 500 business and then is telling shareholders money is tight.
Lazares said earlier today that it is difficult to raise salaries when STRS says it is having hard times and to ask LSD for more money when STRS says things are tight and yet wants to give raises . Shareholders, us, must have cuts. Lazares says: What message does that send?
As educators, we got hugs and smiles as incentives and non-monetary rewards.
STRS, tighten YOUR belt and send a message that will regain trust of OHIO's educators.
7. ___________Schaumbacher(?):
35 yrs of service; OSU Heard review of 35 yr. incentive; concerns for those of us near retirement and relied on this to plan if abrupt end. Please allow grandfathering; little time to make up.
((IF only STRS had done this for current retirees! MEMBERHIP : Any talk of this began early on in this abuse issue at STRS though some want to blame it on new board members. NOT SO! STRS brought this up prior to 9/05 simply saying it would look at all areas according to Damon Asbury! He is confused as to why educators feel it is a new issue. IT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE FOR LAZARES OR LEONE, themselves. They walked onto a board that had mentioned looking at it and all areas. A study has been done to see if it saves money, drains money or is a wash and the report is due tomorrow: 1/20/06. ANY talk of change by this board that I have heard would never again implement drastic change w/o grandfathering knowing how it AFTER THE FACT decisions destroyed current retirees.m.j.))
8. Tom ____________: A 25 yr. active teacher looked at the 5% increase of contribution and said: I don't want a hit nor like it but "PUT IT ON ME!" I can take the hit better than retirees. 5% is needed and actives can absorb it with increases and raises. If School boards are mandates to make 2.5% inc. I will still be hit with 5% when it comes to negotiations and bargaining; it still comes out of my pocket when they say we can't give you a raise. The kids will receive less. Put it on me! It will look good to taxpayers, when we ask for levies. If taxpayers see we are paying more, they will be more likely to pay more.
If we don't do it now, it will be harder in 5 yrs. and 5 yrs. lost in money going for my retirement and HC. I see older retirees, I CAN TAKE THE HIT! Hit me with 5%!
Damon's report;
In addition to member educ. meetings, met with legislators: Speaker of house Husted, Sen. Pres. Harris and Gov. Taft presenting legis. to seek dedicated source of revenue for HC.
Harris highly complimentary and understands problem, he says. Feels necess. to begin debate and directed us to Gen. Assem. to bld support.
STRS reps and HCA's are meeting next wk to develop strategy to bld support for legis.
Meeting with Gov. being scheduled as well as key groups.
OSBA and OASBA opposed. New grass roots effort. Higher educ. more supportive.

John Curry, Ryan Holderman: Message to Active Teachers who want accurate information

From: John Curry
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006
Subject: Setting the record straight! Active teachers, please take a minute of your time to read.
From CORE member Ryan Holderman comes this brilliant "educating the educator" moment (following my letter to active teachers.) After reading the OEA's version of what has and is happening with the STRS (that they dominated up until 2005), I find that they are now attempting to "shift the blame" on the new STRS Board for something that is not, in fact, happening. Had the "old" OEA dominated STRS Boards during the 1990's had the courage to increase contribution rates by both employer and teacher, the current healthcare crisis at STRS wouldn't exist. OPERS (Ohio Public Employees Retirement System) took heed in the 1990's and saw to it that, with careful planning and increased contribution rates, their retirees would be in much better shape re. healthcare when they retired. OPERS has even "grandfathered" soon-to-be retirees for a period of three years before significant hc rate increases affect future retirees.
The former OEA dominated STRS Board DID NOT allow any grandfathering when that Board increased significantly the hc costs for the retiree and totally eliminated the retirees' spousal subsidy for health care. Maybe the OEA would like to inform their active teachers that a current 30 year OPERS retiree's health care premium is ZERO dollars per month and his/her spouse is an additional $80 per month (Medical Mutual 80/20) WHILE a 30 year STRS retirees' and spousal premiums are (Medical Mutual 80/20) $144 and $486 respectively for a total of $630 a month out of that retirement check - Aetna rates are even higher! These statistics are available by clicking on the following link: Active teachers, the OEA saw this coming years ago, but didn't have the political courage to stir the calm waters for an incremental increase in contribution rates. You now will reap the benefits of this lack of responsibility by the former OEA dominated STRS board. Actives, you now pay one dime out of every dollar you earn to STRS- NONE of that dime goes toward your future healthcare or the current retirees' healthcare. Your employer pays an additional 14 cents out of every dollar that you earn. Only ONE PERCENT of that 14 cents goes toward STRS healthcare- the rest goes for investments for your pension and STRS administrative costs. So, out of every 24 cents STRS takes in, only .14 of one cent goes toward retirees' healthcare. Of all five Ohio public retirement systems, this is by far the lowest healthcare contribution rate - you can thank the former OEA dominated STRS board for this meager contribution rate.
While you are at it, actives, check into the lawsuit that the OEA has filed against their own OEA employees' unions for attempting to assist the current OEA retirees with THEIR OWN class action lawsuit against the OEA over a health care issue. I'm sure the OEA hasn't informed you of this, have they. A click on this link will take you to the page where you can see it yourself in Adobe Acrobat Reader format : The initial (class action) suit that was filed against the OEA by their very own retired members can likewise be taken from the internet by clicking on the following link which will produce an Adobe copy of this document: Both suits are currently in litigation.
I realize that too many teachers (as I was for 30 years) don't have the time to delve into the sordid STRS history to discover that the above is a factual account of what really has transpired at STRS over the last decade or so. They haven't been told of the misspending, mismanagement, and entitlement philosophy that the former OEA dominated STRS Board allowed to flourish right under their noses. Losing 12 Billion dollars during a period of two years while, at the same time, awarding almost 20 million dollars in STRS staff bonuses of active teachers' and retirees' money doesn't quite fit into my description of responsible leadership at a time (in their own words) "when OEA held the seats." Active teachers, PLEASE take a little time to check into the facts yourselves.
John Curry - a Proud CORE (Concerned Ohio Retired Educators) member
From: Ryan Holderman
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:16 PM
Subject: Setting the record straight!
Dear One & All:
I received the message below from a gentlemen seeking clarification of the health care situation at STRS:
"Ryan, I am from Scioto County and I am an Art teacher who has been getting email from Molly about various STRS stuff. What's this about doing away with health care benefits? I have been screwed by the OEA before and I don't trust them. Their job is to keep stuff stirred. They wouldn't have jobs if they didn't. Can you get me more info? I try to keep our staff informed about CORE and STRS info. Thanks Brad Painter."
You will find my response below.
Later, Ryan
Dear Mr. Painter:
A recent OEA Executive Committee Report contained the following paragraph:
"OEA-R members need to talk to their former locals to tell them how important it is that OEA wins this election. The current Board, without an OEA majority, are talking about eliminating health care benefits for retired members. This never happened when OEA held the seats."
I found it ludicrous that OEA should imply that retirees' health care benefits are jeopardized because OEA no longer holds a monopolizing majority on the STRS Board. It was during the period when OEA had a five member control of the Board that Executive Director Herb Dyer, recently convicted of misdemeanors related to his tenure at STRS, let it be known that he felt STRS should get out of the "health care business!"
It was also during the 1990s, again while OEA controlled the Board, that our retirement funds were spent to build the lavish STRS headquarters, to fund fitness centers and daycare centers for employees, to support outlandish bonuses for both investment and non-investment staff and to pay for out-of-control travel spending by STRS Board members. Remember, the majority of those Board members were OEA backed people! If, during this period when the economy was booming and STRS was reaping good returns from investments, funds had instead been put into a dedicated stream of funding for health care the health care fund would not be in such dire condition. Because the OEA controlled Board failed to take that action we are now facing a health care crisis. Contrary to what was said in the quote from the OEA Executive Committee report, the present STRS Board is working diligently to find a solution to the problem. They realize that there is no quality retirement without affordable health care. For OEA to imply anything else in order to garner votes in the upcoming Board election is despicable!
If you go to the STRS website, you will find an excellent report on the looming health care crisis and the steps that are being taken to address the situation. Be sure to view the online presentation and take the survey.
If you would like additional information about the role that CORE (Concerned Ohio Retired Educators) has played in supporting Dennis Leone and John Lazares in their effort to reform the STRS Board, go to .
CORE meets each month in the Sublett Room at STRS during the noon recess of the Thursday session of the STRS Board meeting. You are welcome to attend.
I hope that this has answered your questions and pointed you in the right direction in your search for information. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely, Ryan Holderman

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Paul Boyer to Lara Baker on Sidaway trial postponement: End the charade!

From: Paul Boyer
To: Lara Baker
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Subject: Trial
It is time that this charade ends. We need to see Ms. Sidaway tried, found guilty and given a strong sentence of prison time, fine and restitution of money to STRS.
I am a member of STRS, retired for 20 years. For the past almost three years I have worked hard and long to get STRS straightened out from the misspending of Mr. Dyer and the board members.
We are outraged that this case is able to be continued to be set aside to a future date.
Paul L. Boyer-

Molly Janczyk, Mark Meuser re: upcoming CORE interviews

In a message dated 01/18/2006 Eastern Standard Time, Molly Janczyk writes:

We are in agreement then, Mark. We are a reactionary group. We respond when untruths and attacks are issued. We do not make the first step but we do defend ourselves. We cannot abide by anything other than honest dialogue backed by undisputed and verifiable facts. Thank you.

From: Mark Meuser
To:Molly Janczyk
Subject: RE: OEA: January Executive Committee Report
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006


I am fairly new to this whole election and endorsement process. I am pleased to have the opportunity to meet with members of CORE to share my views with them. I will be honest with them, and if they like what my positions on the issues are, I hope that they will endorse my candidacy.

I also screened with OEA. I called them yesterday and found that they voted to endorse me, for which I was very thankful. Since they have endorsed me, I would expect them to support my candidacy and help to work for my election to the Board. I would expect the same support from CORE if they decide to endorse me.

Though I am aware of some friction between OEA and CORE, I don't know all the political details. I can say, though, that I cannot imagine trying to "trash" anyone else's campaign for the Board. I have too much respect for the office which I seek to resort to that. If I disagree with an opponent's position, I will be forthright in saying so. But it is possible to disagree with someone and still respect them.

I, too, have enjoyed our e-mails back and forth. I look forward to meeting you and having the opportunity to speak with CORE members.



From Molly Janczyk, January 18, 2006

Mark, I certainly hope this kind of action is not who you are. You have been most gracious in your communications. I would like to think you are one of the OEA membership who does not try to dirty others as their main means of operating a campaign. We have responded to your request and made adjustments to accommodate you as we are open to all who wish to represent all STRS membership. We are so tired of these tired old tactics of trying to power through people. The learning curve on this sort of thing seems nonexistent with the leadership at OEA Central Downtown. It is most disturbing to see this type of thing year after year. We look forward to your visit and perhaps you should bring some who refuse to listen to its membership.
Molly Janczyk

Tom Mooney: Unable to attend CORE meeting

From: Molly Janczyk
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Subject: RE: CORE candidate screening

Tom, Thanks for the info. Jeff will be fine. Hope to see you soon.


From: Tom Mooney
Subject: CORE candidate screening

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006


I will not be able to be at the meeting tomorrow. I thought I sent you that info. earlier. I have a long standing commitment to an out of town meeting I am helping to lead. I would really like to be there because I think it is an important and maybe historic occasion.

I have asked Jeff Chapman to introduce the OFT endorsed candidates if that is OK with you.

I hope it goes well and that OFT and CORE end up supporting the same candidates this year.

All the best,


Paul Kostyu: Ex-Canton teacher’s trial delayed again [Guess what this time - she's in FLORIDA]

By Paul Kostyu

Canton Repository, January 18, 2006


The trial of Hazel Sidaway has been rescheduled for Feb. 14 and 15.

Background: The former Canton City Schools teacher of 2915 Parkridge Circle NW in Plain Township pleaded innocent on July 8 to seven criminal charges accusing her of violating state ethics codes. The charges, all misdemeanors, stem from September 1998 to June 2003 when she was a member of the board of the State Teachers Retirement System. She is accused of accepting thousands of dollars in meals, drinks, lodging and entertainment from companies that handled the pension fund’s investments. She was offered a plea deal but turned it down. She denies having done anything illegal.

This is the sixth time a trial date has been set, often because of conflicts in the prosecutor’s or defense attorney’s schedules. This time, however, Sidaway is on vacation in Florida.

What’s next: The nonjury trial before Franklin County Municipal Court Judge W. Dwayne Maynard is expected to take two days, but it could be delayed again because of another potential schedule conflict, according to Columbus City Prosecutor Lara N. Baker.

Lara Baker responds to Paul Boyer re: postponement of Sidaway trial

From: Baker, Lara N.
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Subject: RE: Lara Baker: Sidaway trial

I am forwarding the response that I sent to Mr. Boyer regarding the continuance in this matter.

Mr. Boyer:

I did not receive an e-mail from you yesterday so I apologize if you believe that I failed to respond. As for the continuance of Ms Sidaway's trial, when I obtained the new court date last time it was with the understanding that it was subject to change should there be a conflict. Unfortunately, her attorney did not inform me that there was such a conflict until mid-December, but as I had agreed to move the date should such a conflict exist, I was duty-bound to agree to a change in date. Opposing counsel then obtained the new date in February from Judge Maynard.

As for my prosecution of the Herb Dyer matter, I made an offer on the case based upon the strength of the evidence in that case. The sentencing was left to the sound discretion of the court. While I appreciate the concerns you have over Mr Dyer's exercise of his fiduciary responsibilities vis a vis the STRS funds, my role was to assure that justice was done in regards to the specific ethical violations with which he was charged. In light of the evidence that I had available to me, I feel that his punishment was commiserate with the crime of which he was convicted. I understand if you feel differently, but please also understand that I had to base my decision upon what I could actually prove Mr. Dyer to have done, beyond a reasonable doubt, and not merely what I suspected that he did.


Lara Baker

Chief Legal Counsel, Criminal Division
Columbus City Attorney's Office

From: Molly Janczyk
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006
To: Baker, Lara N.
Subject: Lara Baker: Sidaway trial

Ms. Baker,

I am in agreement with Mr. Boyer's email below. While I do know the delays are part of a judicial right, it seems frivilous to delay for a vacation. I am sure Hazel MUST have put more urgency on it than that citing family obligation of long standing or something for a prosecutor to delay yet again. I know we all would have the same rights for delays and appeals BUT I also feel without power and politics behind us, the vast majority would have to interrupt vacations and much more to fly to the hearing and back to the vacation. Is she really being treated as simple folks would be. That is not the perception.

Molly Janczyk

Paul Boyer writes Lara Baker: ANOTHER Sidaway trial postponement!

From: Paul Boyer
To: Lara N. Baker
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Subject: Sidaway trial

Ms. Baker

This is a follow up to the email I sent you yesterday concerning the postponement again of the Hazel Sidaway trial. I learned today that the reason for the postponement was because she is vacationing in Florida. Is this true? She knew she had a trial date and she should have made it a priority over a vacation. What kind of a prosecutor's office are you running, anyway? This woman should not receive any more postponements for any reason whatsoever.

It is my understanding that you were also the prosecutor on the case of Herb Dyer, former Executive Director of STRS and you cut a deal with him so he received only a slap on the hand. Shame, shame, SHAME!!!!!!!!!

It is time that these people who stole our money from the STRS get a proper punishment for their deeds.

Paul L. Boyer
Retired since 1985 Life member OEA,NEA, OEA-R, CORE, ORTA
Proud to be named "Core" of CORE

Remember that 13th check? You can thank OFT for that; who do you think taketh away?

From: June Hughes
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: Interesting OFT info

Who got us the 13th check? Here's the answer! It happened in the mid 80's and it was from our earned investments..............June

STRS Improvements

George Taylor, OFT's Health and Retirement Consultant, urged on/and supported by retired teacher members, achieved legislation for payment of a yearly 13th check to State Teachers Retirement System retirees from interest earnings of the retirement system. The 13th check is probably the most popular benefit received by STRS retirees. Working with Governor Richard Celeste, the OFT also achieved legislation that allows local school districts to offer Early Retirement Incentive Plans.

Affiliations (OEA & OFT): Historical comparison

From: June Hughes
To: molly janczyk
Subject: Re: E-mails Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006

I found this interesting---------it goes as far back as 1939. My my!! ...........June

1939 OEA dilemma The early OFT faced many problems, among which two were outstanding:
1 AFT locals in Ohio faced the dilemma of determining what their relationship should be to the Ohio Education Association. AFT did not mandate that its locals affiliate with the state federation. Records show that even in May 1948, there were 10 AFT locals in Ohio not affiliated with OFT.

Additionally, AFT locals could join OFT, or OEA or both. In the early years, a number of OFT locals formed an AFT caucus at OEA conventions. However, OFT locals in the OEA had difficulties with OEA on a number of issues such as: â-¦ Teacher tenure. OEA dragged its feet on this issue since administrators were members and leaders in the OEA at the time. â-¦ School funding. OFT in the 1940's continued to call for a state income tax to fund public education. OEA called for no new taxes. â-¦ Collective bargaining for teachers. OEA couldn't even say the words.

It was not until 1968 that AFT required locals to affiliate with the state federation, and 1969 to affiliate with state and local AFL-CIO.
2 The dilemma of balancing state and local needs. In the early years, teachers collective bargaining was still just an idea; locals had to struggle just to exist. Many found it hard to balance local needs with those of the state federation. Some felt it was more important to hire their own local full time staff before hiring state full time staff. Membership and revenue were in a state of flux in the state but also in many locals. The problem of allocation of resources often led to heated debate and fraternal discussion within the OFT. From the vantage of hindsight, it can be seen that out the controversies came good faith efforts to resolve problems.

On Jan 17, 2006, molly janczyk wrote:

We have to see if we are going to endorse an OFT candidate. Then, we start the rest of the story.

Re: January Executive Committee Report (OEA)

Subj:RE: January Executive Committee Report
Date:01/17/2006 1:54:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time


The EC has been give the challenge to see that locals get out the vote. They were told by me that the election would be won or lost depending on what they do to see to it that local associations get their members to vote. We lost the last election because our members did not vote. There were fewer votes cast in that election thaen in the previous one. The staff is preparing a whole campaign for the OEA and will present it to the EC in February.

The OFT has already endorsed two of their own members for election, Mark Fredrick, who screended with us and a gentleman by the name of Bracket from the Cincinninati area who did not screen. One of the problems with the OFT is that they tend to get the vote out for their candidates and not for the OEA. They currently have two (?) representatives on the Board and if they gain two more seats the OEA, which represents five times the number of members as they, would have only one. We cannnot afford such a scewered representation of Ohio educator membership.

OEA-R members need to talk to their former locals to tell them how important it is that OEA wins this election. The current Board, without an OEA majority, are talking about eleiminating health care benefits for retired members. This never happened when OEA held the seats.

CORE members are supporting Thomas Hall, the economics professor. He really screened badly. He had no idea of the issues that face STRS. He said one of his primary reasons for running was he and his wife had "empty nest syndrom" and he wanted something to ocuppy his time. He really did not know anything about STRS or how it functioned.

Connie Ramser got one vote more than Mark Meuser not one less. I have no idea of why that happened. There was no opposition to either of them during the discussion of the recommendation to endorse.


-----Original Message-----
From: Weeks, Ruth
Sent: Tue 1/17/2006 10:46 AM
To: Codispoti, Leonard
Subject: Re: January Executive Committee Report

Thanks for your rreport from the Executive Committee. I agree that the STRS Board election presents a real challenge to OEA. What is the EC doing to get OEA members to vote? Why can't OEA and OFT get together to insure teacher representation on the Board? Is there anything OEA-R members can do to assist? Who is CORE pushing? Why did Connie Ramseer (Spelling?) get one less vote?
Larry KehresMount Union Collge
Division III
web page counter
Vermont Teddy Bear Company