Saturday, September 01, 2007

Nancy Hamant to Barack Obama re: Discriminatory divestment:

From Nancy Hamant, September 1, 2007
Subject: Divestiture--Discriminatory unless applied to ALL Americans
Senator Obama,
I had high hopes for you as a presidential candidate. Now, upon reading your words regarding divestiture actions applied to public pension plans, I am not so sure!
Why do you want only public pensioners to pay the price of divestiture? Especially considering the current volatile stock market which is bound to cause enough problems for pensioners' funds?
It is totally unAmerican to discriminate against one population of citizens, in this case public pensioners, and to not require equal sacrifice of All Americans for this "uncalled" war on terror! WWII ended when I was eight years old and I clearly remember having to shop with blue and red tokens for meats and staples--as all my neighbors did--not just the firemen, the postmen, the teachers and police! Everyone sacrificed for WWII--fat cat CEOs and rich investors were not let off scott-free.
Please reconsider that you are recommending divestiture of public pensioners only asset for fiscal stability while letting the rich among us to not have one dime of their wealth sacrificed for political purposes!
Sincerely,
Nancy B. Hamant,
A retired Ohio Educator

RH Jones: No sports!

From RH Jones, September 1, 2007
Subject: No sports!
To Kathie & all:
Sorry to have bugged "y'all" with sending my message: Leave education to the pros. I have been having trouble with my sending it. It keeps coming back from Susan Zelman saying "My message is undeliverable". I am presently e-mailing all of you because in my Beacon editorial I left out what seems to be the most important thing to the public: SPORTS! I should have included that first thing in my sentence: There would be no school buses, no free books,and libraries and no social services for students. Again, I am certainly sorry to have so thoughtless to have left out sports, of all things.
RHJones, proud CORE member

Divestiture, a poker game, and retirees furnish the chips!

From John Curry, September 1, 2007
Subject: Divestiture, a poker game, and retirees furnish the chips!
I have the utmost respect for the State of Israel and their fight for survival since becoming a country in 1948. At the same time, we public servant retirees shouldn't idly stand by and allow our trust monies (U.S. pension funds) that are only the property of public servants in the United States be used as bargaining chips in the high-stakes "poker game" of international politics. Ohio STRS, Ohio Retirement Study Council, and the Ohio Police and Fire pension boards have now clearly sent this message (by an almost unanimous vote) to our legislative leaders in Columbus as well as Washington. Will they take the hint?
If our federal politicians want to use economic sanctions against Iran...then they should use "their" monies, not the trust fund monies of the public servants' retirement funds in this country. We aren't winning the war in Iraq and we certainly can't afford a war with Iran - militarily or economically. The divestiture scheme is a gift to Israeli leaders at retirees' expense. If you don't think so, just read the excerpt from The Jewish Week below. We, the public employee retirement stakeholders, and our money are being used as pawns in an international political poker game. It's easy to play poker when one uses someone else's money, isn't it?
John
P.S. I find humorous the statement below made by Laszlo-Misrahi: “It’s something Americans do like; it’s not a bunch of politicians, it’s people taking action in their own portfolios, state and local-level politicians divesting their pension funds.”
Well, Laszlo-Misrahi, the "funds" you speak of do not belong to the state and local-level politicians..these funds belong solely to the individual stakeholders of those pension systems. It is not THEIR portfolio, it is OUR portfolio.
The script below was taken from a longer article in The Jewish Week, dated 8/31/07
"Washington’s credibility crisis and signs of a mood of international retreat have led Jewish groups to seek new strategies on Iran.

“It’s one of the reasons we have focused so much on divestment at the state and local level,” Laszlo-Mizrahi said. “It’s something Americans do like; it’s not a bunch of politicians, it’s people taking action in their own portfolios, state and local-level politicians divesting their pension funds.”

And increasingly, Jewish groups are portraying divestment, sanctions and other forms of economic leverage as a kind of anti-war tactic — a way to avoid a new conflict the American people are not ready to support.

“Communities are calling for the most vigorous economic and diplomatic efforts as a way of heading off the possibility of war with Iran,” said Martin Raffel, assistant director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA). “Divestment and other strategies are essentially anti-war initiatives.”

Molly Janczyk, Jim Kimmel re: Divestiture/Obama

Molly Janczyk to Jim Kimmel, August 31, 2007
Subject: For Divestiture: Obama
State Teachers Retirement has approp. 400,000 members. State Employees 700,000+ in membership. Then there is Fire and police and School Employees. This is not acceptable. It is wrapping a flag around public employees' money slowly contributed over lifetime careers and the ORC mandates the system act solely on behalf of membership without political interference. This is only a token play for politicians but it is our survival. None of us want to support terrorists! Any business directly doing business with terrorists should be shut down. This punishes workers for corporations who are trying to support families, not terrorists. It punishes public employees. Let the legislators BE THE FIRST to withdrawn THEIR funds and see how it works!
There are far too many oil and utility companies tied to countries with terrorists because so many countries have pockets of terrorists. What about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and many other countries all with global companies within their borders supporting everyday citizens supporting families who live fear ridden lives due to those terrorists and dictators? Is displacing them going to help fight terrorists or help grow them?
I have long respected Obama and read about his life. I fear it is true, now, that instead of being a fresh start, he is unschooled in global politics settling for superficial 'patriotic' bandaids which will be of little help in this insidious battle over terrorism.
Why only target public employees? Where are the private wealthy holdings in all this? As usual, unfair and inequitable.
I want no generic form replies meaning nothing.
This makes my decisions for presidential candidate much easier.
Molly Janczyk
From Jim Kimmel, August 31, 2007
Subject: Re: For Divestiture: Obama
Doesn't Obama know that such a bill would be impossible to enforce and that as long as we buy oil in theMiddle East we will be financing terror... Big corporations have a dozen ways around any restrictions the Senate imposes and the only ones hurt will be the pension systems and small investors. Mayne he is a Republican in disguise!! He may be catering to the brokers who paid him contributions!!

Labels: ,

John Curry, Cheryl Flagg re: Obama column

From John Curry, August 31, 2007
Subject: Just read Obama's column about his sanctions bill...
Cheryl, well stated. I too am a lifelong registered Democrat and have voted in every election. We don't need one of "our" candidates to wrap himself in the flag while, at the same time, failing to realize the monitary damage to public retirement systems (and their stakeholders) a divestiture mandate would entail. I am appalled!
John Curry
John , I just read another column by Obama in the New York Daily Post defending his sanctions bill which removes fiduciary duty from public pension boards and denies access to the court system by pension fund participants. This is obviously the culmination of his March meeting with Netanyahu and alignment with AIPAC. This is a copy my letter I just sent. We don't need this from Democrats too! We have to send a message to all Democrats, who traditionally have provided us with protections.
Cheryl

RH Jones, Beacon-Journal: Leave education to the Pros

From RH Jones, August 31, 2007
Subject: Leave education to the pros

Re: My editorial printed in the Akron Beacon Journal of 08/31/07 “Voice of the People”, page A8:
http://www.ohio.com/editorial/vop/9488117.html
Leave education to the Pros
Ohio’s public school districts have checks and balances not available in charter, private, religious or home schooling.
In our representative government, school board members, elected on both the state and local levels, control the school districts for the people. They represent the stakeholders with their varying perspectives. Consensus is reached in board meetings through the democratic process of the majority vote.
Boards do the hiring and firing of employees and decide when more funding is needed to keep payrolls steady with inflation, to compete for the best employees and to maintain school infrastructure. Then they go to the public for revenues. The voters decide whether or not they want to support public education.
Parents have freedom of choice and enroll their children in the best school districts they can afford. On voter approval, federal and state revenues are sent to the poorer districts for supplemental funding. Although not entirely flawless, as any human endeavor is not, this method of free education for America’s children has created a nation that is the envy of the world.
Conversely, a totally free-market, entrepreneurial public education system would eliminate checks and balances on public expenditures. Furthermore, there would be no checks and balances by sending the money directly to the parents.
A suitable environment for special-education students and the gifted would be nonexistent. There would be no school buses, no free books and libraries and no health or social services for students. Student and teacher rights would be without due process.
Probably the dastardliest consequence of total free marketing would be fraud. Individual cases would paralyze the court system, and, as in business, executive salaries would skyrocket.
In the past, before the super-rich power brokers found they could further line their pockets with public-school funds, American schools educated those who wanted an education. Education is, therefore, best left to the college-trained professional educators and the freely elected public school district boards of education that employ them.
Robert Hudson Jones,
Norton

Kenton Schools Provide Webcast of Board Meetings at your convenience

From John Curry, August 31, 2007
Subject: Kenton Schools Provide Webcast of Board Meetings at your convenience
Friends,
Isn't it interesting that Kenton Schools did this without much expense. They also provide other audio links. [Click here]
You will note that this is current. Perhaps STRS could contact Kenton Schools regarding their technology.
A CORE member
The note above came to me from a fellow CORE member. STRS tells us a webcast is expensive and they are worried that not enough people might be interested. Isn't it interesting that a small school district in one of the rural areas of northwest Ohio can put their board meeting on a WEBCAST (AUDIO ONLY) IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS AND HAVE IT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE LISTENING PUBLIC! All of this from a school district who hasn't been able to pass an operating levy? If THEY can afford to do this "in-house," then STRS can afford to do this for 100,000 plus STRS retirees. Kenton has a population of less than 10,000 inhabitants, not students but inhabitants! Kenton is not noted for being a "wealthy school district." Like the writer says, "Perhaps STRS could contact Kenton Schools regarding their technology." John

My, my...look who came out of the woodwork and is speaking about "accountability!"

From Duane Tron, August 31, 2007
Subject: My, my...look who came out of the woodwork and is speaking about "accountability!"
I propose two new laws. The first will be the NCLB. This will now stand for "No Congressman Left Behind." We should start holding members of Congress to the same high standards they think public schools should practice. The second is NPLB. This is "No Politician Left Behind." This doesn't mean the ongoing use of earmarks like King John Murtha (D) and King Ted Stevens (R), or Mike DeWine and Bob Taft accepting positions as college professors. Heck, they couldn't even govern so how do they think they can teach! Some can't even go into an airport restroom without being arrested (R). And they talk at us about accountability? These are the same people who have a job approval rating with the American people of 18%. And they think they possess the knowledge to be able tell us how to teach? Some hide large sums of money begot from bribery in their freezers at home (D). Others have their names indelibly imprinted in the record books of the DC Madam (R).
I wish to point out to every politician the following points with respect to educational accountability:
1. Franklin Roosevelt was dyslexic and couldn't learn to read in school. He couldn't function in a public or private school with present standards of educational accountability. The only way he was able to learn was for his wealthy parents to hire private tutors and teach him one on one. There aren't any lawmakers who would agree to this methodology in public schools because of the extreme cost.
2. Thomas Edison was declared uneducable by his public school teacher in the second grade and forced to leave school. He was educated by his teacher mother. He would have never passed any proficiency test required today.
3. Orville and Wilbur Wright both dropped out of school and never finished. Neither passed any proficiency exam and neither held a high school diploma.
4. Winston Churchill was declared to be an average student and his test scores were low throughout his schooling. He would have never measured up by today's proficiency standards that politicians want in place.
5. Albert Einstein couldn't pass any proficiency test we give in this country today and would be declared deficient in most areas. Except for math! He would have probably failed at least three out of five areas. He was denied admission to one of the most prestigious schools in Europe because he didn't meet their academic standards.
6. Interesting! Bill Gates dropped out of college but required college degrees from people who came to work for Microsoft. Come on Bill!
7. I would have never passed any of the proficiency tests if I had been required to take them when I was in school. I failed the English Entrance Exam when I applied to college. I had to take a remedial English correspondence course to be able to pass the exam and be accepted to college. True! I completed graduate school with a 3.897 GPA.
My point? Proficiency tests don't prove quality anything! They aren't a true measure of knowledge, skill, or even learning for that matter. I have had students who could pass any test and they lacked the common sense to be able to pound sand in a rat hole. I have had students who struggled with reading and they possessed tremendous skill in using their hands to build things.
My own father struggled with reading and writing. He lacked basic skills in grammar and his handwriting was almost illegible. My father? He could build anything from scratch without any instructions or schematics. I used to watch him build transmitters and receivers using military surplus parts he bought. He could transmit and receive all over the world with his radio equipment. He became an amateur radio operator when he was 19 years old and he could use a Morse key, and a jitterbug key, with greater expertise, skill, and speed than almost anyone in the world. He would work for hours soldering and wiring equipment that was awesome and without any formal training or education. He became a triple A tool and die maker and was one of the best in the world. He was offered jobs with Lockheed and Boeing because of his reputation working and building machines. My father would have never passed proficiency and he would have never graduated from high school today.
So much for all the bullshit about what tests prove or disprove? Huh! All proficiency tests prove is that some students are better at taking tests than others. As I alluded earlier, they don't prove or measure knowledge, skill, or anything except that a person can take a test and pass it.
My final suggestion in this discourse is that we require every Congressman and Senator, all 535, to take their state's proficiency tests, and require them to pass all parts with the required scores established. We should also require every state lawmaker to take the tests and post their scores and rankings. I'm willing to bet everything I own that the majority wouldn't pass the test! These being the same tests they think make schools accountable for the education of children. Let's ask them to step up and take the tests and see how they do.
You and I know what their answer is going to be. Why? Because the overwhelming majority know they couldn't pass the very same tests they require children to pass to graduate from high school. My, the truth can be painful at times. You see the tests don't take into account home life, poverty, community issues, social issues, poor parenting, and a multitude of other external factors which are beyond the control of those us involved in the process of educating children. Politicians present a simplistic, or what I describe as "a simple minded," approach to a very complicated set of problems. This means most politicians are simple minded people who passed a bunch of tests to get them where they are but lack the God given sense to pound sand into a rat hole.
The worst politicians in the world are those who think one size fits all and we have a lot of them who have been elected. Oh! If only life were that simple! Ah! We need to do a better job of selecting and electing people to represent us don't we?
I do apologize if my one slip of profanity offends but I couldn't come up with a word that would adequately provide the same impact as required in that review. Must be the result of my limited education and background. Sorry if I offended you! I must admit I hear worse on Leno and Letterman but I guess that doesn't provide justification does it? Oh Well! In conclusion, I sure hope 100% of our Congressmen are proficient by the year 2014.
Duane Tron Champaign County
Bob Taft: School 'report cards' are due for an upgrade
Timing is right to make state and federal evaluations complement one another.
By BOB TAFT, COMMENTARY
Dayton Daily News, August 30, 2007
The latest school report cards are out, and confusion abounds. It is clearly time for Ohio and policymakers in Washington to design a more coherent, less confusing system of accountability for individual schools and school districts.
The current system, a combination of state and federal measures, is confusing to parents and the public. And it doesn't offer a sound method for determining when the state should intervene in failing districts.
Here's why:
Ratings created by the state are based primarily on scores and the percent of students proficient on statewide assessments taken in different subjects at different grade levels. Except for 11th-grade pass rates on the Ohio Graduation Test, schools and districts meet the standard if 75 percent of students receive "proficient" scores on an assessment.
Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, schools and districts must make "adequate yearly progress" on math and reading in grades 3-8 for all students, as well as each of 10 student subgroups classified by race, language, income and learning disabilities.
Under the federal law, 100 percent of students in all categories are expected to be proficient by 2014, with the annual targets increasing until that year.
The performance of schools and districts is moving in opposite directions on state and federal measures. Except for the most recent school year, when results were adversely affected by new science and social studies tests, scores and results on the statewide assessments have been steadily improving.
This year 80 percent of Ohio districts are rated in the top two categories, either "excellent" or "effective." The performance index, which measures the scores of all students on all tests, has risen from 73.7 percent to more than 90 percent during the past eight years.
In contrast, the trend line for the federal standard has been declining.
Four years ago, two out of every three districts in Ohio made "adequate yearly progress." This year fewer than one out of three met the target. In the Dayton region, the number of districts meeting the standard has plummeted almost by half, from 42 four years ago to 24 this year.
More and more districts are likely to fall short next year and thereafter as the goals ratchet up toward 100 percent in 2014. For example, the target student pass rate on third-grade reading will rise from 71.2 percent this year to 77 percent next year. There also will be more tests subject to "adequate yearly progress" targets next year.
Ohio's efforts to partially integrate the federal standards into its school district rating system can produce results that are also confusing. For example, due to its "adequate yearly progress" performance for two subgroups, Worthington, a district near Columbus, was downgraded two levels this year, from "excellent" to "continuous improvement."
This occurred even though Worthington met 29 of 30 indicators under the state system, with more than 90 percent of students proficient on the majority of assessments.
Consequences for failure differ between the state and federally mandated systems, as noted in a recent assessment of Ohio's school reform progress by Achieve Inc. Under the state's rating system, the state will not intervene unless a district is stuck in "academic emergency." No districts are currently in that status, yet 47 districts are in federal "corrective action," which calls for strong state intervention. These are schools that have not met "adequate yearly progress" for four straight years.
As a single indicator based on the somewhat arbitrary 2014 federal goal of 100 percent proficiency for all student groups, the federal standard is not necessarily the best method of triggering state intervention.
Now is the right time to create a better system of holding schools accountable for results. Congress is rewriting the No Child Left Behind Act, and the state is implementing a more precise measure of student progress within a given school year. This "value added" yardstick should be a central part of a new system of accountability.
Former Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, is a distinguished research associate at the University of Dayton.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Obama on divestment; comments from Dave Parshall, Jeff Glasgow and Molly Janczyk; and a message you need to send NOW

From Dave Parshall, August 31, 2007
I just sent the Obama campaign an e-mail pointing out their lack of understanding with the divestiture issue and telling him he has lost a potential of 400,000 votes in Ohio. I will let you know if I get an answer. Dave Parshall
Jeff Glasgow to Molly Janczyk, August 31, 2007
Subject: RE: For Divestiture: Obama
I am beyond disappointed. I'm including a version of the e-mail I just sent to Obama. I edited out the things that make it personal to me. This is one time, I think a massive form response might get somebody's attention. I'm attaching it as a Word document and copying it into the message so that people who can't open it as an attachment can use it. I URGE EVERYONE TO COPY THIS AND PASTE INTO THE OBAMA WEBSITE COMMENT SCREEN. THE URL FOR THAT IS http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2; THE DIRECT E-MAIL LINK IS info@barackobama.com I'm putting this in magenta again just like the sponsors of SB151 and SB161. I think the state sponsors backed off because they knew that this was coming in the U.S. Congress. I have not done any research, but I can only believe that you find the same fingerprints nationally as you do in Ohio. AGAIN, COPY THIS INTO OBAMA'S WEBSITE COMMENT SCREEN AND SEND IT TO EVERYONE THAT YOU CAN THINK OF. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ANY MORE-THIS IS ABOUT EVERYONE'S PENSION FUNDS.
HERE IS THE MESSAGE. SEND IT OUT!!!!
Senator Obama:
I read with dismay your "get tough with Iran" article. I would first observe that your rhetoric sounds so precisely like George Bush that I had to read it twice to make sure it hadn't been written by Karl Rove. You are going to "get tough" by looting my pension and the pensions of millions of Americans. Abrogating my right to expect fiduciary duty from my fund managers is unconstitutional, and even more importantly, grossly unfair. The idea of sacrificing someone else's future is something I thought was the sole province of right wing Republicans. What in the world are you thinking? Pension fund earnings pay for the health care of millions of elderly retirees. What do you say to them when they are told there is no money for health care?? Do you tell them to get a loan from the predatory lenders that you are "getting tough with" too? I promise you that unless you disavow this mean spirited and cruel attempt to loot the pension funds of all Americans, I will do everything in my power to assure that you are never elected to any office in the United States, let alone President. That may be a hollow threat from only one voter, but there are millions of us out there that you are cheating
And the word will spread.
From Molly Janczyk, August 31, 2007
Subject: For Divestiture: Obama
John Curry provided this copy of Obama's remarks re: divestiture.
I have been interested in Obama but now, I am disappointed in this stand. I cannot believe he is fully cognizant of this issue targeting pension systems. Divest your holdings! This is irresponsible for all those working innocently for Ford, Coca Cola, etc. >who will be displaced in countries just wanting to provide for their families. Pension money is our contributions and earnings, not the state's or government's to decide. It will cost pension >systems hundreds of millions of our money. It is shameful to target only one group punitively and its membership with little affect on Iran. There are many countries with terrorists throughout the world. This is not a way to stop >terrorism by targeting companies with shareholders dependent on their simple pensions. Disappointed.
Molly Janczyk
Hit Iran where it hurts
NY Daily News
August 30, 2007
By Barack Obama
Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. Yet the Bush administration and an anonymous senator are blocking a bill with bipartisan support that would ratchet up the pressure on the Iranian regime. It's time for this obstructionism to stop.
The decision to wage a misguided war in Iraq has substantially strengthened Iran, which now poses the greatest strategic challenge to U.S. interests in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarian politics in Iraq, fuels terror and extremism across the Middle East and continues to make progress on its nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Meanwhile, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel must be "wiped off the map."
In response, the Bush administration's policy has been tough talk with little action and even fewer results. While conventional Washington thinking says we can only talk to people who agree with us, I believe that strong countries and strong Presidents shouldn't be afraid to talk directly to our adversaries to tell them where America stands. The Bush-Cheney diplomacy of not talking to Iran has not worked. As President, I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, including the power of tough, smart and principled diplomacy.
For diplomacy to work, we need to dial up our political and economic pressure - not just our tough talk. Iran's troubling behavior depends in large part on access to billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue. That is why I introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act last May, to build on a movement across the country to divest from companies that do significant business with Iran. This would send a clear message about where America stands, increasing Iran's isolation and hitting the Iranian regime where it hurts.
The bill works in three ways. First, it would educate investors and pressure foreign companies to reconsider doing business with Iran by requiring the U.S. government to publish - every six months - a list of companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector. Second, it would give explicit congressional authorization to state and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list. Third, it would give private fund managers who divest protection from lawsuits, while urging the government's own 401(k) fund to create "terror-free" and "genocide-free" investment options for government employees.
This common-sense approach enjoys broad support. Sam Brownback, a Republican senator and presidential candidate, joined me in introducing this bill. A companion bill passed the House of Representatives 408 to 6. The only obstacle now is a single senator who placed an anonymous "hold" on the bill, blocking it from coming to a vote.
This is exactly the kind of unaccountable obstruction that needs to change in Washington. Instead of having a debate in the open, a Bush administration ally is blocking the bill through a secret Washington maneuver - a maneuver that would be banned if a sweeping bipartisan ethics reform bill that I led the fight to pass is signed into law.
Talking tough and keeping our troops in the middle of Iraq's civil war has only served to strengthen Iran's position. It's time to turn the page on a failed foreign policy. It's time for strong diplomacy backed by common-sense measures that pressure the Iranian regime.
Obama, U.S. senator from Illinois, is running for the Democratic nomination for President.

Jeff Glasgow: Josh and Shannon....ALL your info is needed!

From John Curry, August 30, 2007
Subject: Josh and Shannon....ALL your info is needed!
Our fellow retiree friend and anti-divestiture proponent, Jeff Glasgow, has related this to me and I wish to share this with all of you. Jeff wants to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from two of Ohio's legislators who co-sponsored HB 151, Representatives Josh Mandel and Shannon Jones.
John
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
STATE OF OHIO EX REL.
JEFFREY L. GLASGOW, . Original Action in Mandamus
Case No. 07-1411
vs.
Relator, 0'7-1411
REPRESENTATIVE JOSH MANDEL
77 S. High St., 12" Floor
Columbus, Ohio 432 1 5-61 1 1
REPRESENTATIVE SHANNON JONES
77 S. High St., I 1`h Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-6111
Respondents,
COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Aaron M. Glasgow (0075466) (COUNSEL OF RECORD)
145 E. Rich Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 228-4546
Fax No. (614)228 -1472
Attorney for Relator
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR JEFFREY L. GLASGOW
The Honorable Marc Dann (0039425)
Attorney General of the State of Ohio
30 E. Broad St.
Columbus, Ohio 43215
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS
Relator, Jeffrey L. Glasgow ("Relator"), for his Verified Complaint against Respondents, Ohio Representatives Josh Mandel and Shannon Jones, ("Respondents"), avers as follows:
1. This is an action for a writ of mandamus under the Ohio Public Records Act, Ohio
Revised Code Section 149.43, to compel Respondents to immediately provide access to the following public records as defined in Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43(A)(1):
A. All e-mails sent or received by Representatives Mandel and Jones in their capacities as State Representatives from the date of their service as such Representative, specifically including, but not limited to, any e-mails having as their subject matter Substitute House Bill 151 of the 127u' General Assembly or discussions that led to the introduction of Substitute House Bill 151 or any predecessor bill. This request includes any and all deleted e-mails and any emails stored on their office computers or on any other computer. This request also includes, but is not limited to, any and all e-mails on private e-mail systems.
B. All text messages sent or received by Representatives Mandel and Jones in their capacities as State Representative from the date of their service as such Representative, specifically including, but not limited to, any text messages having as their subject matter Substitute House Bill 151 of the 127th General Assembly or discussions that led to the introduction of Substitute House Bill 151 or any predecessor bill and any text messages sent or received by them during committee hearings on such Bill. This request includes any messages sent or
received at any time on either state owned or private cellular communication devices.
C. Representatives Mandel and Jones in their capacities as State Representative from the date of their service as such Representatives including, but not limited to, correspondence having as its subject matter House Bill 151 or discussions that led to or have any connection whatsoever with the introduction of Substitute House Bill 151 of the 127th General Assembly.
2. Jurisdiction is proper in the Court pursuant to Article IV, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution and Rule X of the Rules of Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court.
3. Respondents, currently serving Representatives of the Ohio House of Representatives are "public officials" serving in a "public office" as that term is defined under R.C. 149.011(A) and (D), and have custody of the records which are the subject of this action.
COUNT I
4. On June, 2007, Relator submitted to Representative Mandel a public records request seeking the public records as set forth in Paragraph 1 of this Complaint. A true and accurate copy of the request from Relator to Representative Mandel is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5. On June 7, 2007, Relator submitted to Representative Jones a public records request seeking the public records as set forth in Paragraph 1 of this Complaint. A true and accurate copy of the request from Relator to Representative Jones is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
6. Under R.C. 149.431(A) (1), "public record" means records kept by a "public office."
7. R.C. 149.011(G) defines "records" to include "any document, device, or item ... created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any public office ... which serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedure, operations, or other activities of the office."
8. The subject e-mails, text messages and documents are public records for which no exception exists under the Public Records Act.
9. Upon submission of Relator's public records request, Respondents had a clear legal duty to produce the requested public records.
10. On June 18 2007, Respondents provided a limited number of documents as a purported response to the public records request. Such response was incomplete in that the only documents produced were a limited number of e-mails received by Respondents on their official e-mail addresses provided by the State and certain regular mail correspondence. Other public records requested (all sent e-mails, in both Respondents' state and personal e-mail accounts, sent or received text messages, written correspondence) were not provided
11. Relator is specifically aware of public records in the form of e-mails regarding public matters sent to and from Respondent Mandel's alternative non-governmental email account that were requested and not provided.
12. Respondents violated the Ohio Public Records Act by failing to produce the requested records, and Relator is therefore entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring Respondents to produce the requested public records.
WHEREFORE, Relator prays for the following:
A. Peremptory and permanent writs of mandamus compelling Respondents to produce the requested records immediately;
B. Costs and expenses, including statutory attorney fees incurred herein; and
C. Such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
Respect
Aaron M. Glasgow (0075466)
145 E. Rich Street
Columbus, OH 43215
aglasgow@plankbrahm.com
(614) 228-4546
Fax No. (614)228 -1472
Attorney for Relator
VERIFICATION
I, Jeffrey L. Glasgow, the Relator herein, declare that I have read the Verified Complaint, have personal knowledge of the contents therein, and that the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
STATE OF OHIO
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN SS
Swom to and subscribed before me this 1st day of August, 2007
AARON M. GLASGOW Notary Public
Attorney at Law
Notary Public State of Ohio
idy Commission Has No Explratlon
Sectlon 147.03 R.C.
Praecipe: To the Clerk:
Please make service by certified mail of the Complaint for Writ of Mandamus and on the Respondents and their Counsel at the addresses jigi^d in the Caption of this Complaint
EXHIBIT A
Jeffrey L. Glasgow Attorney at Law
145 East Rich St., 3d Floor Columhus, Ohio 43215-5240
Tel. (614)325-3493
jglasgow@columbus.rr.com
June 1, 2007
Rep. Josh Mandel
77 S. High St
12th Floor
Columbus, OH
43215-6111
Re: Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43 public records request
Dear Representative Mandel:
This letter constitutes a request, pursuant to the provisions of Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43 for the following public records:
1. All e-mails sent or received by you in your capacity as a State Representative from the date of your service as such Representative, specifically including, but not limited to, any e-mails having as their subject matter Substitute House Bill 151 of the 127s' General Assembly or discussions that led to the introduction of Substitute House Bill 151 or any predecessor bill. This request includes any and all deleted e-mails and any e-mails stored on your office computer or on any other computer.
2. All text messages sent or received by you in your capacity as a State Representative from the date of your service as such Representative, specifically including, but not limited to, any text messages having as their subject matter Substitute House Bill 151 of the 127a' General Assembly or discussions that led to the introduction of Substitute House Bill 151 or any predecessor bill and any text messages sent or received by you during committee hearings on such Bill.
3. All written correspondence sent or received by you in your capacity as a State Representative from the date qf your service as such Representative having as their subject matter House Bill 151 or discussions that led to the introduction of Substitute House Bill 151 of the 127th General Assembly.
If you withhold any of the public records requested, please identify the records that you are withholding and set forth the reasons for your withholding them.
Please have these records available by Monday, June 11, 2007. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43(B) (2), please duplicate these records on a CD. I will pick them up in person in your office on Monday morning unless advised otherwise.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey L. Glasgow
Sent by e-mail and regular mail
EXHIBIT B
Jeffrey L. Glasgow Attorney at Law
145 East Rich St., 3rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-5240
Te1. (614)325-3493
jglasgow@columbus.rr.com
June 7, 2007
Rep. Shannon Jones
77 S. High St
11th Floor
Columbus, OH
43215-6111
Re: Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43 public records request
Dear Representative Jones:
This letter constitutes a request, pursuant to the provisions of Ohio Revised Code
Section 149.43 for the following public records:
4. All e-mails sent or received by you in your capacity as a State Representative from the date of your service as such Representative, specifically including, but not limited to, any e-mails having as their subject matter Substitute House Bill 151 of the 127th General Assembly or discussions that led to the introduction of Substitute House Bill 151 or any predecessor bill. This request includes any and all deleted e-mails and any e-mails stored on your office computer or on any other computer. This request also includes, but is not limited to, any and all e-mails on private e-mail systems.
5. All text messages sent or received by you in your capacity as a State Representative from the date of your service as such Representative, specifically including, but not limited to, any text messages having as their subject matter Substitute House Bill 151 of the 127th General Assembly or discussions that led to the introduction of Substitute House Bill 151 or any predecessor bill and any text messages sent or received by you during committee hearings on such Bill. This request includes any messages sent or received at any time on either state owned or private cellular communication devices.
6. All written correspondence sent or received by you in your capacity as a State Representative from the date of your service as such Representative including, but not limited to, correspondence having as its subject matter House Bill 151 or discussions that led to or have any connection whatsoever with the introduction of Substitute House Bill 151 of the 127th General Assembly.
If you withhold any of the records requested for any reason, please identify the records that you are withholding and set forth the reasons for your withholding them.
This request includes, but is not limited to, records that come into existence between the date of this request and the June 14, 2007.
Please have these records available by Thursday, June 14, 2007. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43(B) (2), please duplicate these records on a CD. If it is more convenient to photocopy the public records requested in Paragraph 3 of this request, please do so. I will pick these pubic records up in person in your office on Thursday morning, June 14, 2007 unless advised otherwise.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey L. Glasgow
Sent by e-mail and regular mail

Thursday, August 30, 2007

ORSC minutes of their May 22, 2007 board meeting (first 5 pages; more to come)

From John Curry, August 29, 2007
Subject: Retirement Study Council minutes re. HB 151
Want to see what the Ohio Retirement Study Council had to say about HB 151 and divestiture. Here are the ORSC board minutes from their May 22, 2007 meeting! These were furnished compliments of Jeff Glasgow. Thank you, Jeff
John P.S. About 2 weeks after this ORSC meeting...House Speaker Jon Husted gathered 5 executive directors of the 5 Ohio retirement systems at a meeting where they kowtowed to his wishes and agreed to a "light" version of HB 151...problem is, they didn't have the authority of their respective boards, did they?

Click on images to enlarge






























































.

.

.

.

.

.














.

.

.

.

.

ORSC minutes of their May 22, 2007 board meeting (pp. 6-10)














































































.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

ORSC minutes of their May 22, 2007 board meeting (pp.11-14)


























































.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Missouri Investment Trust: Facts You Should Know

This is from our Colorado fellow retiree and friend, Cheryl Flagg. Cheryl has been "fighting the fight" against divestiture in her state as we have in ours. She sheds some much needed light on the divestiture crowd's poster girl from Missouri, Sarah Steelman! John

Cheryl Flagg to John Curry, August 29, 2007
Subject: Re: Missouri Investment Trust: Facts you should know!

As retirees of public pension funds, many of us have concerns about the misinformation being conveyed regarding Sarah Steelman's divestment of the Missouri Investment Trust. As we all know, the Missouri legislature has not passed either a Sudan or an Iran divestment bill for Missouri's public pension funds. However, the media, certain organizations, and some legislators have promoted the Missouri Investment Trust divestment as a model upon which all public pension funds should base their own divestment.
The Missouri Investment Trust was established, according to their charter, as "an agency created by state law to manage long-term funds held on behalf of various cultural groups in the state". It is not a pension fund. The Missouri State Audit website listed the Missouri Investment Trust total assets of $21,106,050 in December, 2003; this was the final audit done before the much touted divestment. The two audit reports since the divestment were for the years 2005 and 2006. However, the Missouri Auditor's website at http://auditor.mo.gov/auditreports/prsg17.htm lists only a phone number, (573)-751-2411, to call for a copy of the latest Missouri Investment Trust audit. The audit for the year 2002 can be found at http://auditor.mo.gov/press/2003-39.htm and the one for 2000 is at http://auditor.mo.gov/press/2001-22.htm The Ohio Retirement Study Council minutes from 22 May 2007 states on page eight that the Missouri Investment Trust showed a 3.9% increase in returns. One has to wonder why this is seen as positive when public and business pension funds are garnering 8-15+% on recent returns; (see attachment above for the returns of the top 200 pension funds in the U.S.)
Questions: Given this information, why would anyone compare the Missouri Investment Trust to public pension funds with assets worth millions and millions of dollars? Why would anyone want to reduce public pension fund returns to only 3.9%? And, why hasn't the Missouri legislature passed pension fund divestment? Finally, shouldn't the media, certain organizations, and some legislators get out of the business of comparing the Missouri Investment Trust to public pension funds since there is no basis for comparison? Think about it...and don't believe the propaganda. They only want to destroy public pension funds as we know them.
Cheryl Flagg
Colorado PERA Retiree

Molly Janczyk, Gary Russell & Jim Kimmel re: Medicare supplemental (Med Mutual ) deductible

From Gary Russell, August 28, 2007
Subject: RE: Medicare supplemental (Med Mutual ) deductible
Molly, You are correct that a considerable exposure that the STRS Ohio Health Care program is covering for individuals with Medicare is the lack of any out-of-pocket maximums in the Medicare plan. (Meaning STRS picks up all which is not >covered by Medicare after deduc. at 80% with the patient at 20% UP TO $1500 and then STRS >PAYS AT 100% and we pay nothing. With Soc. Sec. Medicare alone, we would pay 20% to >infinity. This is what supplemental coverage by STRS provides).
Prescription medication is, of course, the other significant exposure. (STRS DOES NOT have the donut hole that Soc. Sec. Medicare demands).Decreasing or eliminating the deductible to provide first dollar coverage would be a very expensive enhancement to the program that would increase the premiums for everyone and shorten the solvency of the your health care plan.
I hope this helps, Gary
From Molly Janczyk, August 26, 2007
Subject: RE: Medicare supplemental (Med Mutual ) deductible
Maybe Gary Russell can help explain. I do know that while Medicare with Soc Sec deduc may be lower, they also
have NO stop gaps and you pay 20% of all bills all year with no out of pocket max. If you have big bills, you would pay huge amounts. With STRS being our supplemental, there is a stop gap of $1500 after $500 deduc. So that is $2000 a yr.: costly if you are healthy; less costly for the ill patient such as my husband and many others.
From Jim Kimmel, August 26, 2007
Subject: Medicare supplemental (Med Mutual ) deductible
I just got an EOB which told me I got nothing in benefits because I had not yet fulfilled my $500.00 deductible. I began to think: Before I was on Medicare there was a $500.00 deductible but then I would more quickly reach it because ALL my medical bills went through. It was my Primary insurer. Now that I am on Medicare and Med Mutual is only supplemental paying only 80% or the 20% Medicare doesn't pay I am STILL required to accumulate $500.00 before the coverage kicks in. Medicare's deductible in less than half that. That seems like a rigged game to me. You get less coverage and yet you still have to meet the same$500.00 deductible! I bet many retirees over 65 with Medicare never reach the supplemental $500.00 deductible because pays out such a smaller amount. And the pharmacy bills do not count for deductible, of course. Since it pays less it should require a smaller deductible. And the supplemental premiums are certainly high enough.
it would be interesting to know what percent of retirees never hit the Med Mutual supplemental in a given year. Or over the past few years? Shouldn't that be helping the Healthcare Stabilization Fund? could the deductible be lowered to match Medicare's which it supposedy "shadows".
Jim Kimmel

Labels: ,

Molly Janczyk: Healthy Retirees

From Molly Janczyk, August 30, 2007
Subject: Healthy Retirees
I respond to the blog on Medicare and STRS HC. Insurance is just that: insurance in case you become ill. I understand that some feel they pay too much even at $67 or $40 a month to guarantee health care coverage in case they become ill next week, next month, next year, in 2, 5 or 10 years. None of us know but it is a risk few wish to take by not being covered.
Adverse selection is a balancing of healthy and ill recipients. All insurance plans count on it to keep costs down so that the healthier offset some of the costs for the more ill recipients. This is true of all insurance coverage: automobile, house, etc.
For those less fortunate who easily meet their deductible in the first month or two of each year, (my husband, for example, who must endure treatments to stay functional. Each treatment costs is approved at approx. $2500-3500. Our portion is $400-500. That is just one cost among the many that keep him out of bed. He is among the less fortunate among us.
I confess I fail to see the logic of comparing Soc. Sec. Medicare with STRS Supplemental Ins. for Medicare recipients. IF you had Soc. Sec. Part A only, you would pay the first $992 for EACH hospital visit if more than so many days apart. Forget the exact number. Then Medicare would pay for a limited number of days, after which you would pick up daily costs until you were paying 100%. This does not happen to most as they are discharged before this occurs.
With STRS Supplemental, after this initial $500 of that $992, your supplemental would kick in with STRS paying 80% of $492. So, you would pay the first $500 (Plus PLans) and then 20% of the $492 or $98.40 totalling $598.40 vs. $992 Soc. Sec. only. IF you should have another hospital visit, you would not have to again pay the $992 because STRS would pay 80% of it leaving you with $198.40 vs. $793.60 if you were Soc. Sec. only.
Also, thes costs to you go towards a stop gap of $1500 for the year: easy to meet if you are ill. My husband met his months ago. So, we now are on 100% pay by STRS for all medical costs until 12/31/07. WITH SOC SEC ONLY: THERE IS NO STOP GAP AND YOU WOULD PAY 20% TO INFINITY EACH YEAR.
Treatments: Again, the writer bases their scenario on the healthy: One treatment at $131 deductible. Then Soc. Sec. steps in at 80%. Remember, the patient pays 20% WITH NO STOP GAPS while the costs all go toward the STRS patient's deduc. and yearly stop gap of $1500. For the ill, many and mulitple types of treatments are usually necessary and without STRS stop gaps we'd be lost and broke.
We pay the same premium for Part B, I believe, at 65, that Soc. Sec. only recipients pay but with the added advantage of stop gap/ limits of what we have to pay insurance. Part A is free.
We pay insurance to ensure that we have it should we become ill. One can count on not becoming ill and drop it, seek other supplemental carriers, (all of which I have found to be costlier than STRS either with higher deductibles, less coinsurance (70/30 or 60/40) or fewer benefits. Some go with the lesser premiuims for monthly cost and offset that with higher deductible and paying more of the coinsurance. I would ask you to research other carriers against STRS.
I am not condoning what I feel was the lack of longterm planning and determination to seek legislation long ago to secure funding for HC by the former Board and Exec. Direc. who wanted out of the HC business. This resulted in retirees being overwhelming burdened with saving the HC system for retirees until a resolution could be found. I doubt current retirees will ever enjoy the benefits of such except by saving having HC at all.
We petition legislators to hear us in our plight. We were not at fault and did all we were advised to do while serving our communities for the betterment of its children and future. New potential quality educators will seek other professions with no promise of secure retirements with HC. There is no retirement without HC as no educator could possible save enough for their HC.
Ohio has never properly funded education. If districts were properly funded with higher priorities for aid towards education as is constitually mandated, the school boards could transfer some funds towards contribution increases. Ohio has always ranked low in priority to education putting this burden on the school districts to raise funds largely through taxation further burdening home owners.
Legislators can find other ways to address what they feel is early retirement for a group of people who experience job related stress induced health conditions second to air traffic controllers according to a Newsweek Article some time ago. But, taking away any possibility of a secure retirement will only degrade education further in a state historically troubled in this area. Ohio is losing more potential residents when once it attracted new population. Several of our main cities are high in poverty ratings. Serve the educators by approving increased contributions, secure HC, and draw the brightest and best to turn around this state and attract and retain those who can contributor to Ohio's future.
Please, all: Remember, to look at the total picture and not just what is happening to a few who are so very fortunate as to not have to use their HC plan. The rest should be so lucky. The healthy, no claim individuals, will always feel they pay too much until and unless they actually have to use their 'insurance.' I pay monthly for Long Term Care insurance. I hope never to use it. But, in case I do, it is there. My husband cannot get this type of insurance because of preexisting conditions. Aetna banks on me never having a claim to offset all those who end up in nursing homes.
That is how insurance works and can stay in business. We have so much to do. Fighting how insurance works so that only ill people pay, will result in all insurance going bankrupt.
Molly J.

Jeff Glasgow: Hite and the 'Missouri experience'

Jeff Glasgow to Molly Janczyk, August 28, 2007
Subject: Messasge from Sally Buis
Molly,
If Hite's argument is based on the 'Missouri experience" which most of the 'success stories are, it is a sham. Here is what Mandel had to say about the "Missouri experience" in a hearing with the Ohio Retirement Study Council on May 22, 2007. The stories about Missouri are at best, disingenuous and at worst arrogant lies. First he says, at page 6 of the document that 'They (the pension systems) are not telling them that after seven months of divestment, their return on investment has increased by 3.9%." HOWEVER, he later admits in responding to a question from Senator Shuring:
"Rep Mandel said the Missouri program is different in a couple of ways. One it was not a legislative mandate;the state treasurer, Sarah Steelman, had a seat on the pension board and kept asking questions to the extent of which the pension funds were doing business with companies doing business with terror sponsoring states as identified by the federal government. She wasn't getting answers to those questions so she announced [emphasis is mine] for the dollars SHE controlled under the Missouri Investment Trust, she would divest. IT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROGRAM. HE SAID HE MUST GIVE A DISCLAIMER, WHILE HE USES THE FACT THAT SEVEN MONTHS AFTER DIVESTMENT, THEY HAVE A 3.9% INCREASE IN RETURNS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISCLAIM THAT IT IS A SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER POT OF MONEY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THERE. HERE IT IS BILIONS OF DOLLARS, THERE IT IS PROBABLY TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. He said they have concerns about the Missouri program because it does not have a mandate on t he pension funds. While they applaud the state treasurer there for ding it with the dollars SHE controls, their main concern with the Missouri plan is that it does not impact the pension funds. THERE IS NO PENSION FUND DIVESTMENT THERE." THIS IS FROM MANDEL HIMSELF ON MAY 22.
I am sending you a PDF file of the entire hearing. Please pass it (and this message) on. As you read the minutes, it will make your skin crawl.
Even if there is a benefit to divesting as Ms. Buis and Mr. Hite seem to think, the burden of proving that is on Hite--if he could prove that it is so, why is he ramming it down our throat and why does Section 137.08 of HB151 get rid of the fiduciary duty of the boards. If it is such a great deal, they wouldn't need that provision, because that type of investment wouldn't be a breach of fiduciary duty and no immunity would be necessary. What do they think they have to protect the fund managers from if it is a good investment? I smell several rats.
Stay in touch.
Jeff

Molly Janczyk: Getting info from Rep. Hite

Kathryn Williams to Molly Janczyk, August 30, 2007
Subject: RE: Kathryn: Rep. Hite: Messasge from Sally Buis
Ms. Janczyk,
HB 151 was referred to the Rules and Reference Committee in June. At this time, it is no longer of concern to the General Assembly. Divestment decisions are to be determined by individual pension boards. Please contact your retirement system if you have further questions or concerns.
SB161 was assigned to the Senate Finance Committee 5/3/07. Since Rep. Hite is a member of the House and does not sit on that committee, I don't have any further details regarding that bill. Feel free to contact Senator Carey's office for more information. They can be reached at 614-466-8156.
Sincerely,
Kate Schock-Williams
Legislative Aide to Rpresentative Cliff Hite
Ohio House of Representatives, District 76
614.466.3819
Molly Janczyk to Kathryn Williams, August 30, 2007
Subject: Kathryn: Rep. Hite: Message from Sally Buis
Rep. Hite: Please respond to the issues below.
Kathryn: My email address has been on all emails.
Molly Janczyk

Kathryn Williams to Molly Janczyk, August 30, 2007
Subject: RE: Rep. Hite: Message from Sally Buis
Dear Ms. Janczyk,
Thank you for your email. This is not your official or final response but it is an acknowledgment that we have received your email.
Can you please email or call our office with your phone number and address? Representative Hite and I are unsure what you are looking to have answered from the emails we have received. If it is regarding HB 151, the bill has been removed from committee and will have no further hearings. It has been resolved outside of the General Assembly.
If you need further information, we would appreciate direct communication so we can fully address your concerns.
Sincerely,
Kate Schock-Williams
Legislative Aide to Representative Cliff Hite
Ohio House of Representatives, District 76
614.466.3819
Molly Janczyk to Rep. Cliff Hite, August 28, 2007
Subject: Rep. Hite: Messasge from Sally Buis
Rep. Hite, Please respond. I was asked to hear your position.
Thank you,
Molly Janczyk
Retiree STRS

Molly Janczyk: Medicare

From Molly Janczyk, August 30, 2007
Subject: Medicare
If one is lucky enough to be healthy, they do not reach their $500 yearly deductible for the Plus Plan. Deductibles are higher for the Basic.
Medicare Soc. Sec. pays 80% of a claim after its own deductible system and then the patient must pay the deductible with STRS Supplemental as with all HC Plans. STRS kicks in when the $500 is paid by the patient. Then a claim is paid in this way: Medicare 80% after which it goes to STRS. STRS pays 80% of what is left. The patient then pays 20% of what remains.
It is misleading and confusing to base statements on folks who are healthy enough not to have HC costs. Ill recipients and STRS can validate their high costs for those who are not so lucky. IF they had Soc Sec only, they'd pay higher deduc. for hospital stays and 20% of costs to infinity with no stop gaps.
I fail to understand this purpose of ongoing bashing of benefits. It is not the benefits, it is the costs of them which is the issue. Soc. Sec. only would drain an ill person very quickly who exists on retiree pensions.
In my opinion, the post will raise concerns which are unfair and unsubstantiated. No offense intended and only trying not to further confuse those who are ill or alone.
Larry KehresMount Union Collge
Division III
web page counter
Vermont Teddy Bear Company