CORE Mail and More

An archive for e-mails, articles, etc., related to CORE (Concerned Ohio Retired Teachers) and STRS Ohio. Due to time constraints, little editing will be done. Special thanks to all who contribute to this blog, and kudos especially to John Curry for his unflagging dedication and long hours spent on his unpaid job as "e-mail clearinghouse" as well as his diligence in ferreting out timely articles to keep us all informed. Earlier postings may be found at: www.kathiebracy.blogspot.com

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Charter Schools and Uncle Sam

Posted on Thu, Nov. 17, 2005

Report: Some charter schools surrender state money to IRSAssociated Press

AKRON, Ohio - Some state funding intended to help privately run charter schools in Ohio ends up going to the IRS instead.
Despite urging from the state that charter schools become designated as nonprofit corporations to avoid federal taxes imposed on for-profit enterprises, most but not all comply, a newspaper reported Thursday.
Lawmakers created charter schools in 1998 as an alternative to traditional public school districts, arguing that competition would help improve education for all children. The schools are publicly funded but privately run and free of many regulations that traditional districts must follow.
Charter schools have grown from 15 schools in Ohio to 250 schools this year, serving 65,000 children. The state estimates it will pay $441 million to charter schools this year, still a fraction of the state's annual $7 billion education budget but a figure growing each year.
To qualify as nonprofit, charter schools must complete required paperwork, although some still choose not to do so. Operators of at least 12 charter schools paid the IRS about $311,000 out of state aid over a recent three-year period, according to an Akron Beacon Journal review of audits of charter schools. The most recent complete audit was for the 2003-04 school year.
Of the 12, Akron-based White Hat Management operates seven schools it calls learning centers. The Leona Group, a school-management company in East Lansing, Mich., operates the others.
A message requesting comment was left Thursday with White Hat Management.
Kelly Updike, spokeswoman for the Leona Group, said that because Ohio doesn't require federal nonprofit status, the company did not apply. It since has begun the application process, she said.
Ohio's auditor has notified at least four other schools about possible violations of federal tax law. Jennifer Detwiler, spokeswoman for Auditor Betty Montgomery, said the auditor has no enforcement power in the matter.
Another 23 schools have not received their nonprofit status from the federal government, although they either intend to apply or are waiting on word from the IRS regarding their applications, the Akron newspaper reported.
The Columbus-based Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, the state's largest charter school with more than 7,000 students, has been in operation for six years and has yet to receive its nonprofit status, although spokesman Nick Wilson said the school recently applied because the status is needed for federal grants. He said the IRS has simplified the process.
"If a charter school has the opportunity to not be taxed, it seems silly to not take advantage of that situation," Detwiler said.
Department of Education spokesman J.C. Benton said that the department tells charter school operators they should apply for federal nonprofit status.
In 2002, Rep. Jon Husted, a Republican from suburban Dayton who is now the House speaker, sponsored a charter school bill that did not require the nonprofit status, although it explained that no state funds for the schools should be used to pay federal or other taxes.
http://coremail.blogspot.com/

ORC 3307.15 - not just a wish, IT'S THE LAW!

Friday, November 18, 2005

Molly Janczyk & Tom Mooney: Election 2006

From: John Curry
Subject: Tom Mooney on Election 2006
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005

"We will certainly reach out for support of CORE and other interested groups."
-- Tom Mooney

Isn't it nice to hear words like the above words? OEA needs to go a long way to match this sentiment. John

From: Molly Janczyk
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005
Subject: Tom Mooney on Election 2006

Thank you, Tom. Your openness is much appreciated! Molly

From: Tom Mooney
To: "molly janczyk"
Subject: Re: Tom

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:13:58 -0500

Molly,

We are open to supporting a non-OFT member. I made the same pts. to our screening committee that you are making here. We have to build and sustain coalitions. If Don Lakes decides he's interested, and has the support of his local, we will certainly look at him. We are looking at Tom Hall via resume at this point and then the committee will decide whether they want to interview. We will certainly reach out for support of CORE and other interested groups. I appreciate all your comments, Molly.

All the best,

Tom

From: "molly janczyk" To: Tom Mooney
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005

Subject: Tom

Dear Tom, I met Don Lakes today as he came with Bob Buerkle to the STRS meeting. We spoke of his candidacy and it seems he felt it was too late to begin the process for this year. I told him of your gracious delay until Dec. 3 for a final decision and that you were willing to interview those seeking OFT endorsement, Lakes looked at Bob and said he'd like to talk with you. Bob indicated he would get in touch both having your email and phone number.
I think you will find Don extremely markatable for a candidacy and very qualified being both a classroom educator AND having expertise to hit the ground running with his background in health care. As you know, he is also OFT. Please do speak with him for your consideration.

Re: Prof: Tom Hall:

Several pts:

1. Is there anyway he can be affiliated even loosely with AFT-OFT? 2. If not, I know you will speak with him, but please consider endorsing a candidate outside of OFT for the common good as you will have a least one OFT candidate, for sure in the election process. 3. I think you will find such support among STRS membership from all groups in general and build a larger political base of voters though all not officially OFT. -Many members already are speaking highly of Jeff Chapman. They don't know Mary Ann as well. Jeff came to speak and meet with us and approaches membership very cordially and always seems engaged and interested in hearing what all have to say. I was so impressed that he made sure to connect that he had passed on election names to you and made sure we were all informed when your interviewing was only the next day or two. -Some members want to know your candidates to see if we can back them as they trust OFT so far from what they have seen. I added that you have been on the side of membership since day one. -Some STRS membership wonder if we can't get behind the same candidates even if one is not OFT; STRS members help you and you help members not officially OFT. 4. We are not after a person to answer to any special group: we just want a highly qualified educator whose wish is to work for membership per ORC:3307.15 to the best of their ability and conscience. We don't care who they are and will support the best candidates.

Personally, I feel we need a higher level of expertise in this time of crisis. It is difficult for a classroom educator to come in and play catch up which seems to be the case for Conni Ramser. We are in a time of crisis and need educators who understand finances, market trends, investments, health care issues and procedures AND stand for membership as well.

We are in desparate circumstances and we need the best we can find who can understand immediately the inner workings and be part of the solution ASAP vs. having to spend time on training and learning difficult language, trends, elaborate and detailed briefs, etc.

We need board members who present the best qualifications regardless of affiliations so all of us gain. To endorse such candidates only makes all of us look better to concerned members.

I know you will consider all aspects and for that, I am grateful. I also know you will find that CORE is NOT as you may have heard but a group of very hardworking members who are open and willing to change and with many fading into the background yet always with a watchful eye and willingness to step forward as needed, if we feel membership is truly being represented by the best board members. Of course, some will be most open to involvement on committees to attend and keep others apprised of board actions and seek input from RTA and active membership around the state. Malcontents! Yes! With a system that to use your words: 'burdened retirees unfairly.' Yes. Hard and difficult? No! We have had to fight ALONE for a long time and do what it took to make changes. We had no one but ourselves and some organizations didn't like what we accomplished around them and in spite of them. THAT does not mean we think we did it all....................but it does mean we know we had a positive part in bringing many changes. Most are gentle souls who only want to go back to their retirements though they will never fall asleep at the switch again.

Sincerely, Molly J

Molly Janczyk & Tom Mooney: Election 2006

From: John Curry
Subject: Tom Mooney on Election 2006
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005

"We will certainly reach out for support of CORE and other interested groups."
-- Tom Mooney

Isn't it nice to hear words like the above words? OEA needs to go a long way to match this sentiment. John

From: Molly Janczyk
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005
PM Subject: Tom Mooney on Election 2006

Thank you, Tom. Your openness is much appreciated! Molly

From: Tom Mooney
To: "molly janczyk"
Subject: Re: Tom
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:13:58 -0500

Molly,

We are open to supporting a non-OFT member. I made the same pts. to our screening committee that you are making here. We have to build and sustain coalitions. If Don Lakes decides he's interested, and has the support of his local, we will certainly look at him. We are looking at Tom Hall via resume at this point and then the committee will decide whether they want to interview. We will certainly reach out for support of CORE and other interested groups. I appreciate all your comments, Molly.

All the best,

Tom

From: "molly janczyk" To: Tom Mooney
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005
Subject: Tom

Dear Tom, I met Don Lakes today as he came with Bob Buerkle to the STRS meeting. We spoke of his candidacy and it seems he felt it was too late to begin the process for this year. I told him of your gracious delay until Dec. 3 for a final decision and that you were willing to interview those seeking OFT endorsement, Lakes looked at Bob and said he'd like to talk with you. Bob indicated he would get in touch both having your email and phone number.

I think you will find Don extremely markatable for a candidacy and very qualified being both a classroom educator AND having expertise to hit the ground running with his background in health care. As you know, he is also OFT. Please do speak with him for your consideration.

Re: Prof: Tom Hall:

Several pts:

1. Is there anyway he can be affiliated even loosely with AFT-OFT?

2. If not, I know you will speak with him, but please consider endorsing a candidate outside of OFT for the common good as you will have a least one OFT candidate, for sure in the election process.

3. I think you will find such support among STRS membership from all groups in general and build a larger political base of voters though all not officially OFT. -Many members already are speaking highly of Jeff Chapman. They don't know Mary Ann as well. Jeff came to speak and meet with us and approaches membership very cordially and always seems engaged and interested in hearing what all have to say. I was so impressed that he made sure to connect that he had passed on election names to you and made sure we were all informed when your interviewing was only the next day or two. -Some members want to know your candidates to see if we can back them as they trust OFT so far from what they have seen. I added that you have been on the side of membership since day one. -Some STRS membership wonder if we can't get behind the same candidates even if one is not OFT; STRS members help you and you help members not officially OFT.

4. We are not after a person to answer to any special group: we just want a highly qualified educator whose wish is to work for membership per ORC:3307.15 to the best of their ability and conscience. We don't care who they are and will support the best candidates.

Personally, I feel we need a higher level of expertise in this time of crisis. It is difficult for a classroom educator to come in and play catch up which seems to be the case for Conni Ramser. We are in a time of crisis and need educators who understand finances, market trends, investments, health care issues and procedures AND stand for membership as well.

We are in desparate circumstances and we need the best we can find who can understand immediately the inner workings and be part of the solution ASAP vs. having to spend time on training and learning difficult language, trends, elaborate and detailed briefs, etc.

We need board members who present the best qualifications regardless of affiliations so all of us gain. To endorse such candidates only makes all of us look better to concerned members.

I know you will consider all aspects and for that, I am grateful. I also know you will find that CORE is NOT as you may have heard but a group of very hardworking members who are open and willing to change and with many fading into the background yet always with a watchful eye and willingness to step forward as needed, if we feel membership is truly being represented by the best board members. Of course, some will be most open to involvement on committees to attend and keep others apprised of board actions and seek input from RTA and active membership around the state. Malcontents! Yes! With a system that to use your words: 'burdened retirees unfairly.' Yes. Hard and difficult? No! We have had to fight ALONE for a long time and do what it took to make changes. We had no one but ourselves and some organizations didn't like what we accomplished around them and in spite of them. THAT does not mean we think we did it all....................but it does mean we know we had a positive part in bringing many changes. Most are gentle souls who only want to go back to their retirements though they will never fall asleep at the switch again.

Sincerely, Molly J

Duke Snider’s Speech to the STRS Board 11/17/05

Good afternoon, I'm Duke Snider from southern Ohio. You know, one of those malcontents.

First of all, if you can't hear me, please raise your hand. I think there have been many times you may have been hearing, but not listening. I am saddened by the thought of having to address you, because of a new board. I believe the only persons who have supported the retirees and active educators are Dr. Leone and Mr. Lazares. Are the remaining board members on the board because of status or is it because you truly want to be an asset and contribute to a once great retirement system? If it is not the latter, then the best thing to do would be to resign.

I am and have been on several boards. The reason for me being a member was to use my experience, skills and represent the people who placed me on that particular board.

If any of you object to me using your name, please indicate by raising your hand or nodding your head. I probably won't have time to address each of you, but you'll have your turn.

First, I want to address Dr. Brown. I was present the time you were addressing retirees about wanting to become a member on the STRS board. I asked you twice, “What would you do if you knew there were serious wrong actions going on at STRS?” You danced around the question both times. Dr. Dennis Leone wanted board members to answer retirees’ questions. You slapped Dr. Leone on the wrist indicating he was out of order. Hmmmmm. Now that was really serious. What have you done to follow 3307.15?

Secondly, Dr. Brown – is it true you were given time off at OSU so you could devote time to being president of the STRS board? Is this paid time off? Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest? If so, Dr. Brown, you should step down as board president immediately. No explanation is needed.

Thirdly, Dr. Brown – did you communicate to all the other board members that there was a recent Buck Consultant report before deciding to spend more money on another consultant report? Why didn't you inform the board members?

This is directed to all the board members. Did you take the time to read and study the Buck Consultant report? Why are you allowing noninvestment employees to run the show? You don't bite the hand that feeds you. The noninvestment employees have shown how loyal they are via law suit against you. If I'm not mistaken, they are at will employees and you needn't any reason to terminate them. Every one of them need to be terminated immediately. Who ever heard of paying bonuses for doing their jobs. Teachers never received bonuses for doing their jobs.

Dr. Asbury – are you going to change your mind and take the bonus?

Mr. Mitchell – why have you been continually investing in Fannie Mae?

Does STRS have checks and balances in order to assure retirees everything is being done for the wellbeing of STRS retirees and following 3307.15?

Tom Curtis: Questions for STRS Board member Mike Billirakis

My correspondence to you follows the article below.

GIFTS FROM DRUG COMPANIES

Doctors deny that ‘freebies’ influence them

Monday, November 14, 2005

Suzanne Hoholik
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

The pen you sign in with at the doctor’s office might have Lipitor, Nexium or Zoloft on it. The mug the receptionist drinks coffee from might say Zocor on the side.

Notepads, tissue boxes, wall clocks, clipboards that hold medical charts — everything is an advertisement.

It all comes from drug-company salespeople who regularly visit offices hoping that these marketing tools will translate into more prescriptions for the medications they’re pushing.

Doctors say they’re not influenced by hand sanitizers, wall calendars or pockets full of pens. But what about free medical textbooks, blood-pressure cuffs, stethoscopes and pizza lunches for the entire office staff?

"The calendar on my wall says Premarin (a hormone). When I look at that, do I prescribe that for a patient? Abso- lutely not," said Dr. David Stockwell, a Columbus obstetrician. "It’s a nice thing. They provide that so I don’t have to go to Staples and buy it for my office.

"Anybody who has any ethics at all would not be persuaded by these things."

Busy doctors don’t like taking time to talk to four to six drug representatives a week, but some do it solely to collect the free samples they bring.

Dr. Kathleen Lutter, a Columbus gynecologist, relies on free medication samples for her patients who can’t afford costly drugs. She said pitches from drug reps don’t influence her.

"If you have any brains as a physician, you can get past the marketing ploys," she said. "As every year passes, I get more and more critical of letting drug reps in."

But the freebies do influence physicians, said Dr. Harrison Weed, an infectious-disease and internal-medicine specialist at Ohio State University Medical Center. He doesn’t meet with drug salespeople, and when he finds any freebies around his office or clinic, he throws them away.

He cites national studies that have found that, when people are given something free — no matter how small — they can’t help but feel obligated to reciprocate. And that includes doctors.

"When you meet with them and talk to them," Weed said of drug salespeople, "and you’re the teacher, you want them to succeed, and their drugs to succeed. You have to acknowledge that influence."

The practice has been around for decades.

In the 1970s, the drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. sent every medical-school graduate in the country a leather doctor’s bag loaded with all the tools of the trade, said Bill Fassett, professor of pharmacy law and ethics at Washington State University. "No one thought much of it until some students refused to take them. One school had a bonfire.

"The companies were just mystified by that. The older physicians said, ‘If these guys are going to be corrupted by a medical bag, they shouldn’t be in medicine.’ "

But over the years, the practice grew worse, to the point that it became common for drug companies to take doctors to sporting events and concerts or pick up the tab for seminars at Caribbean resorts.

In 1992, the American Medical Association created ethical guidelines on physicians accepting gifts. They boil down to three things: A gift should benefit patients — drug samples, for example. It should be worth less than $100. And it should have an educational benefit.

"No gift should be accepted if there are strings attached, if they expect something in return," said Dr. Cecil Wilson, a member of the AMA board of trustees.

He acknowledged that drug companies are quick to disseminate research about their drugs but said salespeople shouldn’t be the sole source of information for doctors.

"At the heart of this, physicians have an ethical obligation to help patients make a choice," Wilson said. "In a market-driven entity such as the drug industry, they have certain goals that don’t overlap with a physician’s need for information."

The drug industry’s trade association — Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA — also has guidelines for giving gifts to doctors, including a $100 limit. There’s no limit on handing out drug samples, pens or notepads. The occasional stethoscope is OK; but sporting events, golf outings and trips are not.

"If you’re sitting on the thirdbase line in Wrigley Field in Chicago, you’re not focused on the business at hand," said Jeff Trewhitt, PhRMA spokesman. "Watching Barry Bonds hit a home run has nothing to do with the study of a new medicine."

The solution, said Fassett of Washington State, is public disclosure, with drug companies documenting how much money they spend marketing to each doctor.

"The responsibility of each physician, each nurse, each dentist is to remember that they took an oath to put the patient’s well-being first," he said. "They say they are not influenced, but research shows that they are influenced."

shoholik@dispatch.com
ORC 3307.15 - not just a wish, IT'S THE LAW!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello Mike,

The kind of scenario written about in the newspaper article above is becoming abused far too often now. Abuse of this nature should not be tolerated by our employees or board members concerning any type of products or services used by the STRS. Hopefully, this is part of the
ethics training each employee and board member will receive. I would think that if anyone is found to have accepted any type of gift from people the STRS does business with that should be automatic grounds for termination. We need a zero tolerance policy. Would you support a motion for that change? If not, please explain why.

I realize the policy has changed at the STRS, but the reason it got abused in the first place is because the STRS leadership sanctioned the abuse themselves, by doing such. No one took the responsibility to oversee what was going on and since that is the case, a zero tolerance should
be called for. Each of you board members has to be aware that many things have been overlooked at the STRS for many years. That will not be corrected overnight, but we are paying for the "Cadillac" of employees and we are not getting that in return. As I have said before in board presentations, I want value for my dollar and I will except nothing less.

The STRS fiduciaries has taken a portion of my HC benefit promised to me at retirement and revoked it. At the very same time, those same people were just starting to pay for their HC and still have family plans and free dental and vision. This is not right! I would think many of our board members would be well qualified in recognizing where abuses have and still are taking place and would act on such.

My biggest concern about the board is that there is so much to be done and so little time at the STRS to do it in. The enormity of issues needing attention leaves me wondering just how long it will take to return our retirement system to a well run, efficient operation as called for in
3307.15.

In my opinion, we have been getting little help from the executive director to bring this about. Damon has shown virtually no leadership in resolving issues that have been brought to his attention by the membership for the past 3 years. He does not take the memberships' concerns to heart and has offered little in the way of convincing us differently. I hope our board will soon begin to address the issue of replacing Damon when his contract expires February 18th,
2007. Has anything been brought to the attention of the board concerning such to date? Do you support a national search for his replacement?

No board member gets paid one dime by the STRS for his/her involvement and I do not agree with that. Board members should receive a stipend, unless an educational institution or union is paying for their time. We have been paying executives millions of dollars to operate the STRS efficiently, but that is simply not what we have been getting. Now, all of the problems fall in the laps of the board members to try to identify and correct, while the STRS executives continue to hold their jobs and receive substantial pay increases each year. Just what is wrong with this picture? Would you support a motion for board members not receiving income from an educational institution or union where they are currently employed for being there to receive a stipend for their time? If not, why?

We are told that each year's budget is the lowest in the past 5 years. But, we have only seen minor reductions in operating costs, when they rose at a rate as high as 16% during the same time the STRS portfolio was losing billions of dollars. Why have they not been cut by a greater rate? Our overhead is not providing us with value for our dollar. I am growing weary of the do little comments I receive concerning the issues we have been asking about for 3 years. Dennis Leone prepared a paper outlining what needs to be done, yet the STRS executive staff is still dragging their feet in accomplishing such. Do you support a review of Dr. Leone's research presented to the board in 2003? If not, why?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions above. If you do not receive this by email, I will also ask Eileen Boles to make sure each board member receives a copy of this letter in your box. Please kindly find the time to respond to my questions. I have been told by Damon Asbury and the past two board chairpersons that I would receive answers from board members to questions, if put them in writing. That has not been the case for a number of you and I have a hard time accepting such. Would you?

Take care,
Tom Curtis

11/18/05

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Cathy Burner: November 18 Schools and Richly Rewarded Donors

Kathie Bracy Writes OEA Boss Bill Leibensperger:

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 2:34 PM
Subject: Your recent article in Communiqué

Dear Mr. Leibensperger,

In reading your article "Advocating for You at STRS" in the current issue of Communiqué, I am particularly bothered by one of your comments:

"The stark contrast between these OEA members and too many of the usual participants in the public input portion of the [STRS Board] meeting (who have launched personal insults, unreasonable demands, and angry diatribes for the past couple of years) was a vivid one."

You give no indication of who the "participants" are (no doubt CORE members, most if not all of whom are members of OEA/OEA-R) nor do you list even ONE example of so-called "personal insults," "unreasonable demands" or "angry diatribes."

I have attended nearly every STRS Board meeting in the past year. While I have not made any speeches myself, I have heard many by people like myself, who have had legitimate concerns about management and spending practices that have occurred at STRS while the Board was dominated by OEA members who not only allowed these outrageous spending practices to occur, but boldly assisted in the actual spending of those millions of dollars of retiree funds.

I need to see your list of "unreasonable demands," as I have yet to hear any myself. All demands I have heard fall under the umbrella of ORC 3307.15, which mandates that the Board and other fiduciaries "discharge their duties solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries; for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to the participants and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the system." Can you honestly say those five OEA members of the "old board" were doing this? Can you say that the OEA-dominated "old board" was not derelict in carrying out their duties?

As for the "angry diatribes," you did not mention what they were about or what may have precipitated them. How are readers supposed to know whether they were justified or not? You address your membership like sheep with your bold accusations, none of which you back up. We are not sheep, Mr. Leibensperger. We are OEA/OEA-R members, and have been most of our lives, and do not need to be patronized.

As you are well aware, many of us also belong to CORE, Concerned Ohio Retired Educators, a grass roots organization that evolved because a large segment of the STRS retiree population realized no leadership was being provided by OEA or ORTA after Dennis Leone investigated and exposed the numerous, outrageous practices that were going on at STRS, right under our noses. When OEA and ORTA failed to do the right thing by the retirees, admitting the wrongdoing and attacking it, they chose to overlook it entirely, in order to protect their own interests.

When it dawned on us that neither organization was really representing us, there was no choice but to turn to our own resources and go after the wrongdoers at STRS ourselves. Remember, we're talking about people (CORE members) who have been affiliated with OEA most of their lives, and ORTA in their retirement years; organizations we had placed our very TRUST in. CORE simply wanted to get the STRS mess cleaned up, then disband and go back to our other groups: OEA and ORTA. We would still like to see that happen, but unfortunately the chasm between us and both groups has widened so much in the intervening months/years since May, 2003, due to OEA and ORTA's persistent unwillingness to "come clean" that this is not going to be easy.

When people launch "angry diatribes," Mr. Leibensperger, there must be something behind it. You give no indication of such. If you ever taught in the classroom, you have experienced frustrated children who became angry children if nobody was listening to them and meeting their needs. Do you see a parallel here? CORE repeatedly took their concerns to the Board and were repeatedly blown off. CORE takes ONLY legitimate concerns to the Board; but with repeated rebuffs, how would you expect them to act? You blew us off in your own article by not explaining the "personal insults, unreasonable demands, and angry diatribes!" You are an educated man, Mr. Leibensperger; you should know better. Didn't your college require you to document everything you wrote in your term papers?

I find another part of your article very curious, where you say:

"Please make plans to attend or send representatives to future STRS Board meetings to provide either testimony or presence or both. I will help with the logistics of your participation and development of testimony."

Does this mean you will actually help teachers write their speeches? I find this incredulous! Don't you think teachers have the intelligence to write their own speeches? You are insulting them again! What does "logistics of your participation" mean? Are you going to send a limo to pick up these people and transport them to Columbus? As a matter of information, ALL CORE people have written ALL their speeches themselves, and have managed to get to Columbus on their own, at their own expense, from all over the state. Surely, you wouldn't expect other OEA/OEA-R members to do any less?

Well, I really don't expect to receive a reply from you. From my observations, the OEA leadership is slow to respond, if they respond at all, to issues from their membership that they are uncomfortable with. It is much easier for them to pick and choose whom and what topics they will address, and the manner in which they will address the chosen topics. With OEA's money, the leadership can put a spin on any issue they please, get it out to thousands and get away with it -- to a point. CORE is not going to go away any time soon, it appears, and our grass roots approach is getting the word out more and more every day on what is really going on in the 200 block of East Broad Street, Columbus.

Sincerely,

Katherine B. Bracy
Life member of OEA-R, CEA-R, Franklin Co. RTA, ORTA, NEA-R, Central OEA-R, AFM/AFL-CIO
Proud member of CORE

http://kathiebracy.blogspot.com/

************************************************
Subject: 111205 Curtis Resp To Asbury Resp; Re Grandfathering Those Effected

Hello Damon,

Thank you for your response, but honestly, your response is so indicative of your lack of concern for those STRS members who are suffering the most. You are being paid to be our leader, not our executioner.

It is evident you care so little for us when you can only muster a three sentence response to my heartfelt letter. That is truly sad. Rather then being an advocate for those you represent, according to the ORC 3307.15, you simply put us off and fail to really address the issue with any type of expediency.

I guess I should not be surprised about your response, as you have been consistent in following this type of process since I first met you. With all due respect, considering the financial hardship this has had on about 1/3rd of all retirees, why would this need to wait until February?

Nearly every major concern the membership has asked about has been put off until a later date. We have no findings concerning an audit of the STRS after nearly 3 years; we have no results of the impact of SB190 after 6 years; and the child care center was not reduced to a cost zero as promised.

In my opinion, the practices, processes and procedures under which you and the STRS executive staff seem to operate, fail to meet your fiduciary responsibility. I certainly hope I have a chance to testify to such some day. If what you and others are failing to do for those that paid into a system that promised better is appropriate in your minds, I sure hope each of you will answer to a higher authority one of these days. I cannot believe you find this to be justified by simply making a few flippant statements about such. This whole situation is so unbelievable to so many others and me. This is inexcusable! We will be there to your end.

It becomes so obvious, day after day, that much of the leadership of the Ohio legislature; Ohio government; our Ohio legal system; the STRS and the OEA have no respect for the people they are supposed to represent. Many of you simply attempt to pacify us instead of representing us as you are supposedly required to do by law.

Very Disgusted,
Thomas Curtis

----- Original Message -----
From: Asbury, Damon
To: Thomas Curtis

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: 102805 Curtis To Asbury; Grandfathering Those Effected

Tom:
You ask some important questions about grandfathering. The Board has asked that this be made a topic for review and discussion at their February retreat. I will see that your questions are included in that discussion.

Damon

From: Thomas Curtis
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 2:17 PM
To: Curtis , ThomasCc: Neville, Bill; Asbury, Damon; Baldwin, Joyce; Bierdeman, Terri; Boles, Eileen; Ecklar, Laura; Knoesel, Sandra; Mitchell, Steve; Slater, Robert
Subject: 102805 Curtis To Asbury; Grandfathering Those Effected

10/28/05

Hello Dr. Asbury, Exec. Staff and Board Members,

Would you, the Executive Staff and the Board kindly address an issue with earnest, which has resulted in other retirees and me to become very active in the reform process at the STRS? The issue I speak of, is one of providing a "grandfathering" of health care benefits educators were told we would have for the rest of our lives, but then had revoked. This reform is greatly needed for obvious financial reasons.

As you are aware, those educators that initially established and/or supported the group known as C.O.R.E. did so, because they found their cost for their health care benefit increasing at an alarming rate. This increasing of health care costs continued to the point that on January 1st of 2004, the entire cost of health care for a non-teaching spouse, or one with less then 15 years of service, and dependent children, was placed totally upon the shoulders of the retiree. That decision resulted in roughly an 800% increase of cost to each effected retiree. That is simply outrageous! We were promised and deserved better from our fiduciaries. Simply being told that it was only a promise, not a guarantee, is unacceptable. I would most certainly feel that had you been placed in a similar situation, you would be actively involved in attempting to reverse or revise that plan.

To repeat, in 2004 the entire subsidy for all non-teaching spouses, or ones with less then 15 years of service, and all dependent children was removed, but had been provided before January 1st of 2004. There probably would be many more active with CORE, if they were physically able or were not out working to provide health care insurance they could afford for their spouse and dependent children.

Another issue arose due to this decision to eliminate spousal and dependent children subsidies. As many as twenty to thirty thousand or more healthy benefit recipients and their family members left our health care plan to find one for a much more reasonable cost. One they could afford. This resulted in creating a health care group of high incidence of usage, or ones with pre-existing conditions that would not permit them to be accepted by another carrier. I believe they refer to us as a "sick group". Obviously, the cost to provide coverage to such a group would be much higher, because the cost to maintain those left in that group is much higher, once you remove the healthy people.

I am sure these issues and many others were all discussed by our fiduciaries prior to making this change. This is a very sad scenario and in my opinion, one created by the STRS fiduciaries of that time. Many of those fiduciaries are still employed by the STRS. Most all STRS employees and their family members are today receiving health care benefits, which far exceed what any educator has ever received. I personally do not know an educator that received free dental care in the cost of their insurance while employed; yet our employees do.

Yes, health care costs have risen country wide, it is a national problem, but the STRS fiduciaries knew about that far in advance of it actually becoming a reality and did little to offset it. This can be acknowledged by reading past STRS Newsletters. The STRS fiduciaries knew about this in the early 90’s when they had to provide substantial amounts of revenue from the retirement fund into the HCSF to keep it solvent. Articles in the 1992 STRS Newsletters, numbers 78 & 79, indicate concerns were acknowledged and it was stated that a dedicated flow of income was needed to fund health care. In the 1992 STRS August Newsletter, #78, it states, "On the positive side, Grothaus (C. James Grothaus was the STRS Executive Director at that time) anticipates that the Retirement System will continue to find ways to provide meaningful and affordable health care coverage to retirees, even though health care costs continue to escalate at a pace greater than the inflation rate. He also believes STRS assets will grow at a pace similar to that experienced over the past decade." From my understanding, the assets grew far more then was experienced and yet sufficient contributions were never placed in the HCSF. Why not, Bob Slater?

It is now almost 2006 and the very same fiduciaries that were supposedly looking for that dedicated flow if income are still looking for it! What does that say for the very people that we have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to manage our funds? Obviously, it does not show they were following the ORC 3307.15. Otherwise, our HCSF would be much larger and would still provide the benefit we were promised throughout our careers and when we retired.

Damon, you have questioned me before, when I have briefly discussed this issue with you, as to who promised us that benefit, as though that never occurred. That concern can certainly be documented by many of us and by literature printed and distributed by the STRS during our careers. I personally found it very alarming and uncaring on your part, that you even posed that type of question to me, considering the true spirit of the ORC 3307.15.

A "grandfathering" plan would provide us with the health care benefit we were promised throughout our careers and those near, or at retirement, by our STRS counselor. I would feel this would include all of those teachers that were unable to benefit from SB190. Meaning anyone that retired prior to 1999 and possibly as much as five years beyond.

SB190 provided educator‘s who continue working until they obtain 35 years of service a much higher pension benefit then those retiring with 35 or less years of service prior to 1999. Obviously, the increased pension benefit for those retiring after 1999 with more then 30 years of service would help pay for the increased cost of the spousal subsidy, which was totally removed in January of 2004.

The decision to revoke the subsidized benefit for those other then benefit recipients by the STRS executive staff and I believe supported by the Board, has placed our financial future in jeopardy. This is a consequence we were never made aware of by our STRS counselor, at or near the time of retirement. Further, it was something the STRS executive staff certainly was well aware of at that time and made no attempt to have their counselor’s advise us to consider such before retiring. We each reviewed the information provided by that counselor and then made a decision to retire based upon that information. Most of us definitely did plan for our financial future, it was the STRS fiduciaries that promised such, but failed to provide for it during all those years of extremely high yield returns on investments in the 90’s.

Please find this request to be of utmost importance for those retirees effected. I would ask that a study be completed to establish those that have been effected by that change in subsidy. I can understand and accept the need for the increase in cost to each benefit recipient, but let us place all of those involved on an equal playing field. I feel as many others I have spoken with, that we have been treated unfairly. Please remember that in June of 2003, which was the first time I spoke to the STRS board, I stated that I have the rest of my life to deal with this issue. I still feel that way and have shown that commitment for the past three years. I will continue to do so, as long as I feel I have an ability to see that change of spousal subsidy replaced for those educators who believed that would be the case.

If the STRS non-investment employees are successful in their suit in receiving their bonuses for doing little more then the job they were hired to do, which I believe was nothing more then a promise, then don’t you think those of us that were promised affordable health care could also be successful in obtaining such? Please let us all get our heads together and solve this issue very soon, before we too file a class action suit.

Sincerely,
Thomas Curtis

******************************************************
White Hat Management out of Akron Runs Life Skills Centers8: Federation Goes After Charter Schools

Nov 3, 2005, 04:19 PM EST
Reported by Eric James

Just how profitable are Ohio charter schools? That's what the Ohio Federation of Teachers is trying to find out and they're going after a large group of charter schools.
State audit reports have been released for Life Skills Center of Columbus, but the Ohio Federation of Teachers says the reports don't go deep enough.

The centers were created for drop-out or at-risk students. They're run by White Hat management, which runs 31 Ohio charter schools. That makes it, technically, the state's ninth largest school system.

The company received $109 million of public money to run Life Skills Centers across the state, but the Federation of Teachers says only three percent of that is accounted for in the state audit report.

They want to know exactly how the company used the rest of your tax dollars, claiming company profits are higher than the test scores of the students attending the centers.

Tom Mooney with the Ohio Federation of Teachers says, "We don't know how it's being spent. We do know from last week that these kids aren't being tested so we don't know if the kids are even showing up."

White Hat Management Consultant Thomas Needles says, "He is misstating the facts. Our books are open and it's up to the auditor of the state, and it's up to them to take a closer look and they can review whatever they want."

White Hat has made a profit, but it is not required to say how much.

It is important to note that the federation is suing the state over the constitutionality of charter schools.

ORC 3307.15 - not just a wish, IT'S THE LAW!
***************************************************************
This is taken from Toledo Blade:

Schools and fund-raisingIn the business world, CEOs look for every edge.

A year after George Voinovich took office as governor of Ohio in 1991, he picked Akron industrialist David L. Brennan to chair a committee studying whether state tax dollars should be used to enable parents to send their children to private schools.

The study prompted the creation of a voucher program in Cleveland, and Mr. Brennan in 1995 opened three schools that received $2,250 per student.

When Mr. Voinovich ran for re-election in 1994, Mr. Brennan helped raise $1 million for Ohio Republicans, who gained control of the Ohio House that year, ending a Democratic majority that had stood for 22 years.

A year later, Mr. Brennan became chairman of the finance committee for the Ohio Republican Party, in charge of statewide fund-raising.

Mr. Brennan then pushed for charter schools - an alternative type of public school that receives taxpayer funds but is independent of the public-school system and largely free from state and local regulations. They also receive more per-pupil funding than voucher schools.

In 1997, state Rep. Sally Perz, a Toledo Republican who now is one of Mr. Brennan's lobbyists, succeeded in getting an amendment into the state budget bill to create the first charter schools in Ohio.

A year later, Mr. Brennan formed White Hat Management to manage charter schools. White Hat now operates 49 charter schools in seven states, including 13 Hope-Academies and 20 Life Skills Centers, including one in Toledo.

The Hope Academies are K-10 schools and the Life Skills Centers are designed primarily for high-school dropouts.

Based on enrollment, Mr. Brennan's charter schools have received $263 million in Ohio tax money since 2002.

Mr. Brennan, his wife, Ann, their daughter, Nancy, and the Brennan political action committee have contributed $3.4 million to Republican candidates in Ohio and on the federal level since 1989.

"The question is: Has Mr. Brennan purchased undue influence for private profit with these large contributions," said Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers.

State legislators in 2002 changed the law to allow charter school sponsors to renew a charter for an indefinite period of time, despite saying in the late 1990s that charters would be up for renewal every five years to hold them accountable for results.

Mr. Brennan, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has said he contributes to political candidates to compete with the teachers' unions.

Since 1990, the political action committees of Ohio's teachers' unions have poured nearly $3.9 million into the coffers of candidates and the state's political parties. Although more than half of that amount was send to Democrats, the PACs did contribute heavily to Republicans as well, including more than $530,000 to GOP party funds.

Mr. Brennan now is expanding his school-choice enterprise. The federal No Child Life Behind law, the centerpiece of President Bush's education policy, requires all public school districts with low test scores to offer tutoring.

White Hat Management has formed NCLB Tutors to make money from that provision.

Now, the rest of the article, some of you educators might be politically offended, but it was written by the same authors! John, a Proud CORE member

www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051030/NEWS24/510300346

Article published October 30, 2005

Ohio Bush donors richly rewarded'Pioneers and Rangers' handed access to contracts, policymakers

By JAMES DREW and STEVE EDER
BLADE STAFF WRITERS

COLUMBUS - The Ohio business leaders and lobbyists who steered at least $4.1 million to President Bush's re-election campaign last year collected more than $1.2 billion in taxpayer dollars for their companies and clients, a Blade investigation shows.

The fund-raisers who helped deliver the battleground state - and ultimately the 2004 presidential election - also received choice appointments from state and federal officials. The posts included an ambassadorship to Germany and a seat on the Ohio State University board of trustees.

Others made millions from unbid contracts varying from supplying ball bearings to the military or office furniture for federal agencies.

As they raised millions to help re-elect George W. Bush in 2004, the 30 Bush "Pioneers" and "Rangers" from Ohio - who raised at least $100,000 and $200,000 respectively - also had access to policymakers from the Ohio Statehouse to the White House.

The fund-raisers included Tom Noe, a former Toledo-area rare-coin dealer who is facing multiple investigations into the state's failed $50 million investment in rare-coin funds. He was indicted Thursday on three felony charges that he laundered money into the President's re-election campaign.

Both Bush-Cheney and the campaign of Democrat John Kerry tapped "bundlers" who would find dozens of others - often business associates and other contacts - who would each contribute $2,000, the maximum allowed by federal law to a candidate in an election.

But in Ohio, where the election swung on fewer than 120,000 votes, Mr. Bush's 30 premier fund-raisers exceeded the Kerry campaign's take from the state by themselves.

"This fund-raising is just a pyramid scheme, except that it works," said Alex Knott, a spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group based in Washington. "The Pioneers and Rangers are the networks of people - the friends of the friends of the friends - who put money into these coffers. They are given a tracking number so their donations can be given credit and there is only one reason for that - if that is going to be used as value later."

The three Ohio Pioneers and Rangers who agreed to speak with The Blade said ideology and a fondness for the President drove their giving. They also sketched a picture of behind-the-scenes campaign access few Bush supporters experienced.

One Ranger, insurance executive Doug Corn of Cincinnati, told The Blade he met with President Bush 16 times during the last two years. A Pioneer, Ron Beshear, described a late-night White House tour that included a stop at the Oval Office.

The newspaper's investigation also found:

The state of Ohio paid about $800 million to the companies and lobbying clients of Ohio's 30 Pioneers and Rangers during the last six years, an analysis of a state expenditure database shows. The money flowed from the state to the fund-raisers for a number of purposes, including charter school payments, development grants, and tax refunds.

Records showed that the federal government paid more than $447 million to the firms of the President's Ohio fund-raisers and their lobbying clients since Mr. Bush took office in 2001.
The revenues of some of the firms headed by Ohio Bush Pioneers and Rangers are determined partly by the amount of subsidies they get from Columbus and Washington and by the regulatory decisions made by government officials.

John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, said Friday that The Blade's findings are "part of a continuing pattern" of the Bush administration's giving of special access to fund-raisers.

The former U.S. senator from North Carolina said the culprits are the nation's flawed campaign finance system and the government officials who act in the interest of their "cronies."

Mr. Edwards said President Bush's Pioneers and Rangers system had a "significant effect" on Ohio and the outcome of last year's presidential race.

"George Bush and Dick Cheney had significant amounts of money raised by these Pioneers and Rangers in Ohio," Mr. Edwards said, adding, "huge amounts of money raised by them and others around the country were infused into Ohio."

"A significant amount of that money was raised by people who had particular interests. And it is obvious that some of them were awarded for what they did. Unfortunately, it's the voter and the taxpayer who suffers for that," he said.

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Aaron McLear, said there is no connection between campaign contributions and government payments to firms of big GOP fund-raisers.
"Our supporters ensure that we have the tools and resources necessary to get our message out and mobilize voters," he said. "They donate time and money because they believe in our values and support our candidates."

Mr. Corn, the insurance salesman for Northwestern Mutual Life who raised at least $200,000 for the President last year, had never made a campaign donation before last year's election, but said he was inspired by Mr. Bush's "out-front Christian values" on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

"I didn't want, nor did I expect, anything at all in return," Mr. Corn said. "My reward was that he was re-elected, and my reward was [newly appointed Chief Justice] John Roberts."

But assessing other Ohio presidential campaign fund-raisers, Mr. Corn added: "Positively, I think people got involved and they wanted something."

'Bundling' the cashBy the end of the 2004 race for political money, President Bush out-raised his opponent, Democrat John Kerry, $293 million to $252 million.

Some of the first Pioneers and Rangers helped Mr. Bush become governor of Texas in 1995.
By 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign had "perfected" its money-bundling machine, said Mr. Knott, the spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity.

The Bush-Cheney campaign recruited 548 Pioneers and Rangers nationwide, with 30 coming from Ohio and 18 from Michigan.

There also was a "Super Ranger" class, with eight Ohioans raising $300,000 for the Republican National Committee. The money helped fund campaigns across the country.

Health-care interestsIn the realm of health care, there are two Ohio firms with Bush fund-raisers as executives - HCR Manor Care Inc., a Toledo company that provides nursing home care, and Invacare, an Elyria health products manufacturer.

According to federal lobbying records, Invacare has spent more than $1.5 million since 1999 lobbying Washington officials on health-care issues. The company's CEO, Malachi Mixon, who was a Bush Ranger, and his employees and associates have contributed at least $1 million to political campaigns since 1989.

Mr. Mixon declined a request for an interview with The Blade, but it's clear from the company's statements that Invacare relies heavily on the support of the federal government.

In its Aug. 8, 2005, financial statement, Invacare wrote: "The Company is directly affected by government regulation and reimbursement policies in virtually every county in which it operates."

In its most recent quarterly filing, the company noted that "reimbursement uncertainties" have affected the performance of the company and there wouldn't be stability until Medicare and Medicaid implement plans for new codes and fees in 2006.

Invacare and its subsidiaries have received at least $3.1 million in contracts from the federal government since President Bush took office in 2001. Invacare largely provided hospital products for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

In Ohio, Invacare has received payments of at least $691,000 from the state of Ohio since 1999. Most of the money Invacare received from the state came by way of development grants between July, 2004, and July, 2005.

The Ohio Department of Development awarded Invacare with about $446,000 in grants during that period.

Like Invacare, Manor Care Inc. has a strong interest in government health policy.

The company's chief operating officer, M. Keith Weikel, is a Bush Ranger. He, his employees, and associates have contributed more than $1.6 million to political campaigns since 1989.

Mr. Weikel declined to be interviewed for this article.

His company, which relies on Medicare and other government payments for 67 percent of its $3.36 billion in revenue last fiscal year, has legislative needs.Manor Care has lobbied heavily in favor of reducing jury awards in lawsuits, known on Capitol Hill as tort reform. A group Mr. Weikel helped form campaigned against Nancy Argenziano, a Republican lawmaker in Florida, in 2002 because she didn't support a proposed cap on punitive damages in jury awards against nursing homes in Florida. The law passed, and Ms. Argenziano won a state senate seat.

In a 2003 quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company cited "strong tort reform" measures enacted in Texas and other states as reasons for increased profits, adding: "There is still significant work to be done on this serious, industry-wide issue, especially in the state of Florida."

Manor Care spokesman Rick Rump said Manor Care is interested in tort reform and increasing Medicare payments, particularly in rolling back a planned cut on Jan. 1 that he said would equal a $17-a-day loss per patient at some of its facilities. But employees are not forced or encouraged to contribute to any politician, he said.

More than simple entitlement payments from Medicare, the company and another that Mr. Weikel helps oversee as a board member, Laboratory Corporation of America, enjoy various federal contracts, including with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies that total at least $65 million from January, 2001, to July, 2005.

The companies have been paid at least $1.6 million by state of Ohio agencies.

Timken's tie-insOn April 24, 2003, the President announced his economic agenda at the Timken Co.'s research facility in Canton, Ohio.

"The greatest strength of the American economy is found right here, right in this room, found in the pride and skill of the American work force," the President said. "Here at Timken, last year, productivity rose 10 percent, which means that America can compete with any nation in the world because we got the finest workers in the world."

W.R. "Tim" Timken, Jr., who inherited the manufacturer's chairmanship in 1975, hosted Ohio fund-raisers for the President.

A Ranger in 2004, he became the U.S. Ambassador to Germany last month.

Even though Mr. Bush praised Timken Co. as an example of a thriving American business, the company had relied on government handouts worth $259 million since 2001.

In a 2003 claim to the federal government, Timken requested subsidies because France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan, and even Romania "dumped" ball bearings on the American market. Timken reported damage in excess of $63 billion.

The U.S. government paid Timken $109 million in 2003, almost three times the company's profits.

Timken was the primary recipient of a 2000 federal anti-dumping and subsidy law, according to a September report by the Government Accountability Office.

The law was proposed by U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula (R., Navarre) in 1999. Timken is headquartered in his district.

Two weeks later, Ohio's Mike DeWine presented the legislation to the U.S. Senate. Mr. Regula and Mr. DeWine have received $30,700 and $46,750 respectively in contributions since 1989 from Timken employees and members of the Timken family.

Timken spokesman Jeff Dafler said he would not comment on the company's individual sources of revenue.

"The company's focus is and always has been on the markets themselves," he said.
Mr. Timken would not agree to an interview with The Blade.

Schools and fund-raisingIn the business world, CEOs look for every edge.

A year after George Voinovich took office as governor of Ohio in 1991, he picked Akron industrialist David L. Brennan to chair a committee studying whether state tax dollars should be used to enable parents to send their children to private schools.

The study prompted the creation of a voucher program in Cleveland, and Mr. Brennan in 1995 opened three schools that received $2,250 per student.

When Mr. Voinovich ran for re-election in 1994, Mr. Brennan helped raise $1 million for Ohio Republicans, who gained control of the Ohio House that year, ending a Democratic majority that had stood for 22 years.

A year later, Mr. Brennan became chairman of the finance committee for the Ohio Republican Party, in charge of statewide fund-raising.

Mr. Brennan then pushed for charter schools - an alternative type of public school that receives taxpayer funds but is independent of the public-school system and largely free from state and local regulations. They also receive more per-pupil funding than voucher schools.

In 1997, state Rep. Sally Perz, a Toledo Republican who now is one of Mr. Brennan's lobbyists, succeeded in getting an amendment into the state budget bill to create the first charter schools in Ohio.

A year later, Mr. Brennan formed White Hat Management to manage charter schools. White Hat now operates 49 charter schools in seven states, including 13 Hope-Academies and 20 Life Skills Centers, including one in Toledo.

The Hope Academies are K-10 schools and the Life Skills Centers are designed primarily for high-school dropouts.

Based on enrollment, Mr. Brennan's charter schools have received $263 million in Ohio tax money since 2002.

Mr. Brennan, his wife, Ann, their daughter, Nancy, and the Brennan political action committee have contributed $3.4 million to Republican candidates in Ohio and on the federal level since 1989.

"The question is: Has Mr. Brennan purchased undue influence for private profit with these large contributions," said Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers.

State legislators in 2002 changed the law to allow charter school sponsors to renew a charter for an indefinite period of time, despite saying in the late 1990s that charters would be up for renewal every five years to hold them accountable for results.

Mr. Brennan, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has said he contributes to political candidates to compete with the teachers' unions.

Since 1990, the political action committees of Ohio's teachers' unions have poured nearly $3.9 million into the coffers of candidates and the state's political parties. Although more than half of that amount was send to Democrats, the PACs did contribute heavily to Republicans as well, including more than $530,000 to GOP party funds.

Mr. Brennan now is expanding his school-choice enterprise. The federal No Child Life Behind law, the centerpiece of President Bush's education policy, requires all public school districts with low test scores to offer tutoring.

White Hat Management has formed NCLB Tutors to make money from that provision.
Voting company's stakeWally O'Dell, the CEO of voting machine-maker Diebold Inc., has looked to the secretary of state's office in Columbus to set elections policy that would mean millions of dollars for his Canton, Ohio-based business.

In 2003, as the Bush-Cheney efforts accelerated, Mr. O'Dell, a Bush Pioneer, issued a fund-raising letter to Ohio Republicans declaring that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."

The note sparked concern among Democrats, who charged it was an inappropriate action for a company vying to sell electronic voting machines to county governments.

Mr. O'Dell's letter was mailed one day before Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was expected to name Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell voting machines to Ohio counties. Diebold eventually received permission to sell its voting machines to Ohio counties.

Earlier this year, Matt Damschroder, the executive director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, acknowledged that last year he had accepted a $10,000 check for the county GOP from a Diebold consultant who was seeking county business. The transaction took place in Mr. Damschroder's county office and he was fined a month's pay for accepting the payment.

Diebold officials denied they had any knowledge of the contribution. Aside from the dozens of county contracts Diebold won to supply elections machines last year, the firm has collected more than $2.7 million from the state of Ohio since 1999.

In 2001 alone, the Ohio Department of Mental Health gave Diebold more than $1.3 million for technological equipment.
The company also has won more than $24.7 million in federal contracts since President Bush took office in 2001.
Mr. O'Dell also declined a request for an interview.
Rare-coin scandalIn April, shortly after The Blade wrote the first stories on Mr. Noe's rare-coin funds, Gov. Bob Taft was asked if his longtime contributor gained special access because of his support.

"I don't know," Mr. Taft said during an April 7 interview at The Blade's editorial department. "You tell me."

During a courthouse news conference after the governor's conviction on ethics charges in August, Mr. Taft told reporters that there is "no connection" between contributions and state contracts.

"Contracts are awarded based on merit, based on qualifications, based on experience and performance under our administration," Mr. Taft said. The governor's spokesman reiterated the governor's assertion last week.

Bob Bennett, the chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, called any link between state contracts and campaign contributions "a stretch."

"Why is it wrong?" he said, of the campaign contributions. "What makes it wrong? You assume that these people are buying something, and they're not. They're buying good government. They're buying a philosophy of government."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean believes there's a problem with corruption that extends from Columbus to Washington.

"Americans don't like the culture of corruption that Republicans have brought to Columbus and Washington D.C.," Mr. Dean said last week, reacting to The Blade's findings. "The American people are looking for an alternative to the Republicans' pay-to-play approach to government."

Despite attempts at campaign-finance reform on the federal and state levels, evidence shows that those who give money to politicians tend to get access to public money and policymakers, said Taylor Lincoln, senior researcher for Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

"Were the Pioneers and Rangers doing all of this work because they thought George W. Bush was the guy, or did they want a foot in the door if he was re-elected?'' Mr. Lincoln asked.

The answer matters to the state of democracy in the United States, said Mr. Knott of the Center for Public Integrity, "This is the American people's government. It is not the government of these individuals who coordinate campaign contributions," he said.

ORC 3307.15 - not just a wish, IT'S THE LAW!

Kathie Bracy: What is a blog?

Nov. 17, 2005

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Blog

At today's CORE meeting, the question was asked, "What is a blog?" I answered as best I could, in terms I have come to understand. The link above will provide definitions from many sources. Basically, it's one's own personal website, where you can put anything you want: pictures, links, articles, letters, your own journaling, etc. My niece, who is with her husband and children in Mexico for a year while he works on a project for his Ph.D. in special ed, has a blog for family and friends. All we have to do is click on her link and we get pictures of the family, their friends, playmates, neighborhood, Mexican food, activities, etc., along with chatty news about their every day life. You can imagine how it must cut down on international phone calls and precious time having to be spent at the computer.

I was brand new to blogs when I started about six weeks ago; I just knew I wanted to have my own blog for posting CORE e-mails and articles, so I pulled up Google (www.google.com) and typed in "free blog." I just kept clicking away at whatever came up after that, and the next thing I knew, I had a blog!

In my first blog (www.kathiebracy.blogspot.com), I wanted to post what I thought were the most significant letters, articles, etc., that came my way via CORE e-mails. While I spent a lot of time selecting, editing and posting, I have since realized I could perform a better service by NOT being selective, but rather putting ALL the e-mails in there, thus enabling others to go to one place to see them instead of opening dozens of e-mails every day, if they so choose. Very different from my niece's blog. So I have abandoned my first blog and this week started the new one: www.coremail.blogspot.com. Thanks to John Curry and everyone else who submits items, I have PLENTY to post, and it keeps me busy. I have not deleted my first blog, though, as there are over 100 posts in it that I did not want to delete. Perhaps in due time I will figure out a good way to transfer them to the new blog.

I still edit, though originally I wasn't going to. You would not believe how messy an unedited version can get when pasted into the "work space" in a blog. (By the way, the word "blog" is a shortened version of "web log.") If nothing else, I will remove e-mail addresses and street addresses. along with ads and other "extras."

There are millions of blogs on the Internet, and they are becoming more and more popular every day. I suspect I have viewed many of them and not realized they were blogs. Last night I was looking at the MSNBC blog, reading stuff that Brian Williams posted. Doing my blogs, I have felt almost as if I were putting out a newspaper. It's a lot of fun, and I am counting on you and you and you to keep supplying the material. I want this to be YOUR blog.

Article: Veto Threat as Senators Approve Pension Bill

November 17, 2005

Veto Threat as Senators Approve Pension Bill

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

The Senate passed a bill yesterday aimed at strengthening the nation's troubled system of company pension plans. But the White House called the measure inadequate and warned that President Bush was likely to veto it if it remained in its current form.

The bill requires companies to close any shortfalls in their pension funds and gives most of them seven years to do so. But it allows the financially ailing major airlines 20 years to close those gaps, a provision the White House said was unacceptable.

It also requires companies to calculate pension benefits in a way intended to avoid certain distortions that can make the funds look stronger than they really are.

The bill would increase the insurance premiums that companies must pay to the federal agency that guarantees pensions and would make them pay a fee to the agency if they file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, terminate their pension plans and then emerge from bankruptcy.

The White House raised numerous objections to these measures, saying they had too many built-in delays and did not go far enough to close loopholes.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a leading figure in the pension debate, said yesterday that the Senate had struck a useful compromise, calling its bill "a huge leap forward for retirement security." The measure was passed 97 to 2.

In the House, two bills have been approved by separate committees and are awaiting reconciliation, possibly next month. Both houses of Congress have been trying for months to plug loopholes in the current pension law, to make sure that companies set aside enough money to pay the benefits they owe and to provide adequate resources for the government agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Some analysts have warned that without such changes, the whole pension system could eventually collapse, requiring a costly taxpayer bailout.

But the legislative effort has been slowed by warnings from business executives that if companies were forced to put unreasonable amounts of money into their pension plans, they would have to stop offering pensions entirely.

Organized labor, fearful of hastening the demise of a valuable type of benefit, has tended to side with business on the issue of pension funding, warning lawmakers against pushing companies too hard to put more money behind their promises.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has been analyzing the various proposals. A recent study suggested that the Senate bill might not work as well as the lawmakers hoped yesterday. That analysis, completed by the federal agency in October, found that companies would contribute about 8 percent less to their pension plans over the next 10 years under the Senate bill's provisions than if nothing at all was done.

In 2006 alone, the analysis found that the bill - whose provisions would start slowly - would save companies about $21 billion on their pension contributions. The total savings over the next 10 years would be about $70 billion. And as companies put less money into the pension plans over time, more plans would fail and end up at the pension agency.

In January, the Bush administration outlined a vision of pension reform, but companies with pension plans said it was unrealistically tough. According to the pension guarantor's analysis, it would have required companies to put about $91 billion more into their pension funds over the next 10 years than under the existing law.

The Senate bill passed yesterday did contain several important provisions advocated by the administration, but with modifications that would make them take effect less quickly or less harshly.

One would require companies to start taking the ages of workers into account when measuring the total value of pension obligations. This method, called a yield curve approach, acknowledges that companies need to set aside more money as their workers approach retirement age, because the money will not have very much time to compound before the benefits start coming due.

Many analysts have warned that the approach now used by most companies - calculating their pension values as if their workers were all the same age - is potentially dangerous because it understates the total value of the benefits, particularly at companies with older work forces. If companies underestimate the value of their pensions, they will set aside less money to pay them, weakening the plans.

Companies have been particularly hostile to the idea of calculating pensions on the basis of a yield curve. They have argued that this would be unacceptably complicated. The Senate tried to address their complaints with a compromise that required companies to place their workers into three age categories and measure the pensions that way.

Another of the administration's goals was to take each company's financial health into account in determining the way it handles its pension plans. Companies with junk credit ratings, as the administration saw it, were much likelier to default, not only on their bonds but on their pension obligations, so they would have to handle their pension plans much more cautiously. The Senate bill included this concept, but with a complicated array of phase-ins and exclusions.

Another provision of the bill would require employers to rein in the benefits they promise if their pension plans get into financial trouble. Under the current law, for example, companies that pay pension benefits in a single big check - called a lump-sum distribution - can keep on writing those checks even if their pension funds start running out of money, as recently happened at Delta Air Lines.

The Senate bill would brake such "bank run" situations, requiring companies to stop paying lump-sum distributions if their pension assets fell below 60 percent of total pension obligations. The administration had hoped for a tougher standard, barring lump-sum payments if assets fell below 80 percent.

The bill would also make companies freeze the growth of additional benefits if their pension assets fell below 60 percent of pension obligations. At the moment, there is no requirement that companies freeze these benefit accruals, no matter how weak their plans become.

Another provision of the bill would require companies to report the strength of their pension plans to employees every year. Current disclosure requirements make it quite difficult for an employee to find out if a pension plan is secure or not.

On the floor of the Senate yesterday, Mr. Grassley said, "we are here to fulfill the promise" of the 30-year-old pension law "and to let the American people know that if you've been promised a pension, we're going to make sure you receive it."

Letter to the Editor, Columbus Dispatch: Demise of middle class will drag down nation

The article below was printed in today's Columbus Dispatch. Mr. Speakman, in my opinion, pretty well sums up our current situation. (John Curry)

Demise of middle class will drag down nation

Thursday, November 17, 2005

I respond to Andrew Oldenquist’s Nov. 9 Forum column, "Public education’s failures are a threat to the nation."

It will not be the failure of public education that fuels the drive toward Third World status, it will be the destruction of the middle-class workers of America.

For all practical purposes, this is already in action, and it has nothing to do with the poor or racism, as the good professor suggests.

Not only is the middle class under assault, but, if I understand the economic news reports correctly, those with educational backgrounds that helped put them into jobs within the Silicon Valley lifestyle also are losing their positions to the overseas labor force.

I expect that at the end of Oldenquist’s 25 years, there will be three groups of economic classes: the wealthy, the politicians and then the rest of society, which will be working for Third World wages via the Wal-Mart types of companies.

DON SPEAKMAN
Mansfield

Article: Montana public employee pension fund board cancels meeting in wake of lawsuit over illegal secret meetings

"A combination of poor investment returns by the funds earlier this decade and ill-advised increases in benefits for retirees have led to the shortfalls."

Meeting canceled in wake of lawsuit

By MIKE DENNISON - IR State Bureau - 11/17/05

HELENA — In the wake of a legal showdown with Gov. Brian Schweitzer, the board overseeing $4 billion in public-employee pension funds canceled a meeting Wednesday on its decision to hire a new director.

The action came the day after Schweitzer sued the Public Employees Retirement Board, saying it held illegal secret meetings during its hiring process for a new executive director to manage the retirement system.

Schweitzer’s budget director, David Ewer, also questioned whether the board picked the best candidate to direct the debt-ridden system, whose largest fund faces a potential $500 million deficit.

Boards overseeing public pension funds need strong financial leadership, he said, and must share the blame for the entire system’s potential $1.4 billion shortfall.

“It wasn’t just bad investments,’’ he said. “It’s a combination of a lack of sufficient competency by the various boards and a lack of sufficient attention and understanding by the Legislature.’’

The Schweitzer administration is proposing to bolster the retirement funds with a $125 million infusion of cash this year.

As Wednesday’s meeting began, board President Carole Carey of Ekalaka immediately suggested canceling it. She said since Schweitzer has sued the board, there was nothing to discuss.

“Had the lawsuit not been filed, we were very willing to work with (Gov. Schweitzer),’’ she said. “We’ll let the lawsuit take place and see what happens. It was sort of taken out of our hands.’’

The meeting had been called to respond to a Nov. 10 letter from Schweitzer, who said the board may have violated state law as it chose to hire Terry Teichrow as the system’s executive director.

Schweitzer asked the board to rescind its hiring decision and re-open the position. Teichrow succeeds Mike O’Connor, who retired this fall.

The seven-member board, which voted unanimously to cancel the meeting, refused to answer questions from the public Wednesday, referring them instead to the board’s lawyer.

The board decided nearly three weeks ago to hire Teichrow to direct the Public Employee Retirement Administration, which manages eight separate public employee pension funds worth $4 billion.

Its largest fund pays benefits to 14,500 retirees and covers another 28,000 state, school and local government employees.

Teichrow had been an education specialist in the Office of Public Instruction, managing a federally funded program for homeless, neglected and delinquent kids.

Teichrow also sat for more than a dozen years on the very board that decided to hire him as executive director, and had served as its president.Teichrow declined to comment Wednesday.

The Schweitzer administration has made it a top priority to fix financial problems with PERS and the Teachers Retirement System, which faces its own possible deficit of $900 million.

A combination of poor investment returns by the funds earlier this decade and ill-advised increases in benefits for retirees have led to the shortfalls.

Ewer said Wednesday the governor’s office is continuing to investigate the PERS board’s hiring of Teichrow and will issue a report with recommendations by the end of this month.

He said the administration believes key decisions on the hiring were made at an Oct. 17 meeting of the board’s personnel committee, which had no public notice of the meeting. The Schweitzer administration has alleged the meeting was secret and illegal.

Article: New Medicare plan to cut off free drugs


So much for charity in the upcoming Christmas Season. Mr. Scrooge has company! John, a Proud CORE member

From: "Frank Kaiser" <frank@suddenlysenior.com>
To: <frank@suddenlysenior.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005
Subject: [RxNews] New Medicare plan to cut off free drugs - from Suddenly Senior

New Medicare plan to cut off free drugs

By Thomas Ginsberg
Inquirer Staff Writer
Nov. 17, 2005

In an ironic twist, the new Medicare drug program is about to curtail a benefit touted by the pharmaceutical industry and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of uninsured patients: free medicine.

Under federal rules effective Jan. 1, low-income and elderly patients who enroll in the program, known as Medicare Part D, will lose the ability to get free medications through the drugmakers' tax-deductible charities, known as patient-assistance programs.

Some companies, going further, said this week that they would drop patients who were merely eligible for Part D, whether or not they actually enrolled in it, as allowed under long-standing rules.

As a result, in about six weeks, up to half of the roughly three million to four million charity patients nationwide may lose free access to more than 1,200 brand-name drugs, according to estimates of three companies. Other recipients should be unaffected.

"Our program always has been to provide access for people with no other coverage," said Carla Burigatto, spokeswoman for London-based AstraZeneca P.L.C., which has about 250,000 people in its charity program. "Now they will qualify for a government program."

News of the cut-off followed a ruling last week by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services barring companies from giving free drugs to Part D enrollees, hoping to prevent fraud. While suggesting an alternative charity system, the ruling threw a confusing twist into the already-baffling Medicare prescription-drug program.

"The last thing we need is one more variable in a hopelessly complex situation," said Robert M. Hayes, president of the Medicare Rights Center, a New York-based advocacy group. On Tuesday, Americans could begin to sign up for the new voluntary Medicare prescription-drug coverage. About 42 million Medicare recipients are eligible for the program.

Among the Philadelphia-area companies confirming they will drop Medicare-eligible patients Jan. 1 were AstraZeneca and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Together, they have at least 226,000 Medicare-eligible charity recipients nationwide.

London-based GlaxoSmithKline P.L.C., which has North American headquarters in Philadelphia and Research Triangle Park, N.C., initially notified Medicare enrollees they could keep their charity benefits. But the company backtracked this week after realizing that it, too, had been confused by the new rules.

"We're going to have to change our position," said a spokeswoman, Patty Seif, adding that she had no further details.

Some patients, however, may get a choice. At least three manufacturers, Pfizer Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Merck & Co. Inc., said they would let low-income and elderly patients keep the private charity as long as they did not sign up for Medicare.

"Nothing will change" for patients who do not enroll, said Laura Hortas of Bristol-Myers Squibb, which gave $500 million worth of drugs to about one million people last year. But "if they sign up for Medicare Part D, they will not be eligible for our program."

Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for New Jersey-based Merck, which has a sprawling operation in Montgomery County, said the company had encouraged senior citizens to join Part D, but would not punish them if they did not. "Our broad interest is making sure that the people who need them have access to their medicines. That's the overall goal of everyone in the industry," Rose said.

Among patients depending on the assistance are at least 6,000 indigent people with HIV or AIDS, according to the advocacy group Title II Community Aids National Network, a coalition including Pennsylvania and New Jersey groups. They have called on federal officials to relax the rule.

Drug companies created patient-assistance programs decades ago, and expanded them in recent years, to help uninsured people get drugs and to defuse anger over high prices - the same complaints that prompted the changes in Medicare in 2003.

Today, the charities are a staple of the industry's public relations campaigns and provide hefty tax deductions. Last year, the industry said the wholesale value of the giveaways was $4.1 billion, a large proportion of which is tax-deductible.

The charities, while costing a small fraction of the industry's $550 billion in worldwide revenue, also may help retain patients who someday could be paying customers again, Hayes said.

Under the Medicare program, the industry was keen on making sure enrollees could keep using their brand-name medications when their expenses hit a gap in coverage - the so-called doughnut hole.

The trade lobby Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America this week asked federal officials to clarify the ruling to allow such exceptions.

"We had hoped that government policies would preserve companies' options to continue their current patient-assistance programs," said Ken Johnson, a PhRMA senior vice president, "in order to help low-income Medicare beneficiaries further reduce their out-of-pocket costs."

Analysis: Why the free market should not be relied upon to deliver HC in the same way that it is relied upon to deliver most goods and services

".....the fact is that the free market doesn't work for health insurance, and never did. All we ever had was a patchwork, semiprivate system supported by large government subsidies. That system is now failing."

From covertheuninsuredweek.com :

In one of an ongoing series of columns about the nation's health care crisis, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman explains why the free market should not be relied upon to deliver health care in the same way that it is relied upon to deliver most goods and services. He offers three reasons: risk, selection and social justice.

He points out that 5 percent of Americans were responsible for almost half of U.S. health care costs, meaning their expenses without good insurance would be "crushing."

To avoid insuring those who are going to cost them this much, insurance companies spend a lot of administrative costs on "adverse selection"—insuring those who are good risks for the companies, rather than providing a standard policy to all comers.

"Private insurance companies spend large sums not on providing medical care, but on denying insurance to those who need it most," Krugman writes. But because Americans believe in social justice, some of those unable to get private coverage are eligible for Medicaid, while others receive costly "uncompensated" care in emergency rooms and hospitals. This is a cost passed back to taxpayers.

Krugman concludes by noting that he is hardly an opponent of markets, but "the fact is that the free market doesn't work for health insurance, and never did. All we ever had was a patchwork, semiprivate system supported by large government subsidies. That system is now failing."

Article: Efforts to Expand Insurance Coverage in Many States May Reopen a National Dialogue

CoverTheUninsuredWeek.org
Printable News Summary

Efforts to Expand Insurance Coverage in Many States May Reopen a National Dialogue

Washington policymakers are paying attention to efforts in 20 states to expand coverage, including controversial measures such as mandating health insurance, which is being promoted by Massachusetts Republican Governor Mitt Romney.

Source(s): Julie Appleby, USA Today (November 8); Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, The Los Angeles Times (November 13)

Though "health care reform may be dead in Washington," at least 20 states are trying to expand insurance coverage by "squeezing money from existing health programs and taking other politically difficult steps, including some tax increases," reports the Los Angeles Times. A study by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that 20 states increased health care access in the 12 months that ended in July, and these expansions reversed previous cuts in nine of the states. Measures include efforts by both Republican and Democratic state leaders, such as Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagovich's expansion of coverage to the uninsured children of working parents and Massachusetts Republican Governor Mitt Romney's "controversial" proposal to mandate health insurance as part of an effort to cover all of the state's half-million uninsured. Romney is battling Democrats in the State Legislature who contend that employers should be the ones required to provide coverage, but "activists on both sides say chances for a deal appear to be good."

However, with health costs continuing to rise and many state budgets prohibiting deficits, it is unclear whether the states can sustain the efforts they have made. In addition, 14 other states took steps to limit coverage, the study found, primarily by raising premiums for coverage of low-income children. "If any of these states succeeds, it could provide impetus for a national debate in later elections," according to public opinion analyst Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health. "The fact that a Republican [Governor Romney] is supporting a mandate is a huge leap," he said.

In Congress, Rhode Island Democratic Representative Jim Langevin plans to introduce a bill to create a nationwide insurance program similar to the one that covers federal workers, reports USA Today. However, President Bush is "aloof" to such an idea, according to the Los Angeles Times, and policy experts don't expect major health reform to come out of Washington. "I cannot imagine anything significant going through Congress anytime soon," said Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation. according to USA Today. Both articles mention "more limited" proposals in other states, such as Oklahoma, California and Maine, which focus on small businesses with low-wage workers.

Article: BWC to fire 69 investment managers

Posted on Thu, Nov. 17, 2005

Scandal-ridden workers' comp to fire 69 investment managers

Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A committee overseeing Ohio's scandal-ridden insurance fund for injured workers voted Thursday to fire 69 managers of investment funds to allow the agency to shift money to more secure investments while it retools its financial policies.

Also Thursday, the committee said in a report that without changes the financial outlook for the Bureau of Workers' Compensation is bleak because it currently spends $1.31 for every $1 it collects from employers.

The agency's surplus, currently at $1.1 billion, needs to be larger to properly manage the worker's comp bureau, said Michael Koetters, a member of the Workers' Compensation Oversight Commission appointed earlier this year for his investment expertise.

"This is a bleak condition in terms of profit and loss," Koetters said. "It's bleak in terms of the balance sheet."

In a 90-minute meeting that focused on the agency's future, the commission voted to fire six international and 44 domestic managers of equity funds, or funds that invest primarily in stocks.

The committee also voted to fire 19 fixed-income managers, who oversee less risky funds such as those investing in bonds that pay a specific interest rate.

Workers' comp officials say the fund managers did nothing wrong but it was easier to dismiss them all so the agency can start with a clean slate.

The agency has been overhauling its financial strategy since revelations last spring that it lost more than $300 million in investments, including $13 million in rare coins and $215 million in a hedge fund.