Note: Because I'm holding so many posts on the main page for now, some recent posts are not appearing at the bottom. Please use the links in the Archives (over to the right) to find them. Thank you. KBB 5/19/13

Nancy Hamant to the ORSC: This election needs to be done over

From Nancy Hamant, May 19, 2013

To the Honorable Members of the Ohio Retirement Study Council:

The recent election for two retiree seats/members of the STRS Ohio has been condemned as flawed by many STRS members across Ohio.

You have been sent emails and letters regarding the inconsistent language on the 2013 Ballot. I agree with all of the concerns forwarded to you.

As others have, I am asking the ORSC to conduct a complete review of the 2013 election and to act on the findings and to publish the results to all STRS members.

STRS members feel the election should be held again, with the ballots providing clear, explicit and consistent language on all pages and for all directions.

If this is not done, STRS members will totally distrust the STRS Ohio Board and the STRS Ohio executive officers and particularly the 2013 election.

Already most STRS members feel that their concerns have not been heard or addressed regarding the 2013 election; that STRS Ohio Executive Staff and the STRS Board Members have either "stonewalled" members and their concerns; or worse, deliberately changed the 2009 Ballot language to the inconsistent 2013 ballot language to ensure the direction of the election.

Again, please address STRS members' concerns.

Thank you, 

Nancy B. Hamant 

Maineville, OH 

STRS Retiree Member

Kathie Bracy to the Ohio Retirement Study Council: Please investigate this election

May 17, 2013

From: Kathie Bracy
To: info@orsc.org, sd26@senate.state.oh.us, SD07@senate.state.oh.us, SD15@maild.sen.state.oh.us, Dan.Ramos@ohiohouse.gov, district48@ohr.state.oh.us, district81@ohr.state.oh.us, smorgan@mlamanagement.com, kcarraher@opers.org, jgallagher@op-f.org, lmorris@ohsers.org, nehfm@strsoh.org, matkeson@ohprs.org, Susan.Walker@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov, district79@ohr.state.oh.us, district72@ohr.state.oh.us, district21@ohr.state.oh.us, district22@ohr.state.oh.us, district26@ohr.state.oh.us, SD27@senate.state.oh.us, Uecker@ohiosenate.gov, SD23@maild.sen.state.oh.us, statesenator29@gmail.com, Bethany.Rhodes@orsc.org, lbischoff@daytondailynews.com, curryjo@watchtv.net, dennisleone@roadrunner.com, djsnider@frontier.com
Sent: 5/17/2013 7:32:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: 2013 STRS board election

To the members of the Ohio Retirement Study Council:

Please consider investigating the recent election for two retired board seats at STRS Ohio. Retirees feel this election was highly flawed due to ballot language which we are convinced was deliberately deceptive. 

Thousands of retirees intended to vote for one candidate, Dr. Dennis Leone, and no one else, as we felt this was the best chance of his being elected. But the ballot language was changed from the 2009 election ballot in such a way as to trick possibly thousands into voting for two candidates instead of one, being worded in such a way as to make many voters believe their vote would not count unless they voted for two candidates. (Dr. Leone lost by only 778 votes.) Voting for a second candidate along with Dr. Leone heavily favored the two incumbents and worked AGAINST him. Concerns about the ballot language began arising as soon as retirees started receiving their ballots. During the election there were people calling other retirees more closely involved with the election, asking whom they should vote for as a second candidate, because they thought it was a requirement in order for their ballot to be valid. After the election, realizing they'd made a big mistake by voting for two when they had originally intended to vote for one (they were TRICKED into voting for two), people were calling Dr. Leone and apologizing for what they had done. The clever manipulation of this election was NO ACCIDENT.

Examples:

(1) On the paper ballot it says "Select two candidates". It should have said "UP TO two candidates" or "NO MORE THAN two candidates", as the 2009 ballot indicated. Teachers spend their entire careers teaching children to follow directions, so of course they think they should follow directions, too. The authors of the ballot language were well aware of this and took unfair advantage of retired teachers' honest efforts to do the right thing. FOUL!!!

(2) Wording on the online ballot: "Select two candidates", not "UP TO two candidates" or "NO MORE THAN two candidates". FOUL!!!

(3) Another trick used with the online ballot: If you dared to vote for only one candidate, a second screen was thrown in your face as soon as you hit the Submit button, enticing you to vote for a second candidate ("You may vote for UP TO TWO CANDIDATES") -- yes, telling the voter AFTER HE/SHE TRIES TO VOTE FOR ONE, making many believe they'd better vote for a second candidate or their vote might not count. FOUL!!! If it was OK to give online voters a chance to vote again, why wasn't this done for the mail-in ballot voters or the telephone voters? Why wasn't a second ballot mailed to them when their first one was received with only one vote? When you go into the election booth to vote for president or whatever, you NEVER get a second chance. HIGHLY IRREGULAR!!!

(4) A newsletter from STRS (March 2013, Vol. 39, No. 2) was enclosed with each ballot that was mailed to retirees. It gave a profile on each of the four candidates. At the top was a letter from Executive Director Mike Nehf in which he specifically says "...vote for two candidates..." ("Then vote for two candidates using the enclosed mail ballot or by phone or the Internet.") Right from the top!! FOUL!!!!

As you no doubt are aware, the two incumbent board members who won re-election, James McGreevy and Robert Stein, received heavy backing from OEA; many retirees estimate at least $100,000 or more, using robocalls and personal phone calls to retirees all over the state, in addition to glossy, expensive looking post cards mailings. This needs to be changed. There needs to be some way of leveling the playing field for the candidates running for the STRS board. The other two candidates, Dennis Leone and Nadine McIlwain, had only out-of-pocket funds at their disposal, no deep-pocket organizations to provide funding for them. Something is very wrong with this picture and needs to be fixed. Only you can fix it.

Please investigate the 2013 STRS board election. To say it was an unfairly administered election is a gross understatement.

Thank you.

Katherine B. Bracy

STRS retiree

www.kathiebracy.blogspot.com

Retirees: Want to complain about the irregularities of the bogus election you were just put through?

Many retirees feel they were duped by the deliberately deceitful language used in the ballots for the 2013 STRS board election. You can write to the members of the STRS board, as they are ultimately responsible for it. One address will go to all: board@strsoh.org. E-mail addresses for individual board members may be found here.

You can also write STRS Executive Director Mike Nehf (who told you ON THE BALLOT to "vote for two": nehfm@strsoh.org. You can write to Nick Treneff, who is in charge of communications and danced around the questions regarding that ballot language every time: TreneffN@strsoh.org. You can write to the ORSC (Ohio Retirement Study Council, which oversees all five state pension systems; E-mail: info@orsc.org; Web: www.orsc.org) and demand this election be carefully reviewed and that measures be enacted to ensure such blatant treachery against retirees by their own pension board and staff NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.

You can always contact state legislators, too. They need to know what's going on at STRS. And don't forget your local newspaper. There are plenty of people who might find this whole situation very interesting.

If you'd like to share your thoughts with Dennis Leone, the lone target of all the duplicity from your STRS board and staff, you can do so here: dennisleone@roadrunner.com. By the way, if you do write to the board and staff, don't expect a reply. They have absolutely no interest in discussing this issue with you. They just want to control your $$$ and make sure you don't get the full benefits you are supposed to have.

Duke Snider to the ORSC: Please investigate the STRS board election

From Duke Snider, May 17, 2013

Subject: Ballot

Members of the ORSC,

Since our politicians have given POWER and CONTROL to OHSTRS, you are our only hope that everything at STRS is conducted in an ethical, orderly, professional, and honest manner; however, I believe the election of two retirees for the STRS board was not conducted properly. 

Probably I’m telling you something that you have already heard, but I hope you all will conduct an investigation into the election.  Dr. Dennis Leone barely missed winning a seat on the STRS board, and I truly believe it is due to the fact of the wording “Select two candidates” which means to select two candidates. I’ve had several retirees and a superintendent ask me who they should vote for besides Dennis Leone, and I told them to only vote for Dennis Leone as this gives him a better chance to be elected. 

Why won’t STRS board members answer Dr. Leone’s questions that he presented to them?  If this would have been an election conducted by county board of elections, this would never have happened, because the wording would have been “Select up to two candidates" or "Select no more than two candidates”. Retirees are teachers and they have a habit of doing exactly as they are instructed to do and in this case they were instructed to “Select two candidates”. 

In 2009 I don’t think the wording was this way; therefore, why was it in the 2013 election and who is responsible for selecting this command?  As I stated earlier, you are our, retirees', only hope, because STRS appears to be more interested in their employees than retirees, i.e. I’ve heard the investment people can earn a bonus of up to 100% of their salary, and if this is true, I believe this is not right, especially when we retirees had our COLA cut to 0% for one year and reduced to 2% thereafter.  I’ve also heard that our COLA can be cut or reduced to reduce the cost which active teachers contribute to STRS. 

Why is it always the retirees who are the ones who are targeted?  If there were no active teachers and retirees, there would not be a STRS. What is it that STRS doesn’t understand about this?  Why would OEA push so hard and spend so much money to get Mr. Stein and Mr. McGreevy elected?  Are some people filled with so much hatred, because Dennis Leone was the main person responsible for some former board members and a former executive director being  indicted and convicted? 

The top priority of STRS should be retirees, and it does not and has not appeared this way for some years.  Are some people so angry with retirees having a demonstration in Columbus a few years ago, and are some people so angry about being discovered, indicted, and convicted? I and many retirees have spoken to the STRS board several times since 2002, and many of us feel as second class citizens, because “they” seem to want to do anything to “get even” which is my opinion. 

If you feel I have made any mistake, please let me know and I will correct it. As I said you are our only hope and thank you for standing up for SERS and the “trip” to attend a meeting. Maybe you kept them from getting a sunburn.

Kenneth “Duke” Snider   

Referred to by some former STRS board members as “the malcontents from southern Ohio” (We malcontents stand up for what is right, honesty, professionalism, and integrity.)

Sardinia, Ohio

Dennis Leone on the 2013 STRS board election and a bold prediction for the ballot language that will appear in 2017

From Dennis Leone, May 12, 2013

Out of 73,000 votes that were tabulated, I was shy 788 to get elected..…and the STRS Board still doesn't think the two OEA-backed incumbents were improperly helped or that the  election was influenced at all by:   (1)  The “Select Two Candidates” command on the paper ballot; or (2) The online voting procedure that required retirees to reject a second pop-up ballot (which invited them to vote for a second candidate) in order to get their first choice accepted; or (3) Mike Nehf’s own letter in the ballot envelop that directly instructed retirees to “Select Two Candidates.” 

No, no, no…..these 3 things didn't make retirees feel that they needed to cast a second vote in order for their primary vote to be counted.  No sir.  I wish I had a nickel for every retiree who called me or wrote to me, asking who their second vote should be for in order for their vote for me to be accepted.  And STRS refuses to answer why the 2013 ballot was different than the 2009 ballot – even though there were 4 people running for 2 open spots both times. 

None of the 3 factors cited above occurred in 2009.  Oddly, Mike Nehf said in writing to me 2 weeks before the votes were tabulated that while he felt retirees had been given sufficient information to know that they could actually vote for just one candidate (even though the paper ballot issued a command of “Select Two Candidates’), he also wrote that the second pop-up ballot (that was forced onto anyone who tried to vote online for just one candidate) was necessary “to make voters aware that they could vote for 2 candidates.” 

What? In other words, the STRS Executive Director put in writing that additional explanation was NOT necessary to clarify the “Select Two Candidates” paper ballot command, but additional explanation WAS necessary to make sure online, voters were “aware that they could vote for 2 candidates.”  STRS refuses to accept the reality that forcing a second ballot onto online voters would be like mailing a second ballot to any retiree who sent in a ballot with just one vote. 

This whole thing does not pass the smell test. For sure, the ballot in 2017 will not be like the one in 2013. It will be like the correct one (“Select Up To Two Candidates”) that was used in 2009.

Dennis Leone

A board that will go down in STRS history

Rotten tomatoes to our illustrious STRS board and staff of 2012-2013 for their artful collaboration on their cleverly crafted,  successfully managed, underhanded manipulation of The Infamous STRS Board Election of 2013, which will forever brandish the true colors of undoubtedly one of the most devious boards and staffs in STRS history. We can hardly wait to see what you will try to pull next on the retirees who pay your salaries, perks and humongous bonuses. While you're at it, why don't you scrap that twisted piece of metal outside the board room, the one called "Integrity", bought for $100,000 of retirees' funds? It certainly doesn't belong anywhere near the board room, or in the building, for that matter. Or maybe keep it and rename it "Avarice". That fits.

STRS board election results

John Curry: "Deceptive ballot language and tens of thousands of dollars from OEA has taken its toll on an election that was engineered long before the ballots were available........"

From STRS, May 11, 2013 
Retirement Board Election Results
On Saturday, May 11, 2013, the results of the State Teachers Retirement Board election were certified by a board of tellers appointed by the State Teachers Retirement Board and VR Election Services — the independent firm administering the election.

The result of the election for the retired member seats on the Retirement Board is as follows:

• Bob Stein, 23,542 votes
• James McGreevy, 21,311 votes
• Dennis Leone, 20,533 votes
• Nadine McIlwain, 10,199 votes
• Write-Ins, 164 votes
The terms of office for Bob Stein and James McGreevy begin on Sept. 1, 2013, and will end on Aug. 31, 2017.
The one seat for a contributing teacher member had only one qualified candidate apply, so by law no election was needed. Incumbent Carol Correthers will continue to serve until Aug. 31, 2017. 

Perceptions and impressions and the flawed 2013 STRS board election that was no accident

1. The flaws in the 2013 STRS retiree election, most notably commanding retirees to "Select TWO candidates" were NOT an accident. The ballot language was deliberately changed from the 2009 ballot, and was specifically designed to cause confusion among the voting retirees who originally intended to vote for ONE candidate (called single-shot voting). They were deliberately tricked, by carefully crafted language (and a pop-up, second ballot for online voters) into thinking their vote would not count at all unless they voted for TWO candidates, which worked very much in favor of the incumbents. The STRS staff and board were very much aware of this all along and heartily approved it. They PRETENDED not to see the confusion it caused when retirees pointed it out to them REPEATEDLY. To them it was clear as a bell, which was a sham. We had legitimate concerns, yet we were totally ignored, and deliberately so. Everyone at STRS was in on the act. They knew what was coming and were prepared for it.

2. No one at STRS has offered an explanation for WHY the 2013 ballot was different from the 2009 ballot, even though there were four retirees running for two open seats in both years. WHY? The active teachers on the STRS board would demand answers in their home school district if their school board refused to provide any explanation whatsoever for why flawed ballot language was being used for an operating levy. Perception: deliberate deception on the part of STRS staff and board (backed by OEA), what else? STRS has absolutely NO intention of ever offering an explanation. This was all planned very, very carefully.

3. OEA basically runs the STRS board and staff; otherwise, why does the STRS board vote unanimously or nearly so to pass all issues put before them? (Notice that the issues always seem to favor OEA's wishes.) NOBODY on the board ever asks hard ball questions!  For sure OEA runs the two retired board members, though they would argue otherwise; otherwise, why would OEA spend many thousands of active teachers' dollars to get them elected again? And why would those two candidates for re-election PERMIT this? What interest does OEA have in retired educators when it is well known that they drop these people like hot potatoes the minute they retire and aren't paying into the OEA coffers any more? Is this OEA's way of repaying thousands of teachers for their 30 years of loyalty to their union? The playing field for this election (as for previous elections) was NOT level. The two non-board-member candidates had only out-of-pocket money for their campaigns while the winners had megabucks of OPM behind them! Money talks. OEA money buys board members and board elections.

4. The investment department has been screwing us BIG TIME, for a long time, and they know it. Heads need to roll, but knowing this board and staff, I don't see it happening. Everybody's too happy with the status quo because they're ALL benefiting at our expense and are not about to rock the boat. Isn't it interesting that while people say they have earned back everything they lost in the stock market in 2008, and while the DOW has reached a record high of 15,000, STRS STILL is a whopping $13 billion shy of where STRS was with total assets in 2008. Yet HUGE bonus checks are still handed out to investment staff like candy!.

5. OEA has complete control over ORTA. Why else would ORTA go along with them (other than sheer stupidity) to screw retirees out of COLA funds and affordable healthcare, not to mention allowing potentially extremely damaging language (to retirees) to be written into the pension law? ORTA pretends to represent retirees, but I have yet to see proof. What has ORTA done for us? Not one damned thing. CORE gave it their best shot, but couldn't fight City Hall.

6. All the above groups are extremely afraid of Dennis Leone. Why? Because he is the ONLY one who LISTENS TO RETIREES and fights for what is best for them. He rocks the STRS boat by asking tough questions and pushing for straight answers. Why don't these groups like that? You be the judge. You know what the bottom line is, every time. Where there's money there's greed and corruption. Dennis Leone represents truth, openness and SUNSHINE; the last thing the STRS board and staff, ORTA, and especially OEA want to see. What have they got to hide? PLENTY!!!

7. Retirees are scorned and laughed at -- PLENTY -- by STRS staff and board and OEA. For most of our careers we had the naivete to trust these groups to look out for our best interests. So naive on our part. Never again!!!

Your STRS board and the infamous 2013 election.....

Letter to Gary Russell: Why was the ballot language CHANGED this year?

Kathie Bracy to Gary Russell, May 8, 2013

Hi Gary --

We missed you today at Franklin Co. Retired Teachers. Your "sub" did a credible job, but she ducked out quickly when she was finished, without giving us an opportunity to ask questions (she said to call STRS if we had questions), so I decided to e-mail you instead for some answers.

My questions have to do with the 2013 STRS board election, which, as you know, ended just two days ago.

In both the 2009 and the 2013 elections, there were four retirees running for two seats on the STRS Retirement Board. In 2009 it said on the ballot "Select up to two candidates", but this year the wording was changed to a command, "Select Two Candidates". (Also, Mike Nehf's letter that was sent with the ballots said specifically "vote for two candidates"!) This confused many retirees, causing them to vote for two candidates when they had originally planned to vote for one (called single-shot voting, a fair and square voting approach) because they were tricked into thinking it was a requirement in order for their vote to count.

(1)  My question: Why was the wording changed?

For people voting online this year, again those who wished to vote for ONE candidate found themselves forced to reject a second, pop-up ballot before their FIRST vote was accepted!

(2)  My question: What was the reason for this second pop-up ballot?

When you go into a voting booth to vote for president of the United States or whatever, you are NEVER given a second option like this. Why did STRS require it? Are retirees being patronized, or what?

More questions:

(3)  If online voters in the STRS board election were given such an option, then why wasn't a second ballot mailed to every retiree who sent their original one in with only ONE vote?

(4)  Why weren't they given a second chance as the online voters were?

I would appreciate some answers to my questions, which, as you are aware, are legitimate. Thank you for your time.

Kathie Bracy

STRS Retiree

STRS: QUIT SCREWING AROUND AND SCRUB THIS DAMNED ELECTION!!!

Straight from the horse's mouth.....you were TOLD to VOTE FOR TWO CANDIDATES!!!

In case you don't remember, this was enclosed with your paper ballot.
Click image to enlarge.

Mike WANTED you to vote for two, didn't he?

From John Curry, May 5, 2013

The image below shows the March 2013 STRS newsletter with profiles of each of the four STRS board candidates, mailed to qualified retired voters with the paper ballots for the current STRS board election. Please note the part of this letter (written by Michael Nehf) that has the asterisks (**). It doesn't say "vote for up to two," does it?

John

[Click image (maybe twice) to enlarge.]

A primer for STRS: Single-shot voting explained by Eric Meyer, MD, Arizona State Representative

http://www.ericforaz.com/single/singleshot.htm

Cast only one vote - for Eric!

Did you know:  Single-shot voting means voting for only one candidate, even though there are two open seats.

Here’s why it matters:  The winners in this race will be the top two vote-getters. Sounds straightforward, but it’s not. Actually, if you use both of your votes, you might dilute or cancel your first vote. Though this seems counter-intuitive, here’s how it works:

1.Each voter gets two votes for State Representative, but is not required to use both votes.

2.If some voters use only one of their votes, then the candidate receiving those single votes receives a larger proportion of all the votes cast.

3.This candidate would then have a better chance at winning.

Voting for only one candidate increases the likelihood of your candidate being elected, by not giving your second vote to an opponent. That’s why we urge you to cast a “single-shot” vote.

“My race is a perfect example of how voting for only one candidate can make a greater impact. Both of my opponents have values that are very different from mine. They intend to make deeper cuts to education funding and continue to steer our state down the same, irresponsible path.

A vote for either of my opponents is a vote against me and the values that we share.

If you cast one vote for me and your second vote for my opponent, it will decrease my odds of winning, and you will have helped elect someone you may not support.”

So it’s important to remember:  In this case, one is better than two. Cast only one vote, for the candidate who supports your values. Make your vote count!

[Note: Remember, the two incumbent candidates for the retired seats on the STRS board have MEGABUCKS -- OEA money "borrowed" from their members -- backing them while the other two candidates have only their out-of-pocket money for their campaigns. What's wrong with this picture? As a retiree, I have to wonder WHY a huge union that works for ACTIVE teachers is supporting two RETIRED candidates. If I were an active teacher, I would be FURIOUS that MY money was being spent this way.]

Dennis Leone's questions for Mike Nehf re: Ballot Language

From: Dennis Leone 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:16 PM 
To: 'Nehf, Mike' Cc: 'Neville, Bill'; 'Treneff, Nick'; 'Board' 
Subject: Questions

Mr. Nehf -- Thank you for your reply below.

Regarding #1 below:  What was “clear as presented ” (using your words in #1 below) in this matter  is that the ballot issued a command of “Select Two Candidates.” So while you are saying to me that no one at STRS asked the election vendor employed to change the ballot language from 2009, are you also saying that the change just happened on its own, that no one at STRS felt the new ballot language needed to be changed, but that the change occurred mysteriously anyway?  This is not making much sense?  The STRS Board not bothering to even look at the ballot language ahead of time would be like a school board authorizing a bond issue, then not looking at the ballot language before the board of elections printed the ballot.  Hands-off governance at its worst.

Regarding #2 below:  If the ballot information was clear, as you wrote in #1 below, then why did STRS deem it was necessary (as you wrote below in #2) to offer a second ballot to “make voters aware” (using your words in #2 below) that they may vote for up two candidates in this election.  You didn’t feel a need to make it clear with the paper ballot that retirees did not really have to “Select Two Candidates” (even though that is what the ballot said to do),  but you felt a need to make clear with online voters that voters could chose up to two candidates.  Don’t you see the inconsistency?

Regarding #3: Yes, I am well aware that the board may only go into executive session for matters authorized in ORC 121.22(G), but your statement to me (see #3 below) that it would be inappropriate for you to disclose “the content of the executive session”  does not address what I am asking you. I am not asking you to specifically disclose WHAT was discussed in executive session. I do not care to know the specific content of what was discussed. I am simply asking IF the ballot issue or voting concerns WERE discussed in executive. There IS a big difference.  I am entitled to know IF these issues were discussed in executive session. That is all I am asking.  If these issues were NOT discussed in executive session, then you have nothing to worry about. If I asked you whether you discussed the Ohio State Cheerleaders in executive session, my guess is that would quickly say no and you would not dodge the issue.  But for sure, if you DID discuss the Ohio State Cheerleaders in executive session, I suspect you would not want to admit it. Is this perhaps why you are NOT telling me if the ballot issue of election concerns were discussed in executive session?  Yes or no?  Was there executive session discussion about ballot issues or election concerns on 4-18-13 at STRS?

Please provide me with needed clarification and answers to questions above.

Given the large number of retirees who have told me they desired to vote for ONLY one candidate, but – for concern that a single vote would invalidate their ballot – ended up voting for 2 candidates so they would not disobey the “Select Two Candidates” command on the main ballot or the online second ballot, I hereby make the following public records’ request:

I wish to have a copy of all written communications (including – but not limited to – letters, memos, emails, text messages, and other electronic communications) sent by you or received by you in the current fiscal year that pertain in any way to the 2013 STRS Board election, 2103 Board election petitions, 2013 ballot concerns, or 2013 board election process concerns.  (I do not desire copies of any election petitions that were turned in for retiree Board candidates.)  This request includes communications on said topics to or from VR Election Services, STRS employees, or STRS Board members, or copies of communications that were authored by STRS employees or STRS Board members on said topics. Understand that since STRS Board members are public officials, I am entitled to copies of written communications they authored on topics pursuant to this request, whether said communications were generated by  their STRS email system, their home email system, work email system, or any other electronic communication device they have used to communicate information pertaining to said topics.  I am asking you to make sure the board members (who have been in office during the current fiscal year) are made aware of this request and to instruct them to comply with my request with copies of communications they authored on said topics. I am willing to pay the printing costs associated with this request, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code.

Thank you.

Dennis Leone

From: Nehf, Mike

Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 11:27 AM 

To: Dennis Leone Subject:RE: Questions

Dr. Leone, below are my responses to your questions.  Be assured that I have given consideration to the concern you have raised about this year’s Retirement Board election.  I have reviewed these items with my staff and understand that they have been in contact with you throughout the election process.  I believe these responses clearly state STRS Ohio’s viewpoint on the matter.

From: Dennis Leone 

Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:17 PM

To: Nehf, Mike; Neville, Bill 

Subject: Questions

I would appreciate answers to the following questions:

1. Why does this year’s Board election ballot read “Select Two Candidates” when the ballot in 2009 read “Select Up To Two Candidates?”  In both years, there were 4 retirees running for the 2 open spots on the board.  Response:  VR Election Services, the vendor STRS Ohio hired to administer the election, prepared the ballot – we did not ask the vendor to change the ballot language from what they prepared in 2009.  My communications director subsequently reviewed the voting packet contents in its entirety (including the ballot) and believed the instructions were clear and correct as presented.

2. Why, when I voted for myself electronically this year by clicking the word “submit,”  was my ballot not accepted until a I rejected an additional pop-up reminder that I could cast a second vote?  Response:  The pop-up reminder was included to help make voters aware that they may vote for two candidates in this election.  Voters, whether they vote online, by phone or by mail, are able to cast a vote for only one candidate.

3. Was there any discussion in executive session on April 18 at STRS about matters pertaining to this year’s board election process, election documents, or election complaints expressed by me?  As you know, the Board may enter executive session only in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Section 121.22 (G).  It would inappropriate for me to disclose the content of executive session.

4. What will happen if the active teacher “teller” who volunteered to represent me on May 11 cannot attend the vote tabulation at STRS?   She has just informed me that she may need to have surgery.  Will my board candidacy be jeopardized if there is no active teacher teller present for me on May 11?  There are hundreds of retirees who would enjoy serving as a teller for me, as retirees did in 2005 for both Dave Speas and me. Response:  The inability of your teller to attend the meeting on May 11 will not affect your eligibility to be elected.

Thank you. 

Dennis Leone

Dennis Leone exposes their own ballot scandal to STRS board...and their response is dead silence! (Any surprise there?)

From John Curry, April 24, 2013 

The following is a transcription by John Curry, taken from the CD-ROM recording of the April 18, 2013 STRS board meeting. The attachments can be viewed in the post below this one; or click here. They are posted in the order mentioned. 

Greetings, my name is Dennis Leone, I’ve passed out in front of you here today a couple of pages from this booklet.  

[SEE ATTACHMENT 1] This is the Board adopted election manual  for this particular election, 2013. Please turn to the next page [SEE ATTACHMENT 2], and you’ll see that’s page 12 of the manual booklet, and it indicates item number 12 and it indicates that the board form, the ballot, shall be prescribed by the retirement board. That’s the actual ballot itself.  

Also note that it says ‘see Appendix E and Appendix M.’ Ok, so let’s look at Appendix M. Turn the page[SEE ATTACHMENT 3], this is Appendix M.  

Four years ago, this was the ballot. Four people running for two spots on the board. Look what it says, the circle: “Select up to two candidates.”  

Next page [SEE ATTACHMENT 4]…..here’s the ballot for this year…four candidates running for two spots, “Select two candidates.” 

 Now, if you don’t understand how this causes confusion for retirees who think they have to vote for two people then you’re mistaken. You’re not understanding the situation. It doesn’t matter that there’s other documents that say that you can vote for up to two people, this is the ballot.  

There are several people, lots of them, that intended to vote for me in a single way, as well as Nadine Mcllwain, and when they see this language, they end up feeling like, and they’ve told me this, they feel like for their vote to count they have to cast a second ballot. And, that’s what they’ve done!   

And, more times than not, it was for the safe vote, it is for the OEA one-two ticket of McGreevy and Stein. People wanting to vote for me, they don’t know who Nadine Mcllwain is, then they’ll vote for one of these two. The same for people wanting to cast a single ballot for her, not knowing who I am, will cast a second ballot for these two people.  

The next page [SEE ATTACHMENT 5] is something I’ve decided to do different this year, I’ve decided to vote online. That’s what popped up, “select two candidates.” So, I voted for myself. One time, I thought I was done, I clicked the word confirm.  What happened? I wasn’t done! Next page, this popped up [SEE ATTACHMENT 6]: a second sheet saying would you like to vote for one more? I clicked down (Resend) no, I wasn’t interested in that.  

So, that’s what we have, we have a situation here where retirees have been made to feel like, in order for their vote to count, they’re supposed to select two candidates.  

How did this happen? How could there be a ballot that looked like this in 2009 and another that looked like this in 2013? Why? How did this happen? I keep asking….nobody will answer my question. It says here, “You are to prescribe the ballot yourself.” You know what you’ve done? This is like a school board authorizing a bond issue and not checking to see what the ballot language is going to be. That’s what this is!  

And I want an answer for how this happened. I am entitled to it. It has caused widespread confusion. There are a lot of people who feel this whole thing should be started all over again. How did this happen? Somebody tell me. Why was there a ballot that said one thing four years ago and the same number of people running  four years later and there’s a different ballot?  

I know one thing, four years from now, the ballot that went out this time…it won’t go out again, will it? And…not one of you are going to  say, “and that’s because that’s because we screwed up four years ago.” No one is admitting that right now. Nobody is. Why? 

Why isn’t it that somebody is acknowledging that there has been a mistake made? Why? I am entitled to an answer. How did this happen? How did this happen [a long period of silence on the recording]? Nobody [another long period of silence]?  This is OK [a third long period of silence]?  You know what you should have done? Any person that sent in a ballot with one vote…….you should send them a SECOND ballot and ask them if they want to vote again….for a second person. That’s what you did to me when I voted electronically. How did this happen? No answer………..[a fourth long period of silence]? OK!

[Click here to see ballot samples.]

What kind of board is this, anyway? Are they clones of Nick Treneff? NOBODY answered Dr. Leone's questions! They just sat there like bumps on a log!

From Dennis Leone, April 18, 2013

Subject: Today's STRS Board Meeting 

•  Yes, I repeatedly said – holding up the different ballots from 2009 and 2013 for all to see – “How did this happen, how did this happen, how did this happen.” 

•  My other point was that the board’s own guidelines provide the 2009 ballot as the format to follow, along with the language in the board’s own guidelines that says the board is to “prescribe” the ballot form.  

•   The board NOT knowing about the ballot wording, I said, would be like a school board authorizing a bond issue, then NOT looking at the ballot language before voters decide what to do.  This was hands-off governance on the board’s part. 

•   I said that since the Internet voting option does not accept a single vote until the voter refuses to cast a second ballot, that would be like STRS sending a second paper ballot to retirees who sent in a ballot with only one vote.  

•   The board and staff refuse to accept that the ballot command of “Select Two Candidates” very definitely helps incumbents McGreevy and Stein. 

•   And for sure, as I said today, the ballot 4 years from now will NOT be like the one used in 2013.  It will be like the 2009 ballot. 

.....so what REALLY happened in 2003 that touched off a firestorm at STRS that is still smoldering today? Read it here, from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. (Hint: It ain't over yet!)

More here (Akron Beacon Journal, 2003)

A MUST READ: Dennis Leone Reform Initiatives as an STRS Board Member  Between 2005 and 2009

Some blogs worth following.....

http://www.plunderbund.com/
http://ateacheronteaching.blogspot.com/2012/04/forsooth-shakespeare-doth-explain.html

To find current, day-to-day posts -- pull your scroll bar down a ways, just below the big red arrows (you can't miss them). Thanks.

............................................................................................

Find your state representative and senator here.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/

Note from this blogger.....

In case you weren't aware, I am quite willing to post opposing views on this blog; in fact, I welcome such opportunities. If you disagree with anything you see posted on my blog, please feel free to submit your views and I will gladly post them.

Kathie Bracy
kbb47@aol.com 9/15/10.........................................

Gettin' a little tired.....

Some communications to Mike Nehf and Tim Myers, dating back as far as 2009, continue to go unanswered. Looks like it will be a long wait, but we haven't forgotten. You can see them here and here.

I know, it's weird.........

Many posts that appear "at the top" for a while are eventually moved down, where they can be found under their original posting dates. Also, if you are confused by the postdating, this is done to keep these posts up there; otherwise, they drift down when new posts are added. It's a "blog thing" which I have no other way to control. KB

Handy links: Contacts, information and more (short version)

This is an abbreviated version of the original 'Handy links' post. Click here to view a more complete list.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

CORE website (Old) Contact information for just about anybody you would want to contact re: pension and HC concerns:

STRS Board.....STRS Senior Staff.....STRS website
E-mail contacts at STRS

Board calendar

E-mail contacts at STRS

Map/directions to STRS, 275 E. Broad St. Columbus, OH 43215STRS "Membership Survey" (spoof)
State legislators.......State of Ohio website

OEA salaries: November 2009 USDL report

OEA top salaries 2008 USDL report

Rich DeColibus' PowerPoint presentation STRS' PBI Program; Does it work?: click December 21, 2008 (blog Archive) and scroll down to December 23 posts.

Wendell Potter's blog: http://www.prwatch.org/blog/35267

Writings (and other creations) of Rich DeColibus

Charts: PBI (bonus) payments

Popular links (labels): charts, graphs, investment staff, lists, spreadsheets

$TR$ Inve$tment $taff $$$

SPECIAL (must read):

Dennis Leone's INVESTIGATIVE REPORT on STRS: May 16, 2003...Who is Dennis Leone?........(PDF version)...More on Dennis Leone .......(PDF version)

Dennis Leone: "Catcher of Thieves"

Dennis Leone's STRS Report to ORTA, March 2007

Dennis Leone's Testimony at the Statehouse 9/5/12

The Plain Dealer article that opened our eyes, June 8, 2003

Historic PBI vote, January 16, 2009

Charts: PBI (bonus) payments

CURRENT POSTS IMMEDIATELY BELOW

(Thanks for visiting! KBB)