SCHURING GETS HIS WAY ON RETIREMENT REVIEW. OUTCOME OF REFORM OF OHIO'S 5 RETIREMENT SYSTEMS COULD PLAY LARGE IN HIS LEGISLATIVE LONGEVITY. STATE SEN. OELSLAGER AS A MEMBER OF RETIREMENT STUDY COUNCIL COULD BE AFFECGTED TOO.

These are tough times in Ohio for anyone employed by government, especially state government.  But Columbus-centered politicians are bringing local officials (city, village, city and board of education and the like) into the fray by affecting the relationship of local employees who get state benefits (e.g. retirement) in terms of pension contribution rates and such.

Moreover, the  Republican Kasich administration has created a firestorm of controversy with it Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) which is configured to pretty much wipe out the collective bargaining rights of public employees. 

In taking the SB 5 action, Kasich has created a political fight that appears to be a Republicans versus Democrats brouhaha (at least at the state level).  The fight is going to be played out in an effort by opponents of SB 5 to get a referendum on the bill for this November's general election to have Kasich requested (passed by the Ohio General Assembly (OGA) and signed by the governor) set aside by the people of Ohio.

The only wrinkle which skews the Republican/Democrat thing somewhat is that the only unions known to frequently support Republicans (firefighters, police and teachers) are, in large part, joining Democrats to eliminate SB 5.

One such Republican is Carol Kinsey of Navarre.  She is now retired from her job as an administrator at the Canton Professional Educators Association (CPEA - the union for Canton City Schools teachers).  At last Monday's (May 9th) townhall meeting put on by state representative Christina Hagan at the Louisville Public Library, she spoke to another issue more completely tied to retirement than SB 5.  The issue she addressed was House Bill 69 and Senate 3 (which are placement bills - that is to say not likely to be the actual bills to come out of the OGA, but merely designed to hold a place on the legislative agenda until a "ready to pass" bill can be cobbled together).

What is being worked on in these bills is an increase in the amount of the percentage that employees pay towards their own retirement plan (and whether or not the plan will migrate from "defined benefits" to "defined contributions"), how long they have to work in order to collect retirement benefits, the formula by which the amount of retirement is computed upon.

Also in these bills is language to exclude persons defined out of the plans altogether because their rate of compensation is not enough to qualify for eligibility.  For example, township trustees of small townships are up in arms because of lot of them are expected to be read out of retirement benefits by the legislation being considered.

For Stark Countians this issue has particular significance because state Representative Kirk Schuring of Jackson Township (the 51st) is the chairman of the subcommittee of the Ohio House's Heath and Aging Committee (Retirement and Benefits).

Back to Kinsey.

One of the concerns of persons who will be affected by Retirement and Benefits work is that there will be a "rush to judgment" and that thorough consideration of reform of Ohio' five retirement systems will be short circuited by political considerations.

In this video, Kinsey reassures prospective retirees of these systems that Chairman Schuring is not about to be steamrolled into anything, to wit:



Will it appears that Schuring will not have to be quitting as chairman.

Today, the SCPR got a look at an e-mail from the STRS explaining that the legislation is being vetted by a study that will delay consideration of "ready to pass" legislation for some time.  Here is the key language from the STRS missive:

What comes out of the OGA could affect Schuring and Oelslager politically here in Stark County.

Should the Kasich administration's coordinated effort with the OGA (on reforming retirement benefit) end up being unpopular with the Stark County's enrollees in the five state retirement systems, it could have devastating political consequences for both Schuring and Oelslager who combined have about 50 years service in the Ohio Legislature.

It will be interesting to see whether or not the two have the strength of legislative personality to save their own political hides.

The SCPR believes they do not.  However, time will tell.

WILL REPRESENTATIVE SCHURING CONTINUE TO BE THE "POLITICAL DARLING" OF STARK COUNTY TEACHERS?

DISCLAIMER:  Yours truly's spouse is a retired teacher.

Republican J. Kirk Schuring has been a member in the Ohio General Assembly since 1993 when he was appointed (Ohio House) to replace the retiring Dave Johnson. In 1994, he was elected to a full term.

On November 3, 1991, Ohio's voters bought into a Republican initiative and imposed term limits of 8 consecutive years in the Ohio House and Senate, respectively.

After serving eight years in the House, he ran for fellow Republican Scott Oelslager's seat (being vacated because of term limits) in 2002.  He remained in the Ohio Senate through 2010 when he switched back to the House (with Oelslager going back to the Senate).

One of things about Schuring and Oelslager that is a mystery to the SCPR, is how they have become the "political darlings" of Stark County teachers. 

The Report's focus today is on Schuring because he has had the most involvement with Stark's teachers in an area they hold near and dear:  their retirement.

Schuring surfaced in this context in 2002 as a member (chairman for at least part of the time) of the Ohio Retirement Study Council (ORSC). 

The ORSC describes itself this way:

The Ohio Retirement Study Council (ORSC) was created in 1968 to assist the state legislature, governor, and other public officials in the formation of sound public pension policy, and is one of the oldest public oversight councils in the country.

 Unfortunately, for Schuring, 2002 was not a good time to be on the ORSC.  This is about the time that Enron went bust and the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) lost $66 million from its investment in Enron.  Moreover, in the outcry of teacher indignation of having suffered this grievous loss to their retirement futures, it was discovered that some STRS officials were "living high off the hog."

Schuring pulled a Houdini in 2002/2003.  Though teachers were "damn mad," he managed to convince them at a teacher community meeting held at the North Canton Community Christian Church that somehow, even as a member of the ORSC, there was nothing he could have done to prevent the huge loss and the abuse of STRS funds by some of its then administrators and board members.

It seems to the SCPR that Schuring has been endorsed and supported by the likes of the the Canton Professional Educators' Association, the Ohio Education Association and the Ohio Federation of Teachers without fail election after election after election.

However, the "terms of endearment" between the teachers and Schuring may becoming to an end.  It is beginning to appear that the rules of the teachers' pension system are about to change and the anticipated changes will not be for the betterment of teachers.

STRS has never fully recovered from the $66 million Enron loss, which, when coupled with the huge downturn in the stock market because of the financial collapse of American banking brought on by wildly speculative investments has put STRS in a deep, deep hole.

Initially, STRS asked for a partial bailout by Ohio's taxpayers.  STRS sent a proposal to the Schuring and his fellows at the Ohio Retirement Study Commission in the fall of 2010 asking for the Legislature to approve a 2.5% increase in the local school district's contribution rate (phased in over five years) to the STRS defined benefit plan for teachers.

Schuring et al were having none of that.  Although Schuring had no real opposition in the 51st (which he obtained in a term limit trade with Scott Oelslager), he knew that there would be elections beyond 2010 and that Stark Countians would not be too keen on increasing their contributions for teachers.  He knew that that between classified employees and teachers, Stark Countians are paying about $50 million a year in contributions to STRS through their local school districts.

 So STRS is back to the drawing board as this blog is being written to come up with a plan (not including additional school district contributions) to make the STRS plan solvent long-term; which it is not presently in terms of having the money to pay its total obligations.

Some of the remedies (among a number) to be considered to make the plan solvent, include:

• changing how soon teachers can retire with full benefit
• reducing Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for existing and new retirees
• changing from a three to a five year calculation of the Final Average Salary (FAS)

 What will be interesting to see when the 2012 election cycle approaches, is whether or not the likes of the CPEA, the OEA and the OFT will be sending thank you notes to Representative J. Kirk Schuring.

IS OHIO'S GOVERNMENT LOOKING TO GET ITS HAND ON PUBLIC PENSION FUNDS? WILL THE STARK COUNTY DELEGATION FIGHT TO PROTECT PUBLIC PENSIONS?

The Stark County Political Report remembers when ENRON went belly up (2000/2001) and cost members of the Ohio State Teachers Retirement System $56.6 million. PERS lost $58.8 million.

One of the guardians of STRS and PERS was supposed to be state Senator Kirk Schuring (R - Jackson). At least that's what the SCPR thinks. Schuring gets very angry (which is rare for him), when yours truly makes this allegation.

Why does the SCPR assign Schuring the guardian role during the time the ENRON fiasco unfolded?

Because Senator Schuring was president of the Ohio Retirement Study Council (ORSC) at the time. And the SCPR believes the ORC failed many of Ohio's retired public employees in neglecting to uphold its obligations spelled out in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 717.

Now Schuring is vice chairman of the ORSC.

One has to wonder whether or not a repeat of ENRON is in the offing for Ohio's public employee retirees? If not, what has been done to prevent a repeat?

It would be reassuring for Ohio's public to hear from Senator Schuring that ORSC security is improved.

In 2009, it is not the private sector that bears watching. Now it is Ohio's government.

Governor Ted Strickland is desperate to have the money to keep Ohio going. Until the state budget god tight, Strickland was against expanding gambling in Ohio. But just days ago he signed an executive order command the Ohio Lottery Commission to begin installing slots at Ohio's racetracks.

Now comes word that he and the Ohio General Assembly took at look at "borrowing" money from PERS (Ohio's Public Employess Retirement System).

Although STRS (the State Teachers Retirement System) was not being eyed by the governor, his look at PERS was not lost on STRS:

Here is a few excepts from an e-mail that STRS sent out:

OPERS CONTRIBUTION REDUCTION PROPOSED TO HELP STATE BUDGET
On June 19, 2009, Gov. Ted Strickland proposed that the state's contribution to public employees' pensions be reduced from 14 percent to 8 percent for two years, with a payback to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) to occur over the subsequent 10 years. This proposal was made as a way to help balance the state's budget.

...

While STRS Ohio and the other public pension systems in the state were not included in the proposal, the executive directors of STRS Ohio, School Employees Retirement System (SERS) and the Highway Patrol Retirement System sent a joint letter to the governor and the members of the Ohio General Assembly also voicing their opposition.

...

The proposal was eventually rejected by lawmakers and was not part of the state's final budget. Going forward, all the systems will need to be vigilant to ensure such proposals do not surface again.

How much would the proposed raid on PERS brought the governor in his frantic search for dollars?

Here is what Akron Beacon Journal Statehouse reporter Dennis Williard has to say (Scrutiny missing in state budget, July 19):

... Strickland's proposal to reduce the state's contribution to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ... would have been a $250 million raid on the pension plan.

The SCPR believes Stark's public employees should heed STRS's warning. The questions that Stark County's public employees should be asking themselves should include:

"Do I want my pension fund to be making a ten year loan to the state of Ohio?

And, if not: "Can I trust my legislator to stop this from happening?"

Now that we know he uses The Repository opinion pages to explain his votes; perhaps, the good Senator Schuring would explain why public employment retirees have no worries about the security of their pension. Seeing as he is an expert of sorts on protecting public employees pension dollars.

And for good measure, maybe Oelslager, Slesnick, Okey, Snitchler and Schiavoni will chime in?