See if you can detect a pattern below:
Large majorities of Ohio voters voted to end gerrymandering, but the statehouse politicians ignored the new rules (and seven court rulings) so that they can keep gerrymandering districts for themselves
57% of Ohio voters voted to legalize recreational marijuana, but the statehouse politicians are working to alter or rescind what the voters approved
Ohio voters voted for a pro-public school majority of the elected membership of the Ohio school board in November 2022, so the statehouse politicians immediately stripped most of the power away from that state school board—and in the budget that just passed the House, are seeking to eliminate the elected school board members entirely. That’s right—they are literally cancelling democracy outright when it comes to Ohio’s system of education, because they don’t like how the voters voted.
See the pattern?
Whenever actual votes of the people and constituents contradict their views or threaten the special interests who back them, these “elected” officials (thanks to gerrymandering, almost none actually encounter real elections) simply defy the people’s will or take steps to eliminate the democratic process entirely.
Well…here we go again. But if you haven’t been paying attention, you wouldn’t know anything was afoot.
Read on…
Statehouse Field Trip
Yesterday, I drove to Columbus to see the pattern play out in person.
What did I watch?
A subcommittee of Ohio’s Retirement Study Council, with two presentations about the composition of pension boards around the country.
Dry, serious presentations and thoughtful questions—looking specifically at “Teacher Retirement Boards.” You can even see the slide deck here.
No big deal, right?
Think again.
Remember the timing of that school board takeover above—right after voters voted in a new majority that supported public schools and was about to ask tough questions of Ohio school policy?
Same story here.
Background: A Clash of Two Visions
For several years, there’s been a spirited debate between two factions of the $90B Ohio teachers pension board, called STRS. On one side are “reformers” who believe the fund should “switch to index funding;” on the other, a faction that wants to stick with a model of “actively managing the funds,” which also comes with higher fees. “Reformers” also want “a cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA. The COLAs were suspended for more than 150,000 retired Ohio teachers for five years starting in 2017. They were reinstated, but there has been a suspension of increases, significant for retirees who need this money and are dealing with inflation.”
I don’t have a dog in the fight, but teachers and retirees do because: 1) their years of hard work and contributions built the pension fund to its $90B+; 2) they rely on the pension for their economic well-being; and 3) they elect seven of the board’s 11 members (the other four are appointees).
And earlier this week, an election was held for the teachers pension board.
And just as has happened for a number of elections in a row, the “reformer” faction won the election decisively:
The “reformers” have won so much, it’s sparked a sea change in the overall board, including a flipping of the board majority itself in a dramatic meeting close to a year ago.
But ever since this side started winning a few years ago, irregular things have happened right around election time (often after the votes are cast and before the results are announced) to thwart the outcome.
Two years ago, for example, days before a “reformer” victory was announced, Governor DeWine unilaterally fired his own appointee to the board, who also had emerged as a “reformer.” DeWine’s last-minute maneuver (it seems clear that DeWine already knew the results of the election) denied the “reformers” the majority they would have earned when the election outcome was announced a day later. (courts later held that DeWine's termination of that member—which he said was due to absenteeism, which was quickly debunked—violated Ohio law, but he’s never been held accountable for this egregiously illegal act).
Then, one year ago, just before the next election results were announced, AG Dave Yost filed an action in court to remove two “reformers” from the board (based on allegations from a last-minute anonymous memo sent to DeWine, again, right around election time). Days later, it was announced that another “reformer” won that election—and the court case and memo didn’t stop the “reformers” from taking over the board majority.
And this week, with another election leading to two more “reformer” wins, the Columbus politicians are now formally studying the composition of this pension board. And, of course, whether there should be so many (or any) seats elected by teachers/retirees at all.
They haven’t been shy what they have in mind. The chair of the subcommittee meeting I watched yesterday has said: “I'm concerned that the STRS current composition of 7 teachers and 4 appointed investment experts appears to be imbalanced, which can lead to a perception of lack of fiduciary responsibility.”
Another member proposed a reduction in teacher representatives last summer, shortly after the majority flipped, insulting retirees by saying: “We need retirees' input but people need to have logic and common sense.” (Note the “but”—contrasting the retirees’ input with “logic and common sense.”) He even elaborated more: “Let's get people that have the knowledge, the background, the expertise involved to watch who is investing our money, how much they're investing where.”
The Toledo Blade, which has watched this for years more closely than any other newspaper, ripped these proposals the other day:
“The General Assembly’s plan for elected members of the State Teachers Retirement System board appears to be, “If you can’t beat them, eliminate them.” The Ohio House Pension Committee has begun the process to change the composition of the STRS board with the goal of eliminating elected active and retired teachers from control of the fund.
It’s an undemocratic power play and totally unfair to teachers if they are the only pension singled out for legislation to restructure the board.”
I agree. And would offer two other considerations:
Fiduciary Duties
Last year, as I wrote above, those anonymous allegations surfaced of impropriety by two board members—one Governor appointee and one elected member. Those allegations (again, coming via an anonymous memo during last year’s election week) are being used as a justification to study and/or switch the board’s overall “composition.”
But as with pension boards across the nation, there are processes that allow any such allegations to be addressed. All board members have strict fiduciary and ethical duties they must adhere to. If they do not, board members can be removed for violations of these duties, ethics laws, gross neglect, malfeasance, or other serious misconduct. If there are legitimate concerns around particular board members, Ohio law provides a very clear path for how to do so (and there is a current court case reviewing those allegations).
The solution is NOT taking the undemocratic step of eliminating teachers’ and retirees voices outright for a pension fund they’ve built up through their hard work and contributions and now rely on.
The irony here, by the way, is that the major target of the politicians’ ire, and the lawsuit, is not even someone in a teacher/retiree seat. It’s actually an appointed seat (the one the Governor illegally fired). Which makes reducing the number of teacher-elected seats make even less sense.
The Broader Context
More broadly, it’s important to remember the overall context in Ohio at the moment.
In case you’ve forgotten, there is a documentary on HBO that details why the Ohio statehouse is ranked as the nation’s most corrupt. Pay to play dominates the culture of the place, as well as the highest levels of state government.
For example, the First Energy scandal was essentially kick-started by the Governor handing over control of the Public Utilizes Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to private industry and First Energy, only months after First Energy boosted the Governor and Lieutenant Governor’s campaign efforts with millions in dark money . The precedent could not be more clear about a willingness by the politicians to give away public power to private interests for private gain (at the expense of the public interest), including on the specific situation of who is appointed to important boards and commissions (just like pension boards).
And even as the scandal has played out for years—and is still playing out—no ethics reforms or other changes have ever been made.
And that is the context we should never forget as we weigh every decision about power in Ohio. Especially the makeup of boards that make decisions involving tens of billions of dollars. Common sense, right?
At the hearing, for example, it was explained that Texas gives most of the power to pension appointments to the Governor. Maybe that makes sense in Texas, maybe it doesn’t.
But here in corrupt Ohio, that’s the last thing we should consider. Handing more pension power to politicians who’ve never shown an ounce of remorse for prior (and recent) pay-to-play scandals is about as bad as an idea could get.
Ask yourself: with billions of dollars in the balance, do you trust teachers and retirees to protect their funds more, or a crop of politicians who are awash in a pay-to-play culture.
It’s a no brainer, isn’t it?
My Twitter followers sure thought so:
Don’t you dare reduce or eliminate teachers/retirees voice in the governance of their own pension fund. They built it, and they’ve earned that voice. And they certainly have a right to have checks and balances against an Ohio political system with a long and ongoing track record of highly tainted board appointments.
And if you want to clean house, try starting with your own!
Day 168 — May 8, 2025
Donald Trump threatened retribution against his political enemies all campaign, including politicizing DOJ to execute that retribution.
Pam Bondi and Kash Patel both seem eager to have the DOJ play that role.
And yesterday, we saw yet another indication that this is actually happening with the opening of a criminal investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James:
Trump publicly called for James’ prosecution numerous times after she brought a civil fraud case against him after his first term.
And here it begins.
Share this post