COOPERATION – ANOTHER VIEW
Contributed by
Association member Rosado (“Rosie”) Wiseman – 09/06/2004
The most recent pay-off for working together that SDCREA garnered from SDCERS was its board's decision to hold its August board meeting one day before the normal date without notifying the SDCREA president or other SDCREA board members who, in the past, routinely received meeting agendas. Inasmuch as SDCERS notified its board members one month prior to the meeting, one must conclude, realistically, that the intended purpose was to prevent SDCREA's participation. It was a shrewd coup--unethical maybe, but shrewd.
SDCERS has demonstrated its adeptness at this level of co-operation numerous times in the past. For instance, during the Council meeting on July 19, Douglas McCalla recommended forbidding the appointment to the SDCERS board of anyone in the financial industry. The Council foolishly adopted the idea, which eliminated Diane Shipione and deprived the retirees of the only person on the board with even a modicum of financial/pension experience. Perhaps even more important, it achieved removal of the only board member who has stood fast in the interest of the retirees. Fortunately, when the financial media took umbrage and widely criticized the Council, the vote was rescinded.
SDCERS' co-operation has cost the retirees' pension fund millions of dollars in questionable management and administration. Experience tells us that its co-operation has been achieved in the past and will be in the future only by demanding it. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, speak softly and keep Mike Conger's phone number handy. [Mike Conger is the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the Conger and the Gleason-Wood litigations – Ed]