Court sides with ousted STRS member, says governor overstepped authority to remove him
Watch a previous report on the legal battle between STRS board member Wade Steen and Gov. Mike DeWine in the video player above.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – The governor overstepped his authority when he removed a member of the state teacher pension board, a court has ruled.
Ohio’s 10th District Court of Appeals sided with ousted State Teachers Retirement System investment expert Wade Steen on Thursday, ruling that Gov. Mike DeWine did not have the constitutional authority to remove Steen from his opinion on the pension board. The decision cements a magistrate’s recommendation that Steen be reinstated to the board to complete his term.
Steen sued DeWine and other STRS board members last June after DeWine, who reappointed Steen to the board in 2020, replaced him with a little more than a year left to his term. DeWine’s office cited reports of Steen’s poor attendance record for board meetings, reports Steen has disputed. Retirees at the time told NBC4 that they believed DeWine replaced Steen, who advocated for sweeping reforms at STRS, because the recent election of another progressive board member tipped the balance of power.
Steen will attend the STRS meeting Thursday afternoon.
Steen was vocal in calling for changes to STRS after the system paid out $10 million in investment staff bonuses in a fiscal year ending in June 2022 while the pension fund for teachers lost more than $5 billion. Last April, STRS proposed setting aside another $11.1 million for performance-based bonuses for the staff in 2024 — a 30.6% increase from the prior year’s incentives.
Steen had argued that once appointed, he was entitled to due process if DeWine wanted to remove him. His complaint accused DeWine of usurpation of office. In February, a magistrate agreed with Steen. DeWine's office said it would wait on the court's final opinion.
At oral arguments in late March, the attorney for Brian Perera, who now holds Steen’s board seat, argued that due process statutes weren’t written to protect the governor’s original appointees – only the replacements the governor picks. A judge on the panel called the argument “absurd.”