First things first:

All of us lost a dedicated servant to our cause. Robert "Bob" Hinshaw left our chaotic world very recently. He left it a better place, especially for retired workers. While many retired, Bob and his life mate Phyllis chose to work tirelessly as Treasurer and co-worker for our association. I first met Bob 40 some years ago. We occasionally crossed paths within Pac Bell. He was a good man then. And, he was even a better man when, upon leaving life too early, he made his retirement permanent. Bob’s character and dedication is notable. I will not forget it. It was my privilege to serve with Bob on our Board of Directors. Knowing what Bob accomplished as Treasurer in a relatively short time reminds us we are never to old to act. He did. His accomplishments with Telco’s treasury will serve all retirees. We must go on. A paraphrase:" So much to do, so little time to do it". The job of protecting Retirees’ pensions and benefits is left for us to do. I sense if we do not do it no one will. On the other hand, there are many others in association with NRLN that are of like mind. And, I happen to believe there those we elect and re-elect that are listening to our voices. Thinking, if we do not do what is right for this growing cadre of retired workers, Who is next? If they can be wronged, am I next. Yes.

A final note: The Telco Annual Meeting was a success. There were not hundreds attending, about 60 including the Board members. What was notable is the interest and offers to help to do something. Something to help the cause. A gathering of like minded members. They wrote checks. They offered to volunteer and contact their elected officials to contact other retirees and urge them to join up-join the cause-it is of course, our cause. The members of the Board and Officers shared the usual Information about what Telco is accomplishing in concert with the NRLN at the congressional level. We are making progress. The next 1.5 years is a window, a critical time period to do our work. I urge you to take interest in your retirement pension and benefits. Please, do not believe our past employers will not take what they can to improve the company bottom line. That may be their job. Our job is to remind them and Congress we must be treated fairly. We will not go quietly into the night. We vote. We attend share holder meetings. We will influence others. Just read your paper. Watch the news. Watch what is happening on Wall Street. Vote, Vote, Vote. Vote with your money-Vote with your feet. Vote with Your calls and letters. Be heard. All this sounds good but we must do what Robert "Bob" Hinshaw has done
ACT.

Charles E. Gilbert
President, Telco

A large number of Telco Retirees have encountered difficulties with AT&T’s program to "eliminate paper copies" where retirees have computer access. The rational behind this program is "reduction of costs" to AT&T.

We brought this issue to the attention of AT&T benefit managers, who reiterated AT&T included a statement on all retiree documents (where the information could be transmitted to the retirees e-mail address). A sample of this information is the following, which appeared on Fidelity Service Center Pension statements: "In order to reduce your mail clutter and reduce the risk of confidentiality breaches, we will no longer be mailing monthly statements. If you would like to continue receiving a paper statement by mail every month, please call the Fidelity Service Center at 1-800-416-2363."

(This same issue was brought before AT&T benefit executives approximately two years ago, in a discussion concerning "retiree communications". The association was promulgating the restoration of AT&T’s defunct SBC’s Monthly Update, which had been discontinued some months before.)

AT&T’s responded, stating: "We plan on providing retirees access to our employee computer information system, thereby eliminating ‘paper documents’."

Following graduation from Point Loma High School (San Diego), Phyllis went to work for the Bank of America.  She also worked for Bank of America in Sacramento.   She later transferred back to San Diego. Phyllis married Bob Hinshaw in 1971 when Bob was an Employment Manager for Pacific Bell.

Her Pacific Bell career started as a staff clerk before transferring as a Service Rep in the residence division in San Diego.  Her "company career" also included a sales position in the phone center as well as "designing telephone systems" for Pac Bell customers doing business from their homes.

She later earned her Real Estate license and for pleasure became a licensed pilot.  She graduated from the University of Redlands with a BS Degree in Business Administration.  She also formed her own "collection business" collecting monies from attorneys who were negligent in paying their "expert witness fees."  Most recently, she was the Treasurer of a Republican Women’s organization.’

Over and above all of these attributes, Phyllis and Bob were the TelCo Retirees’ "Treasurers" working together in processing membership renewals, collecting and depositing funds, updating our corporate roster and interfacing with our Webmaster.

Welcome Aboard, Mrs. Hinshaw!

… The Olde Testament Book of Ecclesiastes tells us "To everything there is a season and a time for every purpose". To the retirees of Pacific Bell, this is "our season of discontent". Changes in telephone concession service (for many retirees), health benefits that demand new co-pays or higher ones… and now a major threat to our promised healthcare itself!!

Two weeks ago the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (E.E.O.C.) reaffirmed an earlier decision (2000) to enforce the "Age Discrimination in Employment" Statute. This statute stipulated employers will not violate the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act)… if they provide retiree health benefits that differ based upon whether or not the retiree is eligible for Medicare.

To understand this ruling it’s necessary to be aware that "no existing federal law requires a private employer to provide any health benefit to its employees or retirees"!!! Thus, an employer may reduce or eliminate any health benefit to retirees without being in conflict with the ADEA! (The E.E.O.C has interpreted this ruling to permit corporations to reduce or eliminate health benefits for Medicare-eligible retirees!)

Based upon the past actions of AT&T as regards retiree benefits (telephone concession, increases in medical co-pays, and drastic reductions in Yellow Page retirees death benefits), the Telco Retirees Board of Directors voted to establish a "legal defense fund" for the protection of our (Pacific Bell, SBC, AT&T) promised health benefit plans. To that end, an initial amount of $30,000 has been identified in our budget of 2008 for this specific purpose.

We have also increased our annual membership fees to the National Retiree Legislative Network (NRLN) from $5,168 to $7,000. (The increase is to support the NRLN’s current plans for the implementation of a major congressional program to overturn the E.E.O.C. ruling). We are informed that AARP is equally involved in this issue.

During the past years our association has been the recipient of substantial amounts of "donations" that are being submitted with member’s "renewals" (over $3,000 in 2007). Since January 1^st, 2008 we have received 27 individual contributions from members, ranging from a total membership renewal of $50 to $300!!! I have talked with each of these members expressing the appreciation of our association for their ongoing support and asked for permission to identify them in this newsletter. I am very pleased to share their names with you:

Pat Krone, Don Vandeventer, Laura Oliver, Gary Pitcher, Judy Earner, Marjory Wilkins, Betty Cosmos, James Yaple, Paul Hardy, Jeanne McMullin, Ron Murray, Dave Carroll, Louis King, Alwyn Fox, George Myers, Tiney Simon, Doris Williams, Robert Stagg, Ernestine Hewitt, Mitchell Leslie, Phyliss Mattice, Walter Benson, Charles Cook, Ronald Johnson, E. Malinowski, E.V. Moore, Errol Holmes, Harry Carroll, Dave Smith, Arlene Wright.

(If I have missed anyone in our "count", I do apologize for it).

To supplement our "legal defense fund" for the protection of our benefits, we are planning to add these "donations" to the $30,000 already allocated within our 2008 budget.

Your Officers and Directors have committed ourselves and our resources to overcome this extremely critical ruling by the E.E.O.C. We ask for your continued support in this endeavor.

Sumner K. Emery, Chairman

The association has received inquiries from time to time requesting information on the AT&T Long-Term Care Insurance Plan.

We have pursued this request and find that the insurance plan only applies to the following retirees: a) eligible retirees of legacy SBC, Inc. (Southwestern Bell, Inc.), b) eligible retirees of SBC, Inc. subsidiaries, c) eligible legacy AT&T corporation management retirees.

The plan is administered by the John Hancock Insurance corporation.

"The AT&T Group Long-Term Care Insurance Plan is an optional, participant-pay, all plan that pays benefits for extended care when a covered individual has an ongoing illness or disability and cannot care for him or herself."

Retirees from Pacific Bell, Pacific Telesis Group are not eligible for this benefit plan.

Recently, your Chairman requested a status report from the Washington, D.C. law firm prosecuting the Pacific Bell Telephone Concession Class Action lawsuit.

Here, for your information, is the status of the Class Action lawsuit originally filed in San Antonio, TX on March 31, 2006.  (Representing Mr. Frank Stoffels, a Pacific Bell retiree living in Nevada.)

Since a Class Action lawsuit cannot force a company to "reinstate" the benefit, it can obtain a "cash settlement" for the loss of the benefit.  The TelCo Retirees Association, Inc. requested a $20 per month cash reimbursement for those Pacific Bell retirees impacted. (Since the "final" monthly loss was equated to $25 and we cannot sue for full reimbursement...we elected to go forward with the amount of $20.)

The following information was provided by R. Joseph Barton, Esq. from the Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (law firm).

SK,

I apologize for not sending you an update on this sooner.  As I think you know, our trial was scheduled for the end of November 2007.  About a month before trial, the Court determined that he would empanel an advisory jury.  In ERISA cases, there is no right to a jury, but a judge has the right to empanel an advisory jury; however, unlike juries with which you are probably familiar, the conclusions of an advisory jury (as the name implies) are not binding on the judge as the judge must make the ultimate determinations.

The advisory jury was asked to answer 5 questions: (1) is it a plan, (2) was it maintained by SBC/AT&T, (3) was SBC/AT&T acting as an employer in connection with the Telephone Concession, and if the jury concluded yes on all three questions, then it needed to find whether it was either (4) designed for the purpose of providing retirement income or (5) did it result in the deferral of income by employees.  SBC/AT&T disputed all 5 questions.  We need win on the first three and then either question number 4 or 5.

We concluded the trial on November 30, 2007 and the advisory jury returned a partial verdict.  The jury answered yes to the first 3 questions, and deadlocked on question 4, but answered no to question no. 5.  As this was an advisory jury, the Court did not have the jury continue deliberating or retry the case (as would be necessary if there was a regular jury).  Instead, he had us submit briefs in early December and we are awaiting a decision from the Court.  As the Court is not bound by the jury's findings, he could accept or reject the jury's findings on questions 1-3 and/or 5; however, the jury's findings in our favor on questions 1-3 are certainly helpful.  And, although we remain hopeful that the judge will rule in our favor on question number 4, I have no way of

knowing what he will do.  If the Court finds for us on questions 1-3 and/or question 4 or 5, then we will have won this phase of the case and proceed to Phase 2, which will largely determine the amount owed.

We have not yet received a decision from the Court, but I will keep you posted.  I had delayed in updating you on this, hoping that I would be able to tell you what the final decision was, but at this point we are still waiting.

Please feel free to call me with questions.

Joe