Is the California State Teachers Retirement System required to review and correct contributions and credits based on employee misclassification?

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW 1. Is itrequired, mandated or an abuse of Discretion, for California State Teachers Retirement System to do a Review, Make a determination on the proper Contributions and Credits based on a recognized [by courts and or by the employee] misclassification where the credits and contributions would be different based on a Collective Bargaining Agreement that a probationary employee would be under but not an hourly paid misclassified Substitute under the California Constitution requiring adjustment and putting the member First and duty to the member above all else , EDC 22206 b, CCR 27100-27102, US Constitution 14th Amendment to Due Process and Equal Protection Clause. 2. CAN STRS CHERRY PICK ITS RIGHT TO AUDIT ONLY WHAT IT CHOOSES IN OVERPAYMENTS THAT ALLOWS THEM TO COLLECT THE OVERPAYMENT OF EMPLOYER AND THUS OVERPAYMENT TO THE MEMBER OF STRS THROUGH ITS audit and force the corrections and makes adjustments on Errors when to much or overpayment is done BUT NOT WHEN IT IS AN UNDERPAYMENT THAT HURTS THE MEMBER BUT NOT THE SYSTEM thus putting itself first over the member in violation of the California Constitution and FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND A PLAN ADMINISTRATOR AND IS IT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR MANDATORY DUTY OR BOTH? 3. DOES CalSTRS have to follow the similar laws under the federal law ERISA which covers private retirement systems in states that are not public ones and requires review audit and correction of errors for inaccurate reporting of a Class of employee and or one under a Collective Bargaining Agreement and thus also not having equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment when public laws all support having similar laws as ERISA? tl 4. Should the United States Supreme Court review for weather a public retirement system should take a the first step in making a determination especially when it must be done for a CalSTRS administrative review process [CCR 27100-27102] to obtain the right to a hearing on the merits and make CalSTRS do Declaratory Relief as requested in the Original Writ in Superior court and argued in appeal, rehearing and in State Supreme Court? 5. Do all State Teacher Retirement systems and or Public retirement systems have a Vested right to correct payments and corrections of inaccurate QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW 6. reporting based on a Class of employee regardless if they are under the CBA 7. Does the CBA give rise to Wu’s property rights because she was an employee with contributions to STRS but they were improper based on her Class of Employee under STRS rights to review. THUS CONCLUDE BECAUSE ONE HAS THIS RIGHT TO HER PROPERTY EVEN IF IT HAS NOT BEEN ENTERED INTO THE SYSTEM DUE TO SINISTER OR MISTAKE OF EMPLOYER? 8. Can CALSTRS Choose to only reviewing when there is Overpayment based on improper reporting or “spiked”, “spiking” a classification of an , employee and not when there is Underpayment, especially intentionally and this is the violation of equal Protection and or in violation of the California State Constitution as well as at least abuse of Discretion which would compel the agency to review and audit and make or enforce corrections as regularly done for Overpayment? Would this self interest of STRS to not have to pay out as much yet have the money for investment be unfair when California and retirement laws in the United States require to put members first even if it harms the systems? Mi 9. Should All State Public Retirement Systems do a transparent response, per Wu Declaratory relief request to issue a review or at least a response to a member complaint on credits and contributions in a timely manner so a member can take the next steps or file in superior court, and would that be just and proper under federal laws, Government Administrative Acts, , sound public policy, and at at least be an abuse of discretion not to have any formal Timely response until Wu filed a claim with General services after years of asking for a review ? 10. Because Wu is vested, No statute