Subscribe to US Naval Institute List
U.S. Naval Institute 2011 Member Ballot
Updates
April 18, 2011
A Statement from John F. Lehman, Honorary Chairman of the U.S. Naval Institute Board of Directors
April 15, 2011
Dear Members of the Board:
The U.S. Naval Institute is one of the great intellectual organizations in this country. I joined as an undergraduate at St. Joseph's University and later became a Life Member. Over the years I have fully participated in USNI as an author, as a speaker, and as a donor.
I have been a fan of the Naval Institute for my entire career—with the exception of six short years when I served as Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration. Somehow, the Institute seemed to get off track during that period. I began to read articles in Proceedings by mere lieutenants who disagreed with me. Shocking! But after I left government in 1987, the Institute returned to its grand tradition of truth and wisdom. Despite that experience—or maybe because of it—I feel deeply that this unique "Independent Forum" must remain open to participants of all ranks and stations. Listening to your critics is smart—even when it hurts.
It was therefore dismaying to read in the April issue of Proceedings, that this "Independent Forum" that plays such a vital role in the national security dialogue is now in jeopardy with a proposal to include "advocacy" in the Mission Statement. We all share a common goal—to takethe Institute to a brighter future as a stronger entity. Our challenge is how to get there and, in my view, changing the Mission Statement in the way proposed will not do that. There is a very compelling case that we are headed in the right direction now with two strong years of financial and operational performance highlighted in the 2010 Letter to Members.
It may be time for the Board to step back, reengage with our members, and build a strategic plan that we can all embrace. I concur with the views expressed by our 23rd CNO and former USNI President, Admiral Carl Trost, "USNI cannot be an Independent Forum and also be an advocate…There is no such thing as an independent advocate."
Respectfully,
John F. Lehman
March 18, 2011
Board of Directors Member Ballot Update
The ballot sent to members for the April 2011 Annual meeting included a vote on changing the U.S. Naval Institute's mission statement. In a special meeting on March 17, the Institute's Board of Directors agreed unanimously to delay any change in the Institute's mission statement whatever the outcome of the balloting. The Directors agreed that a wide-ranging and fully open debate led by the membership will provide the guidance needed to shape any change, if necessary. Directors and staff are now considering options for engaging the membership in this discussion, and will have further information available shortly.
March 10, 2011
Dear Members and Friends of the United States Naval Institute:
We are delighted by the current dialogue regarding the Mission Statement for the Institute cited below:
“The U.S. Naval Institute is an independent forum advocating the necessity of global seapower for national security and economic prosperity.”
The Board’s work regarding this Statement began in late 2009 and culminated in unanimous Board approvals at our meetings in July and October 2010 and again, with one dissent, in February 2011. The Board voted so because it believes that the Institute needs to gain financial stability and to be as relevant as possible to the Sea Services, to our members, to our donors, to our employees, and to the Nation itself, especially in these difficult times. We think it is possible both to be an independent forum which speaks “truth to power” and to advocate the importance of seapower.
You will recall that economic events of 2008-2009 were difficult for the Institute. Advertising revenues declined, donations shrank, and our endowment lost almost a third of its value. The Institute, led by our senior management team, became cash break-even in 2009 due to dramatic cost controls that remain in effect today. However, the reality is that print media business lines are not growing. The Naval Institute Foundation has enjoyed increases in major donor support and both corporate and foundation sponsorships in the last two years. But, there is no guarantee that these increases will continue, nor that past operational deficits will not reappear.
Of equal (if not greater) concern is that our membership, like many other nonprofit military associations, has declined significantly in the last two decades. These demographics speak directly to the relevance challenge that the Institute is facing and must be reversed if we are to survive. Our membership decline has provided another imperative for the Board to revitalize our mission statement. We must be relevant both to our traditional supporters and to prospective new ones.
The Board’s Mission Committee, led by VADM John Morgan, and including VADM Nancy Brown, VADM Norman Ray, and Mr. Donald Brennan, undertook to ask how the Institute can be most effective at a time when our military budgets will decline due to the United States’ federal deficits, just as external threats are increasing around the world. The Board agreed with the Mission Committee that the Sea Services are critical to our national defense, to American foreign policy and to protect maritime commerce and hence our economy.
We also believe that by proactively addressing the new national security environment, we will enhance our capability to attract members, donors and supporters and, specifically, increase our relevance to Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen. Finally, and most importantly, we found we could accomplish these changes without threatening the defining concept of the Institute, our independent forum, where our members can voice their views.
Under our revised mission statement, you will see an independent forum where we seek differing views and encourage tough examination of the issues, with both sides advocated. You will continue to see articles, books, conferences and an online experience that not only meet the traditionally high standards of USNI content, but which also will bring increased relevance to the world we confront now and the one we will confront tomorrow. In short, you will continue to see the Naval Institute as a thought leader in the national security arena.
The Preamble in the Constitution remains unchanged:
“The United States Naval Institute is a voluntary, private, nonprofit association formed in 1873 for the advancement of professional, literary, and scientific knowledge in the naval and maritime services, and the advancement of the knowledge of sea power.”
And, equally importantly, that Section 1 of Article XV of our Constitution (Limitations), continues verbatim:
“Notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Institute’s objectives are limited to and shall include only charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes within the meaning of those terms as used in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code, and all references to the objectives of the Institute shall be construed to include such limitation. The Institute shall not, except to an insubstantial degree, engage in any activities or exercise any powers that are not in furtherance of the objectives of the Institute as so limited.”
The Institute must still operate within these proven constraints. You will not see our Naval Institute as a “shill” for any service or program, a lobby to the Congress, or a house for one-track thinking, as some might worry. We know you would not wish or allow us to do so.
The Board’s intent in proposing that we revise the Mission Statement is to take the first important step in a strategic plan that will move the Institute to a stronger, more relevant future with increased financial stability. The Nation and the Sea Services need a vibrant, relevant Naval Institute to confront 21st century challenges – we must not go quietly into the night. The Board will work to keep us relevant, and we hope you will as well. We respectfully ask for your support and we look forward to continuing these efforts with you.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Waters
Chairman of the Board
Thomas L. Wilkerson
Major General, USMC (Ret)
Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2011
USNI Board Minority Report
Don’t Mess with the Naval Institute’s “DNA”!
Dear Members and Friends of the United States Naval Institute:
We the undersigned Directors of the Naval Institute write to ask that you vote against the revised Mission Statement for the Institute cited below:
“The U.S. Naval Institute is an independent forum advocating the necessity of global seapower for national security and economic prosperity.”
We emphatically disagree with their imperfectly crafted solution. The reasons are quite simple. The majority has not made the case that changing the mission statement and including the word “advocating” will somehow magically increase our relevance, grow our membership, and make us more economically viable.
In fact, we gain absolutely nothing from a word change to “Advocacy,” that justifies diminishing our image and heritage as the “independent forum” of America’s sea services. This is USNI’s brand. It is USNI’s uniqueness. This is USNI’s “DNA.”
Further, with this proposed change the Board has created its own version of the “perfect storm.” USNI members are expressing outrage not only at the proposed mission, but also at the Board’s cavalier approach to engaging the membership on the change.
In an effort to gather more information on the impact of the proposed change, Director Dr. J.P. London conducted an extensive survey, contacting former CNO’s, former SECNAV’s, 16 retired four star naval officers and other distinguished naval officers seeking their views. NONE supported the explicit “Advocacy” role for USNI, saying “lobby-look-alike” was not needed. All, however, strongly supported USNI taking on a more assertive “LEADERSHIP” role in framing the coming policy and budgetary debates – post Iraq/Afghanistan—about American seapower, maritime policy and sea service matters.
We do agree with the majority that the Institute faces two large challenges in this first decade of the 21st century – how to increase the relevance and the financial stability of the Institute. Again, unlike the majority, we believe the Institute is answering these challenges. In both 2009 and 2010 USNI delivered impressive financial and operational performances (see the 2010 Annual State of the Institute Letter to Members).
We see unmistakable signs of vigorous, exciting opportunities on the horizon. Strong, relevant and timely content in our conferences is delivering growth from exhibit sales and attendance; a fully developed eBook program is adding sales to readers using Kindle, iPads and every other conceivable electronic reader. The USNI Blog, launched less than two years ago is the world’s leading forum of its kind in the naval blogosphere. The prospects for continued growth in the midyears is very strong.
We believe continuing on course with exceptional leadership both in the USNI staff and on the Board itself is the right near term strategy to increase relevance, grow the membership, and gain a stronger financial position.
We also believe it is high time to conduct a major strategic review process to determine where we want to be in 5 and 10 years and then developing well defined strategy for how to get there, not by just changing the wording to the mission statement. We will answer the questions, “where do we put our focus and investment in new growth initiatives – in other words figuring out “where do we play” and “how do we win.” That only comes through a cogent strategy and focused execution – and, by keeping the membership engaged in the process.
Finally, while the Chairman suggests the USNI will still remain an independent forum, perception is reality and branding matters. Adding the word “Advocacy” will clearly have an adverse effect on the USNI’s brand and reputation as an independent forum. In too many ways, they are polar opposite terms.
How can USNI be an “Advocate,” yet concurrently promote an “Independent/Intellectual Forum?” It can’t. An “Independent Forum” is where differing views that challenge the conventional wisdom are shared and debated. It’s where dialogue brings new ideas and adds value. Advocacy, by definition, is the need to suppress or ignore dissenting views. The “Independent Forum” lives to seek these competing views.
The Majority’s revised Mission Statement is ill-conceived, will not fix either the relevance nor the finance issue and places the entire 137 years effort by generations of members of this unique professional association at risk, for no perceived gain.
The Board is on the cusp of making an irretrievable error and we respectfully ask that you join us and vote DISAPPROVING the new Mission Statement.
Sincerely,
Dr. J. P. London
Mark W. Johnson
B.J. Penn
March 3, 2011
A Statement from The U.S. Naval Institute Editorial Board: USNI independence – not USNI independence and advocacy
The United States Naval Institute rarely has contentious ballots. We, the USNI Editorial Board, the USNI membership, and others, have now experienced one of those rare instances. It is rare, because of the uncharacteristic lack of open debate concerning the historic motion to propose a change in the USNI mission statement. This motion has the potential to change the character of the institution: its exceptional standing among naval strategists throughout the world, its financial future, and the inevitable second and third order consequences unforeseen at the beginning of such a strategic change in direction. Freedom of thought and expression has been a central tenet of the Naval Institute itself and why, in part, we are witnessing the current passionate and vocal opposition to changing USNI’s mission statement. We welcome this discussion.
As the Editorial Board of the U.S. Naval Institute, we have a responsibility in as objective a manner as possible to review submissions for articles and provide advice to the Institute editors. We recognize that every submission is important and try to provide guidance on those articles that meet the standards of Proceedings, regardless of how controversial they may be, since it is that quality that most often stirs debate, gives pause to readers to think and, we hope, to respond in future issues. We also strive to promote the Institute’s role to provide an independent defense forum with articles representing all sides of the issues. Proceedings provides a vital and, we believe, a unique opportunity for well-articulated dialogue and encourage experienced writers to share their knowledge and newer writers to enter the arena of debate and share their own unique vision for the future of our sea services and, more broadly, our national security.
Therefore, we, the USNI Editorial Board, are submitting this letter to express our desire that the United States Naval Institute remain an independent forum – as it has since 1873. We strongly recommend that the reasons behind the mission statement change be provided to the membership through any USNI forum whether that is through Proceedings, the USNI blog, the USNI website and/or directly to the members via an email. As important as topic this is, an open, respectful debate regarding the benefits and challenges of such a change would help all members make an informed decision whether they vote “yea” or “nay.”
We understand that there are compelling reasons both for and against changing the mission statement. What we do not understand is why the membership has not been able to hear, debate, and decide collectively what the outcome should be for such a historic determination. As the noted author Norman Polmar wrote in a recent letter, one of his objections to the change was that the phrase “an independent forum advocating” is self-contradictory. We agree. Individuals may advocate certain points in their articles, but the independence of the Naval Institute allows for those views to be heard.
The opposition to the mission statement change has been argued by such noted individuals as former U.S. Naval Institute Chief Executive Officer Rear Admiral Tom Marfiak, USN (Ret), USNI award-winning author CAPT Victor Addison USN (Ret), Member of the U.S. Naval Institute Board of Directors Dr. Jack London, and Vice Admiral Bob Dunn, USN (Ret).
The independence of the Institute is paramount; without that openness, the Institute risks simply becoming an organ of whatever entity, whatever program, is deemed permissible by only a few, whomever those may be. It would be difficult to find a member or an author who is not a proponent of U.S. sea power, but we must remain open to those who define it differently or who might disagree with it. If we do not, then we remain stagnant in our thoughts, and in the 21st century with all its traditional, non-traditional and unforeseen challenges, that is a concept we can ill afford.
We wish to state for the record that we, the Editorial Board, vote “no” to the proposed mission statement change.
March 2, 2011
The U.S. Naval Institute 2011 Member Ballot included with the April Naval History magazine is invalid,
as it does not include an historic change to the Mission of the Naval Institute that has been recommended by the Board of Directors. If you voted using this ballot, it will not be counted.
The Member Ballot included with the March issue of Proceedings is correct in that it includes the proposed change to the USNI mission statement. Please vote/re-vote using this ballot.
Alternately, you may vote online. To do so, you will need to use your Member Number to log in, if you need to locate this number, please call our Member Service Department 800.233.8764 or email member@usni.org.
Members who only receive Naval History magazine will receive a revised ballot in the mail, which is mailing the week of 1 March.
We apologize for any confusion and thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Wilkerson
Major General, USMC (Ret.)
Chief Executive Officer
February 25, 2011
For all Members of the Naval Institute,
In the 2011 annual ballot the Board of Directors has recommended an historic change to the Mission of the Naval Institute to "advocating the necessity of global seapower." The Board believes that the United States must support and maintain a strong, global naval capability and that a proper role for the Institute is to be a proactive advocate for that goal.
This is an important initiative from our Board of Directors; one that deserves your full attention as a member.
The full ballot will appear in the March Proceedings, and is now online here, together with a more comprehensive justification for the new Mission Statement.
In keeping faith with the 137 year tradition of our professional association as the "Independent Forum of the Sea Services" I encourage members to engage on this important initiative.
Share your views, and cast your ballot NLT April 11, 2011.
Thomas L. Wilkerson
Major General, USMC (Ret.)
Chief Executive Officer
The 4-11-11 vote
I am disappointed in the manner in which the vote was held. While the fault lies with me for not noticing that an issue was being moved, many people are quite busy. If a ballott was sent to my home, its probably unopened in my USNI folder. This week while running to the airport on business, I grabbed my latest Proceedings to read. Net net, I misssed the vote. I would have appreciated a better warning.
Opposed to Mission Statement Change
Dear Board of Directors,
Due to email access problems yesterday (11 Apr), I was unable to vote on the matter of the proposed Mission Statement change.
Had I been able to vote, I would have cast NO. The minority Board of Director's opposition properly captures the essence of the issue, which is that the revised mission statement clearly moves the USNI from an organization providing a forum for independent perspectives and discussions to one of Navy advocacy. Given the communications mechanisms used by the USNI, advocacy is tantamount to lobbying. This provides a influence against open discussions that would include critism of Navy activities and less reduce opportunities for debate. In short, this change in mission statement will put the USNI on a slippery slope to lobbying vice objective discussion. Its an unwise, short term term tactical move that belays the long term purpose of the USNI.
Very Respectfully, Peter H.
Change in Mission
I am almost 90 years of age and a Life Member of USNI for longer than I can remember.
I am vehemently opposed to the proposed "advocacy" mission statement. No matter how you say it or spell it, the advocacy statement of mission will ring the wrong bells anywhere the USNI and Proceedings are known, and that means in many, many professional places.
For this one thing, can we PLEASE not bow to the current Politically Correct atmosphere and all that comes with it.
Get hold of yourselves, Chairman Waters and CEO Wilkerson, and take this terribly lousy idea off the table.
Changing the mission of USNI
NO. NO. No. If we have to, lets vote in a new BOD. DO NOT CHANGE USNI. Don't try to fix something that is not broke
Advocacy vs Inquiry
Teaching management to undergraduates and MBA's I emphasize the difference between advocacy and inquiry. Advocacy is what we pay lawyers to do, argue our case, even if it is flawed. Inquiry is our best effort to find the right answer. There are already several advocacy organizations for the Navy (such as the Navy League) and for various groups within the Navy (such as the ROA Navy Section). The Naval Institiute stands nearly alone as a forum within which the efforts of generations have led to a collective search for the right answers regarding the application of sea power. There must be some way to preserve that valuable function.
A few thoughts from the outside looking in
I live external to the US; but have some concerns over the change in wording and would like to offer the following thoughts.
a. Management I was taught is the art of working with and through people to achieve your goal not at them. If this proposition was to succeed, then the rationale for both the for and against cases needs to be succinctly described so an informed decision can be made not just a throw away statement on a ballot paper.
b. I am a pragmatist by nature and realise that at times financial factors may take precedence over governance protocols. This however should not come at the price of causing great discord in the membership of an organisation.
Alan
CHANGE IN MISSION
Having been reverted to previous grade and permanent rank,I cannot emphasize enough and herein repeat that the Naval/Military Officer Corps should remain apolitical,not denying the duty for strong debate anywhere in print or Cyber Space.Regulations have the force of law,and in all fairness I believe the reforms by the board werre well intentioned,however much as many of us may have disagreed on the proposed mission changes."Pull together USNI Member Crew".LT USCG ret former USNR and LTC USA.Membership is enjoyed and for professional development and a usefull help to the entire Fleet and Maritime Community.Remember we blog at our own risk but fail to do so at our nation`s peril.Act or "Live with it".Choice is not denied the commissioned,neither are consequences.
Every vote counts...
Hold up here!
As a member on and off since 2002, I am writing to express my concern.
Yesterday, I received my the March issue of Proceedings in the mail, with the ballot enclosed. Now, according to the 11 APRIL, 2011, giving me less than 30 days to respond. Item #3 Approval of the Amendment to the Constitution and Bylaws of USNI caught my attention, so I looked back at the email notices from USNI, to find a discussion as to why is was even put on the ballot.
All I could find were links back to the home page. Nothing else in my email inbox or my mail box explaining how and why the board came to put this forth. No member should have to "Google" a ballot item to find out the facts, or get a phone call saying, "This is what that little change is wording really means!"
The confusion with which ballot was valid and which was not...and people having trouble voting using the online system has only added to the frustration of feeling like this is being slipped by a few folks who may not read their issue of Proceedings right when they get it or visit the USNI web page on a daily basis.
I am sure that I echo others sentiments here -- a change of this nature should be opened within a public forum for discussion before ANY vote is put forth. Even if the end result is that the change is accepted, there could be no argument that due diligence wasn't exercised.
For the record, I very much appreciated what Norman Polmar and the Editorial Board had to say on this matter.
Melinda K. Day
Chantilly, VA
Mission Change? NO!
As a Life Member, I have already made my objections known regarding the proposed mission change and manner in which it has been raised and "discussed" with the membership. "Run Silent, Run Deep" is a great work by Edward Beach - it should not be the guiding principle behind effecting such a substantive change to the Institute. To do so is cravenly action at best, and dismissively contemptuous of the Institute's heritage and membership, living and passed, at worst.
What's the Rush?
As a long-standing member of both USNI and the Navy League, I am at a loss to understand why we are being rushed to vote on this change. It reminds me of the tactics being used in the State of Wisconsin by its governor. I am fully in agreement with Norman Polmar. This needs to be explained and aired out over the course of several issues of the Proceedings before a vote is taken. Ron Scott, USN, Ret.
Vote NO on Change of Mission
Keep USNI to be the lofty forum it has been for decades and don't turn it into just another lobbying group
Vote NO on mission change
Mission Modification? NO!
Advocacy is only one aspect of the Naval Institute's utility. In fact, those other facets providing discussion and dissent are the ones which give the Proceedings legitimacy and status. To sacrifice that reputation for some propagandistic pelf perverts the the very purpose of the Institute.
Every officer knows or should know the value of channels of argument or dissent. ("With all due respect sir"). That the Board of Directors does not brings into question their understanding of the Navy and the suitability of their membership in the governing body. The Marine Corps operates under a different mantra that is less ameanable to intellectual argument but needs and uses it just the same.
Changing the mission statement
I agree there has been insufficient discussion of the rationale for this change.
Moreover, doesn't the Navy League of the U.S. already control the advocacy domain?
V/R,
Paul Withington
Mission Change
Its seems that there has not been sufficient discussion (perhaps only limited to the Board of Directors?) among the membership on this historic motion to change the Mission. I also understand that there is no record detailing the reasons for and against such a proposal.
A mission change to one of advocacy has significant potential to be a self-inflicted wounding to the Institute's renown for independentt thinking.
Our nation needs broadly educated and globally oriented thinkers to confront the challenges of the 21st century. Not advocates for a specific military means. Here, USNI is at the top of its game in this regard--known for its strategic and critical thinking on a variety of international security issues. It is difficult to see the value of attempting to turn back the clock to another era.
Is there an agenda of a few--and not the consensus of the membership, at work here?
For some of the latest commentary as of March 2 to help sort through this backroom agenda and get it out in the open for all to discuss: http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/us-naval-institute-genes...
Semper fi,
Col Phil Skuta, USMC
Proposed Change in USNI Mission
I find the proposed change in Mission as it relates to the publication of Proceedings as an effort by the Board of Directors to eliminate from consideration any criticism with which they do not agree of the status of the Navy (and Marine Corps) force in being, the Mission of the Navy and its future weapons development and force structure in the light of a fast changing world..
This change will enable the Institute to become identical with the Navy League, whose separate mission I applaud. Let the League continue.
It will indirectly as well help to fold the Navy into a purple suited organization.
The U.S. Navy has never had a greater need for leaders able to articulate a vision for the its role in assuring the National Security of the Republic. The Institute provides the forum in which officers with courage and a love of country and the U.S.Navy can put themselves properly at risk -- a sort of editorial 'harm's way."
Shifting the expressed mission of the Institute will do irreparable harm to the Naval Service and to the professional development of its future leaders.
A vote of No is necessary to stop this move.
Vote No
I concur, we do not need another advocay we group, we continue to need the very reasonable and open forum that has sutained USNI for 137 years. I intend to vote no, but in keeping with that 137 year tradition I wouild much prefer an honest and open discussion of this proposal.
Voting ???
Where is your ballot?
MY Vote YES as recommended .
Member Ballot
The member ballot can be accessed at: http://www.webbasedsurveys.com/usni11/
USNI BALLOT
All, Such a change to the basic mission of the USNI after 137 years requires (demands?) a full discussion in the Proceedings and possibly at an "all hands meeting" prior to being enacted. This is a basic change to the structure of OUR organization. Norman Polmar (member since age 15)
Change in Mission of the USNI
I would suggest that one issue of the PROCEEDINGS be used as a "both sides debate" regarding : 1. the rationale behind the move
2. what is to be gained by this move
3. what is to be lost,if anything, by this move
4. how does it benefit the membership
5. how does it benefit the NAVY
Until this series of questions and any other relevant issues raised by other members are answered, I suggest that this issue be tabled and re-submitted ONLY after the membership has received suitable intelligence on this matter.
Right on, Norm, as usual.
Right on, Norm, as usual. Fully concur. Working hard to finish books for your review (as you promised in 1983!). I'm a trifle late. John
Some major, but unknown, change to the USNI C&B . . .
It seesm very interesting that only a month after I submitted a short piece for publication that disagreed with Norman Polmar's tieing George Steinbrenner to Wayne Meyer, Mr. Polmar calls our attention to a major change of magnitude to the USNI.
I agree with Mr. Polmar's conclusion & think more (has there been ANY?) discussion of this proposed change take kpalce before voting.
I am trying, but seem to be unable, to vote NO for lnow on ALL! I cannot seem to find the good or bad ballot in my issues, & cannot seem to find a ballot or exlanation in this web site.
The long tradition of openness by the USNI calls for better than this.
What do we do now, coach?
Post new comment