This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
When the ballot for the election of the 1989 Board of Control for our Naval Institute dropped through my mail slot last November, I had a question that troubles me still: Why are the majority of the members of the U. S. Naval Institute precluded from serving as elected officers in our professional naval association? That’s right—this year’s ballot offered 16 nominees, all active-duty, serving, regular naval officers, for eight positions. The Institute’s constitution and by-laws provide,
“Only Regular Members and Regular Life Members who are regular officers on the active-duty list of the U. S.
Navy, Marine Corps or Coast Guard shall be eligible to hold the offices of President, Vice President and Director.” (Emphasis added.) This leaves reserve officers, both active and inactive, and all retired officers ineligible for election. Neither are enlisted members eligible to serve on the board.
This is bad policy.
Active-duty, regular officer members of the Naval Institute (who are eligible for election to office) number some 17,543 of a total membership of 111,032. (These numbers were drawn in January.) Active-duty reserve officers, regular and reserve retired officers, and inactive duty reservists (not eligible for election to office) number some 20,792. There are 72,697 members in various other categories. The group from which elected officers may be drawn represents but 45.7% of the officer membership of the Institute and only 15.8% of the total membership.
Because the bulk of the members may not serve as elected officers in the Institute does not mean they are unrepresented: Regular and life members do have a vote. And the Institute’s constitution does give the board leeway to appoint additional directors: “The Board of Control may, from time to time, appoint to the Board of Control and the Editorial Board one or more directors for the purpose of better representation of the membership or acquiring such special and unique expertise as may be helpful to the board in its management of the Institute and its
. Marine Corps (Retired)
programs. The Board of Control may, in its discretion, accord voting privileges to no more than two such appointed directors at any one time.” (Emphasis added.) Note that even though two of the majority could serve as appointees on the Board of Control, their right to a seat and a vote is at the forbearance of the elected officers.
It appears that the original drafters of the constitution believed that the Institute would consist only of regular serving officers. In later years the document’s stewards must have believed that it was in the best interest of the Institute for regular serving officers to control its administration. Apparently, the question of fair representation was not a concern. (This makes some sense, because when the Institute was founded in 1873 the organization had no reserve or enlisted members.)
Sometime in the Institute’s evolution its officers must have decided that the board should be more representative of the membership. This is probably what led to the addition of provisions for appointing non-active duty members to the board. However, note that the provision limits the number of voting appointed directors to two, while there are eight elected officers on the board. This means that the majority membership of the Institute could have a mere 20% voice in its deliberations.
Serving on the current board are an active-duty Naval Reservist and a junior Navy officer, both appointed. The Institute tries to include an officer from the Navy’s submarine, aviation, and surface warfare communities on the board, as well as one each from the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. Female officers have served on previous boards and there is one nominated for 1989. No retired officer, regular or reserve, has ever served on the Naval Institute’s board.
Are these limits on the membership of the Board of Control good for the Institute? The association is vigorous, which is some argument for maintaining the status quo. We could also argue that serving officers who have their fingers on the pulse of the contemporary naval services should control our professional organization. Certainly, one of the finest naval journals in the
world, Proceedings, should be oriented to serving officers. But perhaps the Institute would be even more effective with a governing body that came closer to representing the diversity of its membership. Given their wealth of experience and their freedom to view the active service from a more independent perspective, reserve and retired officers might well be valuable additions to the Institute’s elected board.
As for enlisted personnel, in my service on the Board of Governors of the Marine Corps Association and the Board of Directors of the Marine Corps Historical Foundation, I can’t recall many circumstances when the mature professional judgment of their senior enlisted board members was anything but a boon.
Besides being a boost to the Institute’s vitality and independent perspective, electing retired, reserve, and enlisted members to the board is a matter of equity. The provision for appointment is not sufficient, because it does not guarantee representation for these groups. Moreover, a 20% representation is no more than tokenism.
Granted, reserve, retired, and enlisted naval personnel have not taken to the streets of the Naval Academy Yard to protest their exclusion from elective office in the Naval Institute. But surely the organization would be better served by a concerned membership that wanted to participate in the process at every level. The Institute should be encouraging a broader, more energetic participation from all its members.
Because of the differences in the ways the various military associations maintain their data bases, comparing their membership statistics is not very meaningful. Nevertheless, it still seems significant that the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps professional organizations have retired and reserve officers as well as enlisted personnel serving on their boards. The Naval Institute should, as well.
Colonel Scharfen is a senior scientist at TITAN Systems, Inc., having retired from the Marine Corps in 1973 after a 30-year career. He is a previous contributor to Proceedings and is currently reporting on Marine Corps affairs for the Naval Review.
102
Proceedings / April 1989