Showing posts with label United States Naval Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States Naval Institute. Show all posts

Saturday, December 7, 2024

USNI Happy Hour - Newport

A typical "smoker" at Naval Auxillary Air Station (NAAS) Oceana, in which a hangar has been converted into a boxing auditorium. Note the Navy band at left, in uniform, the aircraft under repair in the background and the (admittedly few) female guests. These events were sailors' entertainment in the mostly rural part of Princess Anne County (Virginia Beach).
From the USNI Blog.
Mid 20th Century the “Happy Hour” was a common occurrence in the USN. It was an opportunity for sailors to blow off some steam, and maybe even get a little exercise. Also known as a “smoker,” in those days a “Happy Hour” was usually series of boxing or wrestling matches when the ships weren’t busy.

In our post-prohibition world it means something a bit different, but still gives us a chance to blow off some steam. On Thursday, 12 December, The Naval Institute will host a Happy Hour in Newport, Rhode Island for members, prospective members, or anyone who wants to show up to talk about daring “to read, think and write” about sea power and national security.

A member of our Editorial Board will be there to answer questions, and some writers and thinkers who have contributed to the Institute to share some of their experiences. While there will be no punches thrown, sparing over strategy and grappling with the naval issues of the day will be encouraged.

If you are in Newport, please join us to splice the main brace at the USNI Happy Hour/Social:

The Malt
150 Broadway
Newport, RI
12 December 2013, 1700 until the tab runs out or the grog runs dry.
More of this.

Every year for the past several I have found a way to get a hold of the unclassified final winning papers from the Spring graduating class at the Naval War College. Yes, I've even driven from Albany to Newport and attended the awards ceremony to beg for copies of papers. Every year in reflection, some of those papers represent the best thing I read all year - and I read a lot.

I am convinced the Naval War College is, consistently every year, one the most incredible idea factories on the topic of seapower in the world. It is unfortunate that few of those ideas are exposed to the general public despite these papers being unclassified. In seeking the reason why, I have found that the overwhelming majority of students believe it is better for their career not to have their work published, no matter how good it is. That perception says a lot, and nothing good.

Personally, I think the NPS model of posting everything online is better, and I do hope one day the Naval War College takes a similar approach.

I have long believed that USNI is the one organization that could positively make a difference to the situation if they can get folks who write excellent material to take a few hours, condense those works, and somehow funnel the material into USNI for publishing via the range of publishing options available at the Institute (Proceedings, Web, Multiple Article Collections on a Single Topic for Books, etc.). This "Happy Hour" appears to me an excellent opportunity to move the ball down the road a bit, and I hope every one in Newport with an interest in Seapower shows up to support this activity - both faculty and students.

Tuesday, July 26, 2024

New CEO at US Naval Institute

Vice Admiral Peter H. Daly has been appointed the 52nd Chief Executive Officer of the United States Naval Institute. In my opinion, this is terrific news and represents the best news that organization has had in awhile.

USNI is a dumpster fire right now under the leadership of Steve Waters and the current Board of Directors, and the primary reason I have avoided discussing USNI on the blog for the last many weeks is because I had heard Peter Daly was on the short list for CEO, and I didn't want to write or say anything that might in any way influence him not to take the job. USNI is in one of those places where a steady hand is needed at the helm during this turbulent time, and I believe Peter Daly can be the person to get the organization through this troubled period.

General Tom Wilkerson will be replaced immediately (sometime this week) as CEO. Thank you Tom Wilkerson for being a mentor over the last several years, and I appreciate very much the friendship we have developed over that time. I also truly appreciate that your work over the past year that has without question saved the Naval Institute Press from the desires of the Board of Directors to outsource it, not to mention get the US Naval Institute onto more firm financial ground during a difficult economic time for everyone. Every member who attended the members meeting was exposed to the blatant dishonesty of men like Steve Waters, and as a Naval Institute member I appreciate that Tom handled this difficult situation with class.

As I said during the members meeting in April, I am very excited about the future of USNI. Peter Daly's appointment reinforces my excitement about the future of USNI. I think I safely speak for the vast majority of members who attended the members meeting back in April that once Steve Waters and his disreputable pals on the Board of Directors are gone after the next election, the future for USNI is very bright.

Saturday, April 30, 2024

US Naval Institute: Someone Lied For 1 Million Dollars

Ever since the Naval Institute meeting Friday morning I've had a hard time focusing because something happened I could not quite make sense of at the time. Someone lied for 1 million dollars.

Several months ago I recruited a post command CDR to join the US Naval Institute, before the mission statement change became an issue. The CDR had written articles for my blog and was actively engaged as a writer in other places online, so I kept encouraging him to engage with the Naval Institute. Since joining last year he has been one of several officers who has consulted with several USNI staff offering ideas towards helping facilitate outreach and participation among more of the younger officers in the Navy that folks inside USNI have long recognized they have had a problem reaching.

During the Q&A period of the meeting, this post command CDR held what is best described as a Captains Mast during the meeting with the Board of Directors. He asked a relatively open but specific question:

Was there ever any discussion or money spent towards divesting the US Naval Institute of the Naval Institute Press. He phrased the question multiple ways and asked multiple times. It was the first time I had ever attended a Captain's Mast.

Steve Waters said no, and in Captain's Mast style, the CDR pointed and asked several folks around the room including legal counsel and other Board of Directors present. All of them replied they have never even discussed nor looked at nor funded any effort to divest USNI of the Press. Then CEO Tom Wilkerson chimed in saying that Tom had gone out and raised $1 million from investors towards protecting the Naval Institute Press, with donors including 2 Secretary of the Navy's and Tom Clancy.

I have heard rumors and have seen emails from members stating that the Naval Institute Press was indeed being looked at by the Board of Directors as being outsourced or otherwise sold off. I called Tom later on Friday to confirm exactly what the $1 million was for, and asked him if at any point he told any of these people donating money that the Naval Institute Press was under threat by the Board of Directors while raising money. Tom replied he had done exactly that.

So here is the problem USNI faces. Either Tom Wilkerson has lied to 2 Secretary's of the Navy and important past contributors to USNI like Tom Clancy in an effort to raise 1 million dollars to protect the Naval Institute Press from a threat that never existed, or Steve Waters, legal counsel, Nancy Brown, and Don Brennan all lied to the CDR holding Captain's Mast on the member meeting floor in front of all of the members present when they said they had never even discussed it at any time.

Who is telling a 1 million dollar lie, because this is a serious problem.

I feel very disturbed by this. Someone at the very top of USNI leadership is telling a lie worth a million dollars. It troubled me when I heard the question and actually distracted me badly standing in line waiting to ask my question and quite frankly, I haven't been able to think about much else sense.

I called Tom Wilkerson on Friday with this concern, and he provided me proof that he was being honest about the threat by the Board of Directors to the Naval Institute Press and he was honest with the donors. I'm not going to be his attorney though nor speak for him, so I'll let other members learn the truth and ask for evidence themselves. The important point I will make is simple: Tom feels very comfortable that he is on the right side of this issue.

After this weekend, I will be scaling back my working relationship with USNI considerably, as most of it is volunteer work anyway. I honestly believe Steve Waters, John Morgan, Nancy Brown, and the other Board of Director members are dishonest and potentially deceitful, and I have been provided enough evidence to convince myself that legal counsel flat out lied to the membership today and to the face during a direct question from of one of the very few Naval Officers in attendance at the annual meeting. Until those people are no longer running the organization as members of the Board of Directors, I see no reason to volunteer my time supporting that organization, because USNI isn't going anywhere anyway.

In hindsight I can't recall a single shred of empirical data offered in the meeting to support the claims by Steve Waters on any issue, and now I have evidence he and his legal counsel was being dishonest to members. Without any evidence provided, membership is being asked to trust what Steve Waters is saying about USNI despite evidence a million dollar lie involving former Secretary's of the Navy and important authors like Tom Clancy was told out in the open during the members meeting.

Something is very wrong at USNI. How much money is USNI paying legal counsel to lie to the membership? Some of the other BoD members may want to look into that.

Friday, April 29, 2024

CDR Turk's Link Library

Det. Ryan: [about Turk 182] There are two theories. The first is that this is an organized conspiracy. The other more bizarre theory is that this is the work of one man - Superman, apparently!
This post is multipurpose. First, knowing I will be in a meeting Friday morning, this post is for the CDR Turks in the room so they can pull links quickly and as necessary should it be required to correct the record.

For those of you who plan to be in the room today, unless you are walking in with a plan, I ask that you please insure the officers in uniform get their round with the Chairman. That will be must see TV for those watching on the webcast.
Roberts Rules of Order (PDF)
First Announcements Over Email
Important information regarding the 2011 USNI Member ballot - March 2, 2024

March 2011 Naval Institute News - Web | Mobile - March 3, 2024
USNI Blog Announcements
U.S. Naval Institute 2011 Member Ballot Announcement - February 25, 2024

Independence, Systems and the Enlisted Voice - February 28, 2024

U.S. Naval Institute 2011 Ballot Update - March 2, 2024

A Statement from the U.S. Naval Institute Editorial Board: USNI independence - not USNI independence and advocacy - March 7, 2024

A Letter from Stephen M. Waters, U.S. Naval Institute Board of Directors - March 14, 2024

USNI Board Minority Report: Don’t Mess with the Naval Institute’s “DNA”! - March 15, 2024

U.S. Naval Institute Board of Directors Member Ballot Update - March 18, 2024

USNI: Taking Back Our Institution — The Fleet Speaks - March 27, 2024

‘You Are Cordially Invited’
- March 31, 2024

A Statement from John F. Lehman, Honorary Chairman of the U.S. Naval Institute Board of Directors - April 18, 2024
Information Dissemination
United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter From Norman Polmar - February 24, 2024

US Naval Institute Official Announcement on Mission Change - February 25, 2024

The Mission of the U.S. Naval Institute by Rear Admiral Tom Marfiak (ret) - February 26, 2024

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter From VADM Bob Dunn - February 28, 2024

US Naval Institute Mails Bad Ballots to Members - February 28, 2024

Open Letter From Dr. Jack London, Member US Naval Institute Board of Directors - March 1, 2024

The United States Naval Institute and "Advocacy" - March 2, 2024

US Naval Institute: The Genesis of Hostile Takeover - March 2, 2024

A Communication Demonstrating Failure to Communicate - March 2, 2024

Open Letter to the Board of the United States Naval Institute by John Byron- March 3, 2024

US Naval Institute: Communicating Cart Before the Horse - March 3, 2024

United States Naval Institute: Some Thoughts by Dr. Richard Kohn - March 4, 2024

United States Naval Institute: The Living Words of Luce - March 6, 2024

US Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Captain Victor Addison, U.S. Navy (Ret.) - March 7, 2024

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Henry J. (Jerry) Hendrix II, Captain, U.S. Navy - March 8, 2024

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Norman Polmar - March 8, 2024

My Thoughts and Concerns Regarding USNI Election Drama - March 9, 2024

US Naval Institute: CDR Turk's Facebook Insurgency - March 10, 2024

United States Naval Institute: New Mission Statement Branding - March 14, 2024

US Naval Institute: Navy Times Article - March 17, 2024

US Naval Institute: Open Letter by Norman Polmar - April 6, 2024

US Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Dr. Steve Kime- April 19, 2024

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Raymond Pritchett - April 22, 2024

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter Michael Junge, Commander, US Navy - April 26, 2024
Ironic, in hindsight, how among all of these posts on this topic - the only items expressing my opinion on the actual issue are the March 9 and April 22 additions.

CDR Salamander
USNI Editorial Board - Nay - March 8, 2024

USNI by the Numbers - April 4, 2024
Tom Ricks
The crazy plan to change the longtime mission of the U.S. Naval Institute - February 28, 2024

Proceedings editorial board takes on Naval Institute board over their mission - March 9, 2024
SteelJaw Scribe
USNI: A Change In Mission Statement? - February 24th 2011

When Does Advocacy Become Lobbying… - February 25th 2011

USNI Ballot: Incompetence is One Thing — Deceit is Another - March 1st 2011

USNI: Getting It Right - March 1st 2011

USNI: Taking Back Our Institution - 7 Mar Update - March 6, 2024

USNI Update: Taking Back Our Institution — The Board of Directors Responds (15 Mar Update) - March 14, 2024

USNI: Taking Back Our Institution - Mission Change “Delayed” - March 19, 2024

USNI: Taking Back Our Institution — Guest Post (CDR Turk)
- March 23, 2024

USNI: Taking Back Our Institution - Reprise and RSVP - April 24, 2024

Thursday, April 28, 2024

United States Naval Institute: Letter to the Board of Directors by Raymond Pritchett

Russians don't take a dump without a plan. And senior captains don't start something this dangerous without having thought the matter through.

- Admiral Josh Painter, The Hunt for Red October
The following letter was sent today to the United States Naval Institute Board of Directors.

To the Board of Directors of the United States Naval Institute.

As members of the United States Naval Institute, we feel obligated to highlight that Article VIII, Section 4 of the US Naval Institute Constitution that governs Nominations and Elections; Annual and Special Meetings has been violated by this most recent election.

Article VIII, Section 4 reads:
Section 4. Elections shall be held annually. A ballot shall be sent to each member entitled to vote at least sixty days before the date set for the Annual Meeting. The ballot may include any question that requires approval of the membership or with respect to which the Board of Directors considers it advisable to have the views of the members. To be valid, the ballot shall be signed by the member. The nine candidates for Director and the nine candidates for the Editorial Board receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected at the Annual Meeting, assume the duties of their respective offices from that date, and hold office until their successors are elected and qualify.
The official physical ballots were not sent to each member entitled to vote at least sixty days before the day of the Annual Meeting. While it is possible to argue that the online ballot system which became available on February 25 was available 60 days prior, the first announcement by the United States Naval Institute of the election to members came in an email dated March 2, 2011. The only ballots mailed prior to 60 days of the annual members meeting were the ballots mailed out with Naval History magazine, all of which were judged invalid for lacking the mission statement issue within.

We also believe the online ballot vote is invalid because...

The online ballot used does not contain a signature as required by the Constitution of the United States Naval Institute. Voting using the online ballot never required any piece of data unique to a member to represent as a signature. The online ballot used requested only a member’s ID number beginning with a C. The fatal flaw in this approach is that this system of verification was unsecured and subject to tampering and forgery. Indeed, the online ballot as delivered to members was demonstrated unprotected and subject to forgery early in the online voting process to USNI, proven to be unprotected to and by USNI employees, and never addressed. This acknowledgment of the problem with the online ballot by USNI employees has been documented and those documents can be made available at the members meeting if required.

Basic electronic security requires two-factor identification, something you have (member ID) and something else that only the user and the institution readily knows, such as a name, email address, or telephone number, for example. Absent that second authenticator, spoofing was indeed possible by simply guessing an ID number, and in fact guessing member accounts was proven by officers of the United States Navy and USNI staff, and the United States Naval Institute CEO was alerted to this ballot problem.

The United States Naval Institute and the Board of Directors never took action to secure the online ballot nor to deal with the absence of a signature as required, thus the requirement for a signature that is clearly stated in Article VIII, Section 4 of the US Naval Institute Constitution has been ignored.

It is our belief that all of the online ballots are invalid due to lack of proper procedure to secure the mechanism in some way as to carry the authority of authenticity a signature would normally represent. It is further our belief that because the legitimate ballots used to tally all votes were mailed late, indeed mailed too late to be 60 days from the annual meeting, the entire vote including the election of all officers is invalid.

We formally request that at the US Naval Institute annual members meeting, legal counsel weigh in on these ballot issues prior to allowing anyone elected by these ballots - all of which appear to be invalid based on Article VIII, Section 4 of the US Naval Institute Constitution - to assume the duties of their respective offices.

Finally, while we believe all of the ballots for the recent election are invalid, we would like to add that we strongly protest the actions by Board of Directors to remove an initiative from a "legitimate" ballot during any election of the US Naval Institute. We strongly urge legal counsel to address at the annual members meeting the issue related to the Board of Directors authority to recall any measure that is already being voted upon by members.

Very Respectfully,

Raymond A. Pritchett III
Proud Member of the United States Naval Institute

Tuesday, April 26, 2024

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter Michael Junge, Commander, US Navy

Responsibility and accountability

Hyman Rickover, the father of our nuclear Navy and probably the singular force who has left the greatest impact on the modern Navy’s culture and operations, had this to say about responsibility: "Responsibility is a unique concept. It can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion or ignorance or passing the blame can pass the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the man responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible."

The famous Wall Street Journal article (“Hobson’s Choice”) phrased it thusly: "On the sea there is a tradition older even than the traditions of the country itself and wiser in its age than this new custom. It is the tradition that with responsibility goes authority and with them accountability. ...for men will not long trust leaders who feel themselves beyond accountability for what they do. And when men lose confidence and trust in those who lead, order disintegrates into chaos and purposeful ships into uncontrollable derelicts."

These two ideas and thoughts are much in the minds of members of the Institute - especially among those who have had or aspire to command. The rumors and stories swirling about the belayed balloting over the Board’s proposal to change the mission of the Institute are legion but all devolved down to a few facts: The initiative was put forward without fanfare, included the firing of the Institute’s CEO, has not been publicly supported by a single member of the Board, and worst of all - had only a tepid letter of support and a fetid announcement that the ballot measure would be held in abeyance. The discussion is also rife with rumors that the mission change and press for advocacy was the inspiration of one individual and was orchestrated to secure that man a position as CEO after General Wilkerson’s departure.

The mission of the Institute has remained constant for over a hundred years, yet the individuals charged with leading the Institute sought to solve a myriad of woes with a change to the overall mission - said change not addressing one of the purported woes listed by the Chairman. For that reason - and the inability of the members of the board to openly speak for, support, and discuss their desired mission change, I say that I have lost confidence in the leadership of the members of the board who supported this initiative - either vocally, or silently - and call on them them to take responsibility for their actions and show the accountability demanded in the Naval service and resign from their positions before the annual meeting. Doing so, resigning honorably, would allow the members in convocation at the Annual Meeting to choose new board members interested in advancing the mission of the Institute rather than changing that mission to suit personal whims and desires.

CDR Micahel Junge is a surface warfare officer who previously commanded USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41).

Friday, April 22, 2024

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Raymond Pritchett


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.

- Steve Waters, Chairman, United States Naval Institute Board of Directors
On February 25, 2024 Major General Thomas L. Wilkerson, USMC (Ret.) announced on the United States Naval Institute blog that "the Board of Directors has recommended an historic change to the Mission of the Naval Institute to 'advocating the necessity of global seapower.'" Nearly three weeks later a letter from Steve Waters, Chairman of the United States Naval Institute Board of Directors, was posted to the Naval Institute blog with the intent to address the criticism and concerns being expressed by USNI membership. In his letter explaining the mission statement change, Chairman Steve Waters highlighted three specific challenges facing USNI that included financial instability, decline in membership, and a trending loss of relevance. The emphasis by Steve Waters in all conversations has been on the first issue, financial instability, but I personally believe the second and third issues are far more serious problems. Let us examine all three.

Financial Instability
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.

- Steve Waters, Chairman, United States Naval Institute Board of Directors
I respect and understand that as a man of finance and as Chairman of the Board of Directors, Steve Waters is focused on money. Money is important, but the pursuit of money is the wrong motivation for a membership organization like the United States Naval Institute. When I recall 2008-2009, I recall difficult economic times for virtually every non-profit organization in Washington, DC, so I am not completely sure why hardships that were equally shared by almost every non-profit organization would form a foundation for "historic change" for an organization like USNI that has 137 years of history, legacy, and hopefully long term longevity built into the business model. Furthermore, I am very skeptical anytime I see proposals for major changes to any business plan that is grounded on the argument that "there are no guarantees."

But my biggest concern is the obvious disconnect between the words of the Chairman and the information reflected on the audited 2010 financial statement. Many of you may not be aware, but the USNI Financial Statement for 2010 was published on the USNI website, in fact, CDR Salamander discussed the subject on this blog.

In the State of the Institute statement published in the April 2011 issue of Proceedings, the financial situation of USNI is discussed in a context very different from that of Steve Waters:
Fortunately for the Institute, with thanks to the USNI team and you, our members, the Naval Institute had its strongest financial performance in more than 20 years. In 2010 we continued and expanded the significant financial and operational successes of 2009.

The Institute met or exceeded every financial goal for 2010 and reported a positive net operating margin of $613K. Our traditional business lines—membership, periodicals, books, and conferences—showed positive operating margins. The Foundation raised $2.3M, due in no small measure to almost 5,000 member gifts and pledges, including some that were quite large.

The Naval Institute Foundation portfolio gained an additional 15 percent over the 29 percent growth of 2009. The combined impact for USNI was a positive consolidated margin of $1.8M with a net positive cash flow of $522K.

Stephen M. Waters, Chairman of the Board
Thomas L. Wilkerson, Major General, USMC (Ret), Chief Executive Officer
So in the same year "the Naval Institute had its strongest financial performance in more than 20 years," the Board voted for the Mission Statement change "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."

How can Steve Waters claim USNI had its strongest financial performance in more than 2 decades in the annual State of the Institute while Steve Waters claims in his personal statement that these are difficult financial times for the institute? The financial facts do not support the statements, arguments, and activities of at least one Steve Waters.

Decline in Membership

The decline in membership for the Naval Institute is a serious problem, and I applaud the Board of Directors being committed to dealing with this problem. During the members meeting April 29th, I look forward to hearing what the Board of Directors has done to address this issue. I have observed that over the last decade a generational gap has developed within the membership of the Naval Institute, and only within the last few years has USNI been addressing this issue.

A lot more can be done. Steve Waters wrote in his letter that the Board of Directors has a "strategic plan that will move the Institute to a stronger, more relevant future." Because he later mentions decline in membership specifically in his article, I presume he will be presenting how the Naval Institute intends to address that problem, and how USNI members can help.

No worries, if the Board of Directors does not actually have a plan, I have three simple suggestions that are so easy and obvious it will be impossible to find a single person in the room who disagrees. The generation gap at USNI is real, and it exists in part because the Board of Directors has spent the past year discussing 20th century solutions to 21st century problems.

Loss of Relevance
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.

- Steve Waters, Chairman, United States Naval Institute Board of Directors
That last paragraph isn't just poorly written; it is offensive in its patronization. Does any member of the US Naval Institute find confidence in the fact that Board of Directors of the United States Naval Institute formed a "mission committee" to determine whether "the Sea Services are critical to our national defense?" That is stupid beyond words. It would be like the American Medical Association (AMA) forming a "mission committee" to determine whether a physician is relevant to human health.

Relevance is a very complicated concept requiring context for a serious conversation, so lets approach this discussion in stages. Is USNI relevant to the maritime services? Yes and no. Congress reads Proceedings, so the organization is still relevant to the leaders of the maritime services. Leaders in the maritime services still write in Proceedings, so that too is part of how the organization finds relevance. If the question is whether the Naval Institute is relevant to the maritime services as a whole, I believe the answer is no. The demography issue discussed by Steve Waters is real, and USNI has lost touch with the mid-grade and junior officer communities, and virtually the entire enlisted community. What has the Board of Directors done to address this challenge? Lack of relevance among the vast majority of people in the maritime services must be a problem addressed immediately, and I believe there are a lot of very good ideas floating around for how USNI can address this challenge.

Relevance in the context of national defense and foreign policy appears to be the context being discussed by Steve Waters. I look forward to seeing what ideas are presented to the membership, if any. What has the Board of Directors done to date to address this challenge? What are the metrics that will be used to evaluate and demonstrate for fund-raising purposes the relevance of USNI? Who is USNI trying to be relevant too, and by what metric does USNI use to determine relevancy in national defense and foreign policy?

At present, USNI is an organization that publishes content, but not an organization that pays staff to produce content. In the modern communication environment, as modern content publishing non-profit organization USNI is essentially the network and not the data on a network. Do the Board of Directors recognize that distinction, understand what that means in the communication age where information is often free, and do they have a vision for how to best position the Naval Institute in the modern information environment for purposes of relevance?

What is the definition of relevance to the Board of Directors, and is that definition the same definition for relevance the membership believes best applies to the organization? I believe the answer is yes, but because many see the current struggle at USNI as a zero sum game, I might be in the minority.

Looking Ahead

There is going to be content published over the next few days leading up to the members meeting next week. Some points made in these articles I agree with, some I do not.

It is still unclear who will be presenting for USNI at the annual members meeting. I have heard that John Morgan is unable to make the meeting due to medical reasons. Let us all hope his medical condition isn't serious enough that it prevents him from attending online. This is a historic time for the Naval Institute, and to be very honest I have serious concerns regarding the quality of leadership on the Board of Directors when so many members of the Board of Directors are hiding from membership following what I see as one of the most embarrassing episodes in the 137 year history of the organization.

I get it that Board of Director members are busy people and may be out of town on business, but is it really too difficult for any Board of Director member who can't be present to get the phone or participate through the webcast? All I hear about from the Board of Directors are 20th century solutions to 21st century problems, and now they want to use 20th century excuses in the 21st century too?

Let me get this straight. I'm on a conference call yesterday discussing ideas with Fred Schultz, Paul Merzlak, Scott Gureck, Bill Miller, and Mary Ripley over at USNI on how we can reach more junior officers to produce more content for USNI and within a current context. One of the guys on the phone with us is Capt. Alexander Martin, who led the US Marines who took back The Magellan Star from pirates, and then wrote an article about his experience on the Naval Institute blog 24 hours later. I spent time with Alex earlier this year when I was in San Diego, and I asked him why he wrote the article, he said "Because I wanted my guys to be recognized, and I really do care about this stuff."

So on one hand, folks inside USNI are working hard and beating the bushes looking for ways to encourage Junior Officers to share their experiences at a pace greater than the rhythm of the monthly issue of Proceedings, but on the other hand the leaders of USNI on the Board of Directors can't find a way to make a members meeting planned months in advance following one of the challenging debates in the organizations 137 year history? The disconnect that exists between the leadership on the Board of Directors of USNI and the people who actually work inside USNI is depressing.

If you are a member of the US Naval Institute and live in the Washington, DC area, you need to attend next Friday. I'll be there. I look forward to listening to the concerns of other members, and learning the answers to a great number of questions that must have legitimate, honest answers. Some folks are attending because they want accountability, but my motivation for attending is that I want to see what the future looks like.

For those who do not understand what is at stake next week, listen carefully to this warning because it is very much legitimate based on my extensive homework on the issues recognized by the Board of Directors at USNI. If Friday becomes a bullshit show by the Board of Directors, the Naval Institute will lose the future with the younger generations of officers in the maritime services. The organization does not have time to wait even one more year for action to be taken on these issues; the window of opportunity for certain opportunities that have everything to do with the future is closing.

If you do not realize that fact, you are wildly out of touch with the people in the maritime services today and need to do your homework. If you require more information, you need to start asking serious questions. We live in an era of abundant choices, and right now according to data I have collected in relative comparisons of various alternatives and Proceedings - the folks in maritime services are choosing somewhere besides the Naval Institute to contribute their ideas.

Next Friday we fix that.

Tuesday, April 19, 2024

US Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Dr. Steve Kime

Members of the Board:

I write as a former elected member of the Naval Institute Board of Control and of the Editorial Board (1986-89). I am a Life Member and a lifelong student of Naval and Military Affairs.

First, let me acknowledge the caliber of the current Board and the serious circumstances faced by the Institute. I sincerely appreciate the motivation to be practical, business-like and realistic in dealing with these circumstances, and I understand that the Board is not unsympathetic to or unaware of the desire of writers, thinkers and readers to maintain an unrestrained academic and intellectual Naval Institute environment.

I think changing the Institute's mission statement is a mistake. I see this attempt as part of a decline that began years ago with the move toward "Corporate" leadership of our Institute. I am convinced that straying away from the concept that the Naval Institute was a free forum for ideas and discussion by Naval Officers, led by Naval Officers for Naval Officers, is a major reason that our membership has declined by 50% since I was a Director. We became about big money, big contributors, and "business" considerations rather than about tens of thousands of small, contributing, members interested in seeing the issues aired in their wardrooms and in their libraries.

Sure, the internet changes the game. We face tough circumstances. Young people do not read the same way they used to read, and print media is in trouble everywhere. But I believe that we have something very special in our target audience and the context in which that audience faced the issues. We could have bucked the adverse trends to a major degree, and we could have adjusted to those trends as well. We failed to continue to appeal to our audience of individual professional officers and got sidetracked into a "corporate board" mode of thinking. The forum became a "market," and we focused more on new markets rather than on new ideas.

We needed to preserve the great insight that the Founders had in 1873 that Naval Officers are a special, intellectual, group that will sustain a forum for the free exchange of ideas. I hope it is not too late to recover their vision.

The change you propose is important only because it is out of synch with our history. It won't make those wanting to advocate for Naval power give more or give more often. It won't make contributors to the journal stronger advocates of seapower than they already are. The change is symbolic, and symbolically wrong. Its major impact will to reduce the enthusiasm and imagination of officers who have traditionally been the lifeblood of the Institute.

Dr. Steve Kime
Captain, USN (RET)

Wednesday, April 6, 2024

The Best of the Current Generation of Flag Officers

The US Naval Institute has a page up on Admiral Stavridis that is truly unbelievable. Fred Schultz has the introduction.
When I first met Lieutenant Commander James Stavridis in 1989, I had no idea that one day he would be the gold standard for what the U.S. Naval Institute is all about. Since he was a midshipman at the Naval Academy, he has been a faithful and thoughtful member of this professional society, and the depth and breadth of what he has written for the open forum—while remarkably still managing to rise steadily in the ranks to a four-star admiral—is unprecedented. I remember when he visited our headquarters in Beach Hall soon after he earned his first star and I greeted him as "admiral." Instantly, his reply was, "C'mon, Fred. In this family, I'll always be Jim." Family indeed. As we watch for Admiral Jim's next career move, his fellow family members are all proud to say we knew him when. We hope you enjoy this sentimental journey in words that spans his entire distinguished Navy career.

-Fred Schultz, Managing Editor, Proceedings
The list is incredible, and it doesn't even include his recently popular again 1992 National War College paper titled A New Air Sea Battle Concept: Integrated Strike Forces.

I also think it is worth point out his wife recently wrote a very good book titled Navy Spouses Guide.

From now on when I claim Admiral Stavridis is the best of this generation of Flag officers, I'm using that link.

US Naval Institute: Open Letter by Norman Polmar

The following letter was written by Norman Polmar and has been broadly circulated.
THE NAVAL INSTITUTE IN CRISIS

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

As you know, the Board of Directors--for now--has withdrawn the proposed change to the mission statement that would have made the Naval Institute an advocacy organization.

Unfortunately, the battle is not over. The majority of the Board still seeks to establish an "advocacy institute" under the umbrella of the Naval Institute.

In addition, members of the Board are discussing the possibility of selling off the Naval Institute Press (it doesn't make enough profit). I am also concerned about the future of the Proceedings and Naval History magazines because neither appears in the Board's proposed new USNI structure. What does appear is a specific New York PR firm that will head the Naval Institute's "advocacy group."

This is not the Naval Institute that we have worked for and that we love and respect.

Thus, if at all possible, I urge you to attend the annual meeting scheduled for Friday/29 April, from 10 to 12 noon at the Georgetown University Conference Center.

Conference center: 3800 Reservoir Road NW, Washington, DC 20057;
tel... 202 687-3200. Parking is available.

And, encourage your friends and associates who believe in the Naval Institute and the open forum to attend this meeting. Whether you can attend the annual meeting or not, communicate to the Board of Directors in writing or by e-mail telling them what you think about the proposed changes to our Naval Institute.

A final point: While the majority of the Board seeks to radically change the Naval Institute, there is a minority, led by Dr. Jack London, that has steadfastly opposed such changes; other minority members are Mark Johnson, Ed Miller, and B.J. Penn. Seek them out at the meeting or contact them before to express your appreciation for their efforts.

Best wishes/Norman

Norman Polmar
The meeting details can be found here on the USNI website. I will be in attendance.

Something has been bothering me, and I was very pleased to see CDR Salamander raise the topic on Tuesday. The USNI Board of Directors has made their case based on the financial situation of the Institute, but as CDR Salamander points out, the audited financial statement of the Institute completely discredits the argument Steve Waters has been making.

I am getting very tired of the dishonesty by the Board of Directors. Norman Polmar's letter is almost certainly a byproduct of a recent meeting where Steve Waters met with the entire Editorial Board, and from what I have heard about that meeting Steve Waters basically insulted everyone in the room and criticized everything about USNI while making it clear his intention is to outsource the Naval Institute Press, which I think anyone familiar with USNI will agree is effectively killing the professional print wing of the Institute.

It was very odd to see how the mission statement issue spilled onto the pages of Proceedings in the April edition. Page 6 is an open letter containing the rationale for the mission statement change by Steve Waters that specifically paints a bleak picture of the Institute. Page 7 is the dissenting opinion by the minority of the Board of Directors. Pages 8-9 is the State of Naval Institute that discusses what a great year USNI just had in 2010. Page 14 is the unanimous statement by the Editorial Board against the proposal by the Board of Directors. Then we have some really nice irony that page 12, between all of this back and forth, where one will find a boilerplate article advocating sea power on by none other than VADM John Morgan.

If that kind of unconvincing bumper sticker stuff by Morgan is what the Board of Directors has in mind for USNI, then I expect the Board of Directors to resign at the annual meeting. Look, the Editorial Board should be embarrassed for printing that article (or perhaps they are making a point that is apparently completely lost on Morgan), because that Morgan article is nothing more than bullet points straight out of an average Rhumb Lines, and some of the Rhumb Lines are better. USNI might as well reprint Denny's best version of Rhumb Lines once a month and call it a day if that is the Board of Director vision.

What the hell does the Independent Forum mean to John Morgan when he publishes the exact same content CHINFO does? If this was Jeopardy, I'd be asking for "An Original Idea in Proceedings for $2000, Alex."

Would someone who supports the Board of Directors please email me, even if it is in strict confidence and privacy, and at least attempt to articulate and convince me the vision by the Board of Directors is good? Could someone email me to explain why that bunch has not resigned in disgrace yet? How is it even possible USNI has a Chairman of the Board of Directors who does not respect or like the very organization he represents?

USNI members who cannot attend in person (and everyone who can, should attend in person) needs to sign up and tune into the webcast, because for the cost of free if the Board of Directors doesn't produce real ideas with a clear vision for the membership, it will be the best show you've ever watched on the web.

Finally, if you have not done so yet - VOTE. Yes, it still matters, so go vote if you have not.

Thursday, March 17, 2024

US Naval Institute: Navy Times Article

Navy Times has an article in the Print edition this week discussing the changes at the US Naval Institute. What I find interesting here is that the print article came out on Monday, which means the article had to have been written last week. It is a good article, and I encourage members to pick up a copy of Navy Times at newsstands to check it out. This part stuck out for me.
The institute will not become a lobbying organization like the Navy League, nor will it interfere with the editorial board, according to the chairman of the board of directors. “You can be an advocate for the importance of the sea services without agreeing with every budget request or every program,” said Steve Waters, a former Navy lieutenant who is the managing partner at the Compass Advisers Group. “We’re not going to be a lobby, we’re not going to be a shill.”
Then what is the Naval Institute going to be under this new vision? What makes the new mission statement critical to this new direction? Whether one reads this paragraph in the Navy Times article or the letter by Steve Waters posted on the US Naval Institute Blog, Mr. Waters is basically saying USNI is going to be either the same but better, or not different but better. The only materials that describes an actual vision for what 'better' means to the Board of Directors are posted here and on CDR Salamanders blog, and the Board of Directors has not attempted to deny that.

Something else bothers me.

The letter by Steve Waters posted to the USNI Blog was dated March 10, but it is unclear who he sent the letter to because the only place I have seen a copy of the letter is on the USNI Blog - posted on March 14. Why was the position of Steve Waters and the Board of Directors on this issue being articulated to the Navy Times readership before the position of Steve Waters and the Board of Directors was being articulated to US Naval Institute membership?

I encourage any member who has not voted yet to vote to REJECT this measure. The only way to ever get some answers is to vote this proposal down so the Institute can have a real debate.

Monday, March 14, 2024

United States Naval Institute: New Mission Statement Branding

A blog reader recently joined the United States Naval Institute and received their membership packet in the mail. Besides being impressed by the book selection, he also received his membership card. Below is photo of the back of the new membership card.
A ballot also came in the mail with the package, proposing the mission statement change.

Hopefully, if everyone votes, the back of the membership card will read: "The US Naval Institute provides an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write in order to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to national defense."

Unless this election is a sham, that is what this new membership card should still read.

Thursday, March 10, 2024

US Naval Institute: CDR Turk's Facebook Insurgency

People have asked me if I know where the Navy community stands on the US Naval Institute issue. All I can say is that as best I can tell, no active duty Flag Officer has said a word in public, and as 5,000 sailors on USS Enterprise (CVN 65) have reminded us the last few years - when it comes to ideas, offensive or otherwise - silence is consent.

I have also been stressed over email the importance of Senior Naval Leadership for USNI. Yes, I completely agree, but Senior Naval Leadership for USNI is like pornography, and we will all know it when I see it. Until then, it is more appropriate to highlight the absence of active duty Senior Naval Leadership and ask the question whether this is really what the membership wants from the Institute. Somehow I don't think some of histories most popular and admired Admirals would stand silent, or be silenced, during the Institutes moment of the crisis.

I have become aware of CDR Turk on Facebook, and perhaps his biography information is revealing.
Det. Ryan: [about Turk 182] There are two theories. The first is that this is an organized conspiracy. The other more bizarre theory is that this is the work of one man - Superman, apparently!
You can find CDR Turk on Facebook, with additional activities here and here.

And for the record, I am absolutely certain CDR Turk is not a blogger. My only theory is that because Facebook is allowed to be used by the Navy, Facebook is where one would logically find the Navy's opposition to the Board of Directors.

Zimmerman flew and Tyler knew!

Wednesday, March 9, 2024

My Thoughts and Concerns Regarding USNI Election Drama

Over the last many days I have posted open letters from Norman Polmar, Rear Admiral Tom Marfiak (ret.), Vice Admiral Bob Dunn (ret.), Jack London, Captain John Byron (Ret.), Dr. Richard Kohn, Captain Victor Addison (Ret.), Captain Henry J. (Jerry) Hendrix II, and finally a second open letter by Norman Polmar. Along the way I have highlighted subtle communication changes by the Institute and LCDR Benjamin Armstrong eloquently addressed the issue of "advocacy."

Bryan McGrath, another author on this blog, has also weighed in with his opinion. Other articles have discussed the history of the Naval Institute and highlighted some of the ballot issues.

These efforts have largely been to inform my fellow members of some of the concerns regarding the mission statement and new direction being proposed without announcement by the US Naval Institute Board of Directors.

However, as this is an opinion blog, it is time I give my own opinion. I do not endorse nor stand in agreement with some of what others have written, but I do stand beside all of them in believing the right course of action right now is to REJECT the proposal by the US Naval Institute Board of Directors.

I want to believe this is a case where good people with good intentions are poorly executing an admirable objective in the wrong way. I will also admit that the absence of any information from the Board of Directors has me questioning what I believe. In my opinion, we are witness to a fairly ugly looking leadership failure at USNI, and the two ways to fix that is for leadership to either step up or make room for others who will.

Up front I want to make clear that I was very aware of the Theodore Roosevelt Center that was being discussed last year. When I went to Annapolis in October for the History Conference, I had a conversation with General Wilkerson on the topic where he assured me that if such an organization spawns, it will be distinct from the Naval Institute. Indeed he mentioned at the time that if such an organization forms, he did not believe it would be located in Annapolis. Following that discussion, I was ready to help USNI and the TR Center get off the ground and support however I could to move the new organization forward with success.

As you have seen from the Board of Directors documentation posted both here and at CDR Salamanders, there are some very useful activities that would greatly contribute to the maritime services. When I say "admirable objective" in describing the ideas being proposed, I believe the ideas on the table contribute towards exactly that. The issue at hand was that people like myself were under the impression this was to be a separate entity, and at no time was there any hint or suggestion that those ideas and proposals were part of a transformation of the US Naval Institute itself. The following are some of my concerns regarding the misguided effort to transform the US Naval Institute into an advocacy organization.

The US Naval Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization that conducts tax exempt operations today under the exception for literary and education clauses of the tax code. Article XV, Section 1 of the USNI Constitution (PDF) states:
Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision in this 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.
But for 501(c)(3), the IRS makes clear that:

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Look, General Wilkerson was fired for a reason, and everything I have heard suggests that reason was specific to protecting the Institute's core mission and in protest to those on the Board of Directors who want to turn the Institute into a think tank advocacy for sea power. Something clearly does not add up.

When the US Naval Institute is reoriented towards the cause of advocating sea power, who becomes the target of advocating sea power? The maritime services? Hopefully this "historic" mission statement change is not intended to advocate the value of sea power to Admirals.

Clearly advocacy must target the American people because advocating Congress would be a violation of Article XV of the USNI Constitution, since it would be a direct risk to USNI's 501(c)(3) status. So what exactly is the purpose of advocating sea power to the American people? So they will... not engage in the politics associated with the Navy? Because if they did based on USNI efforts, USNI could be considered a lobbying organization by the IRS...

I am willing to be convinced there is some wisdom here that I am missing, but can anyone articulate what that wisdom might be? Words matter, and the word being used is advocating sea power, not educating or informing.

Under no circumstances can the US Naval Institute do anything that jeopardizes the 501(c)(3) status, because under no circumstances can USNI be put in a position where the Institute loses the current lease on the US Naval Academy campus. Most Americans do not know this, but USNI has historically been so valuable to the maritime services and the national security of the United States that a 100 year contract was worked out decades ago where USNI only pays $1 a year lease for their property on the USNA campus. Not kidding - one dollar a year for Maryland hilltop property over the water on the USNA campus, renewable every year with about 50 more years to go. The subsidy that leads to a $1 a year lease for USNI is a bold statement regarding how much value the United States Government puts into the Open and Independent Forum of USNI.

When the US government has a negotiated $1 a year lease with a private organization, you bet your ass any topic related to USNI is a fair question by a reporter to a Congressman or Senator, particularly since most Congressmen and Senators are members of USNI primarily because they understand the Institutes value as an Open and Independent Forum for national security debate and discussion.

Today, under the existing mission statement, the US Naval Institute provides an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write in order to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to national defense. The target audience is not Congress and not the American people; the target audience is the military and defense professionals of the United States and our allies. As many have pointed out, proper execution of that mission statement by USNI advocates sea power, but how USNI advocates sea power is the distinction being voted on by members under the current ballot.

The way I see it, what is proposed is a flawed vision for how USNI should be organized to advocate sea power. The Board of Directors believes USNI is the optimal place to communicate, or advocate, good ideas. I believe they should have taken the necessary steps to fund making USNI the communication environment where all good ideas want to be. USNI is properly placed not as the source of ideas, but as the network for ideas. Instead of trying to produce content from within the organization, USNI is uniquely positioned to encourage significantly more content related to sea power by others, and should be organized to do exactly that.

After all, despite what the Board of Directors or their supporters may be suggesting, the profile of sea power doesn't rise with more advocacy; the profile of sea power rises when sea power has more advocates. Since USNI could never afford to hire enough advocates for sea power to make a significant difference to sea powers profile, the US Naval Institute should instead be structured in a way that it develops advocates of sea power.

I honestly believe this vote is going to be very close, and even though the Board of Directors needs two-thirds majority vote, it is entirely possible they can get enough votes to pass this change. Every negative vote is important, so vote. The Board of Directors is made up of very successful people who are not stupid, I refuse to believe they have miscalculated this badly.

Nobody really knows who their support base is for this idea, although I note that if the Captain Honors drama has taught us anything, it taught us that in the Navy silence means consent.

Whatever the Board of Directors is planning on doing to support their idea, at minimum we can expect the presentation to be very slick and professional, and given how I have no solid information at all regarding what they are thinking - they may be very convincing as well.

Until then, vote to REJECT the mission statement change. Every negative vote will be needed to reject the mission statement, and only by rejecting the new mission statement can the members of USNI have a legitimate debate regarding the future of the Institute prior to casting ballots. There are a number of good ideas and opportunities out there right now that the USNI should be involved in, but unfortunately nothing is happening while the focus is on this topic.

But there is a bright side... Speaking for myself, I feel very good today about being a member of the Naval Institute. It is a great feeling to be part of an organization about naval affairs where so many people honestly give a damn... it is very unique. The Board of Directors is also right about one thing, USNI needs to evolve - and with so many members engaged I have a feeling only good things will come from the ashes of this drama.

Then again, I'm an optimist.

Tuesday, March 8, 2024

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Norman Polmar

To: Major General T. Wilkerson, USMC(Ret)
Chief Executive Officer
U.S. Naval Institute

Please forward to the members of the Board

Gentlemen,

In early February of this year I sent an e-mail to friends and colleagues advising them of the Board's decision to change the mission and role of the U.S. Naval Institute--without prior discussion or advice to the membership. I have since received almost 200 e-mails in reply plus a few telephone calls.

Every response has indicated opposition to the proposed changes to the USNI mission and role.

This view is also reflected on the USNI blog, and the blogs of "Commander Salamander" and others. This view was also reflected at a recent luncheon meeting of professional naval historians, almost all of whom are Naval Institute members.

What is particularly troubling is the perception that the Board attempted to "put something over on the membership." And this is a membership organization--not a company or a stock-issuing firm. Indeed, the Board had at its disposal the means of advising the membership in advance of the rationale for such major changes to the 174-year organization: The Proceedings, the USNI blog, other blogs, and, indeed the possibility of direct mailings to the membership were (and still are) available. None of these means were employed. Rather, it does appear that the Board was attempting to put something over on the membership.

Further, the Board's decision to destroy thousands of printed ballots to "hide" the mission change vote within the vote for the Board and the Editorial Board in another ballot was also against accepted practices for a membership organization. (Of course, the original ballot was mailed with the Naval History magazine.)

This attempt at gross deception of the membership can only be remedied by the immediate resignation of all Board members who support these efforts.

I feel that I have special and particular qualifications to call for the resignation of those specific members who supported these efforts: I have been a USNI member since age 15, and a Proceedings author since age 18; I have had the honor and privilege of the Naval Institute publishing a score of my books and I have had more bylines in the Proceedings than anyone else in the magazine's 173-year history. I am a former assistant editor of the Proceedings and, of course, a Golden Life member.

With respect for the organization's many thousands of members--past, present, and future, yours sincerely,

Norman Polmar

To: U.S. Naval Institute Board of Directors
My friends and colleagues

----


There are two very important articles on this topic today, one at the USNI Blog and the other at CDR Salamander. You want to read them both.

The first is the entire Editorial Board of the United States Naval Institute collectively voting "NO" to the mission statement change. It is difficult to interpret that post as anything other than a full blown civil war now taking place at USNI.

The second, well, lets just say CDR Salamander is showing you what the Board of Directors is not. Sal explains why so many of us fight and are opposed this change.

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Henry J. (Jerry) Hendrix II, Captain, U.S. Navy

Members of the US Naval Institute Board of Directors:

There is much hyperbole circulating regarding the proposed change to the Naval Institute’s mission statement and the departure of Major General Tom Wilkerson, USMC (Ret) as CEO. Although I had an initial negative reaction to the proposal, I have thus far avoided public comment in any major way. As I care deeply about the United States Naval Institute, I wanted to take the opportunity to think carefully and objectively, and consult with people whose opinion I value before reaching a conclusion and/or stating my opinion. I have done that.

First let me state that I love the Naval Institute. As a midshipman, I read the NROTC battalion’s copy of Proceedings every month. It became my wish to publish within that journal’s pages; to do so signified to me recognition among an elite group of individuals who comprised the intellectual core of my chosen vocation. I made several attempts at creating something worth reading before appearing in December, 2001 issue of Proceedings, 13 years into my career. It was a major professional milestone for me, and when I published my book, it was important that it come out of Naval Institute Press. This is where the Naval Institute lies in my own thoughts. It does not hold a similar place, in my opinion, in the lives of the current generation of Junior Officers.

Over the past fifteen years or so we have seen a drop off in our membership among junior and now mid-grade officers of the maritime services. I am sure you are aware that our demographic trends towards senior officers and the retired community. This is, literally, a death spiral for a professional organization. Under these circumstances the effort must be directed at outreach to the younger core of the profession, towards gaining legitimacy as an honest broker in the debates and discussions that lie at the center of their professional lives. Maintaining an “independent forum” is critical to this, but unfortunately the growing perception, according to conversations that I routinely have among junior officers, is that the Naval Institute has become a wardroom for active duty flags carrying water for their leadership and retired flags pushing platforms for the defense corporations that employ them. Incorporating “advocacy” into our mission statement is a mistake and would be disastrous to our membership rolls, thus I strongly oppose the proposed change to the USNI Mission Statement.

With regard to the departure of MGen Wilkerson as the CEO and Publisher of the Institute, the circumstances are troubling. From what I have gathered from online sources, General Wilkerson had proposed the creation of a stand-alone think tank that would focus on maritime security issues. This entity was to be “fire-walled”, as one of my contemporaries characterized to me, from the normal day to day activities of the Institute, preserving the independence of the open forum while also creating opportunity for creative and concentrated thought. After due consideration, I applaud and enthusiastically support this concept. Based upon my own conjecture, I surmise that the Board of Directors chose to reject this initiative in favor of integrating such activities in the form of advocacy on maritime issues into the US Naval Institute proper and that there was an agreement for a professional parting of ways with the General. As I stated earlier, I believe incorporating advocacy into USNI proper will undermine the legitimacy of the Institute as an open forum in the eyes of junior and mid-grade officers. Under these circumstances, I regret that the Board chose to disagree with General Wilkerson over this issue.

Some have told me that the key to the Naval Institute’s future lies in who is selected to lead it following General Wilkerson’s departure. I agree completely. Leadership is critical at this strategic inflexion point in the Institute’s life. This crisis over the mission of the organization has created a threat to the enviable reputation that the Institute has built one critical idea at a time since its founding in 1873. Some have suggested that what is needed at this time is a leader who can gain access and influence with the maritime service’s leadership. While I disagree with the legal reasoning that brought about the decision that CNO’s can no longer serve in an honorary capacity as a leader of the Institute, I do not believe that strengthening the relationship between USNI and the maritime service’s front offices is the answer to our prayers. I have heard that the Board’s search committee is looking for a retired three or four star officer who has left active service in the past five years. I strongly oppose such narrow search criteria. Your crisis is not with the Navy’s leadership, it is with the junior and mid-grade officers who, in their growing cynicism, refuse to participate in what they perceive to be a rapidly closing “open forum.”

I respectfully suggest that you open your search criteria to pursue a person with the characteristics of the Army’s John Nagl, who was a major creative force behind the COIN strategy and now serves as the head of the Center for New American Security. We need a young professional with an O-5/O-6 resume, possessing a strong reputation amongst the naval strategic community, who has the energy and legitimacy to promote the open forum of the Naval Institute to a generation of officers who no longer believe in this core center of our profession. In my mind names like Brian McGrath, Vic Addison and Frank Hoffman fit this description.

I feel compelled to respectfully request that you, regardless of your reaction to my suggestion, not to select a member from the current Board’s membership to take over as CEO. While I am sure that anyone considered would be well qualified, the appointment of an individual to lead the Institute who was an active participant in the departure of MGen Wilkerson and the decision to change the mission statement will heighten the cynicism amongst the junior and mid-grade officers as well as the current membership of the Naval Institute. Such a move will have a significant negative impact upon the legitimacy of the United States Naval Institute.

Very Respectfully

Henry J. (Jerry) Hendrix II
Captain, USN (PhD)

Monday, March 7, 2024

US Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Captain Victor Addison, U.S. Navy (Ret.)

For too many years, I have not paid close attention to the governance of the U.S. Naval Institute. I have taken for granted the fact that the Institute would always provide the “independent forum” that allows us to freely explore and share ideas in a public environment unencumbered by bureaucracy, rank, or politics. Since 1873, commands around the world have had spirited professional discussions that began with the phrase: “did you read the article in this month’s Proceedings about…?” As an active duty Naval Officer, I always knew that I was free to enter these discussions--or even start one of my own—without fear of censorship or reprisal. Now that freedom is threatened by a proposal to change the Institute into an advocacy-based organization. As a loyal USNI Life member, I recommend the following:
  1. Vote “no” on this initiative. Your vote counts and we need numbers to make sure this issue is resolved decisively.
  2. Publicly support the continuing service of our USNI CEO, Tom Wilkerson. He is an extraordinarily courageous and innovative leader who has the Institute on the right course.
  3. Publicly demand the creation of an independent panel to develop recommendations—subject to membership approval—that will improve USNI governance. For example, our current governance process is obviously tilted toward nominating retired flag officers, former senior defense officials, and corporate executives for election to the USNI Board of Directors. This demographic group is not representative of the diverse character of our USNI membership.
I have personally contributed to this unfortunate state of affairs by not paying close enough attention to USNI governance issues. I will not be making that mistake again. Please vote “NO” on this important initiative and let your voice be heard.

Sunday, March 6, 2024

United States Naval Institute: The Living Words of Luce

ANNUAL ADDRESS, 1888.
By Rear-Admiral S. B. Luce, U.S. Navy, President of the U.S. Naval Institute.

To the Officers and Members of the U.S. Naval Institute:
When notified, some weeks ago, of my election as President of the U. S. Naval Institute, my time was so much engrossed with other matters as to admit of a brief letter of acceptance only. But now, with more leisure, it seems proper that I should address you somewhat at length, more with a view to testifying my appreciation of the compliment implied by my election, than with the hope of contributing anything of value to the long list of essays which enrich the pages of the Quarterly.

On the establishment of the Newport Branch of the Institute, April 3, 1883, I took occasion to review the work of the Institute and to congratulate its officers, and the editors of the Quarterly, on the marked success of the enterprise. And now, looking back over the intervening years and noting the continued success which has marked its career, I find every reason for renewing those congratulations. But the Institute is of too recent growth to warrant much indulgence in retrospection. Let us look ahead.

The fundamental idea in the establishment of the Institute is "the advancement of professional and scientific knowledge in the Navy," and that purpose is being accomplished year by year in a praiseworthy manner. Hence, the efforts of those who originated the Naval Institute have been marked with success, and much credit is due to them and to their successors for the management of its affairs. Established now on a firm basis and with a paying subscription list, its future, in a literary point of view at least, has long ceased to be doubtful.

It is to be noted that the success of the Board of Control is due to individual exertion—exertion carried on oftentimes against great odds, bringing the authors of the enterprise to the very verge of despair. They have succeeded, nevertheless.

Opposition sometimes proves a wholesome stimulant. It seems to confirm men of character in their opinions when those opinions are founded in reason, and renders them more determined in the prosecution of their plans. At the same time it causes them to be more circumspect in the prosecution of those plans, and to elaborate them more maturely and on broader and deeper foundations, where otherwise they might have been superficial and ephemeral. Hence, it may, and often does, occur that an open and an outspoken opponent proves in the end to be no small factor in the successful development of an enterprise. It is true, the value of this opposition is not always apparent—like those blessings so thoroughly disguised as to be wholly indiscernible by ordinary methods of examination—while there are occasions when opposition may easily prove fatal to the best laid schemes, let their merit be what it may.

The history of the Institute only adds one more to the many proofs that if the germs of the plan are endued with vitality, the plan itself may be pushed through the most formidable opposition to ultimate success. The Naval Academy itself is a marked example of this passing through a "sea of troubles" only to emerge with the crown of victory. These are lessons to be taken to heart.

But opposition is not always necessary to a healthy development. Indeed, it may retard or stifle growth, or even destroy the living germ. The Navy can furnish abundant illustrations of this. And this suggests the pertinent question. Are we not, as a body, wanting in discipline—that discipline which subordinates the individual to the body corporate, the part to the whole, and closes the mouth of opposition to lawfully constituted authority?

If a few undertake to build up, there are never wanting those who are ready to pull down—apparently from a sheer love of pulling down. The personal element, moreover, is such a strong feature of the work of destruction, that it is sufficient to know that A is endeavoring to achieve something for his profession, in order to incite B to oppose him. Both the principle on which A is working and the manifest advantage of his work are lost sight of in the naked fact that A is the active agent. That one fact is enough to arouse the most determined hostility of B. Like blind Samson he will pull down the pillars of the house though it involve his own destruction. This introduction of the personal element in our official relations, whether it has its origin in "envy, hatred, malice, and all un-charitableness," or is born of a conscientious sense of right regarded with a strabismic sense of sight, it yet exists; and in England, if not in our own country, its evil influence has been so far conceded, that the popular judgment would exclude a naval officer from presiding over the destinies of the Navy, and this notwithstanding the history of such great naval administrators as Admirals Lord Anson, Lord Hawk, the Earl of St. Vincent, and Lord Barham.

But the jealousies which prevent our officers from working in harmony for the common good, however inimical to progress, are not the evidences of a want of discipline such as has been hinted of. It is rather the interference of irresponsible parties with the measures of the Government. It is not wholly unknown to the annals of our history that an officer has on his own responsibility procured the introduction of a bill in Congress which, if passed, would affect the entire personnel of the service. It matters not how the provisions of the bill may interfere with others or with the policy of the Government—in this case the Navy Department; and though the great mass of such bills are predestined to those great catacombs of dead hopes, the document rooms of the Capitol, yet the mere fact of its introduction is evidence of an interested party working on independent lines, and not in concert with, indeed often in defiance of, the Department. This is in itself bad enough as an exhibition of lax discipline, but the worst phase is when officers set themselves to work avowedly to defeat the measures of the administration before Congress when those measures do not happen to be in accord with their individual opinions. Certainly no profession, as a whole, can hope to achieve an enviable distinction under such disturbing influences as these. It is like the house divided against itself, or an organism carrying within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

In justice let it be said as a class we are not responsible for this state of affairs. It is due entirely to the peculiar system under which we exist, or, in plain terms, to the absence of a proper form of naval administration by which the Navy may be held together and its policy shaped. There being no directive force to guide the affairs of the Navy—no head, no leader, every one is, in a measure, compelled to act for himself. As there is "no fraternity without a common father," so there can be no following without leadership. The absence of headship loosens the ties of membership and forces into existence independent action. This leads to self assertion and individualism, and individualism leads to anarchy. I do not say we have reached the ultimate stage; I say we are on the road which leads to it. This may not have a pleasing sound, but it is true.

Bad as this is in times of profound peace, it would be simply intolerable in time of war. Indeed, it would be an impossible condition in war. We present to the world, then, the extraordinary spectacle of having a war marine under an organization confessedly unfit for war; and yet we are called a practical people! How this utter disregard of business principles entails enormous expenditures and make-shift expedients is well known. Says Mr. Secretary Welles, writing of the condition of the Navy in March, 1861: "There were no men to man our ships, nor were the few ships at our yards in a condition to be put into immediate service."

The Virginius affair threw us into a panic and cost the country five millions of dollars. Mr. Welles attributed the low condition in which he found the Navy at the breaking out of the Rebellion, to the "disunion element" which had for previous years shaped public policy. It is only at a comparatively recent date that we have come to discover that the "disunion element" is in the Navy Department, though not in the sense in which he used the words. In a recent official document it was shown that since 1868 about seventy millions of dollars has been thrown away upon the Navy. But it is not a waste of public funds alone that is chargeable to our present defective system. The evil at the head permeates the entire body, relaxing, as already shown, the restraints of discipline and leading to a prodigal waste of vital forces.

Now the corner stone of the Institute is the "advancement of professional knowledge in the Navy," but what is the use of knowledge if it cannot be applied? It is the application of knowledge that makes it valuable. We may go on ad infinitum publishing admirable essays, and much important information may be disseminated throughout the service, and many excellent and thoroughly practical suggestions may be spread over the pages of our Quarterly, but what substantial good do they do to the profession? How do they contribute to the progress of the Navy as a body? Let us take any one of the prize essays, for example, and consider for a moment its practical utility in affecting the Navy.

Outside its own special sphere, there is no subject of such vital importance to the Navy as our merchant service. The prize essay for 1882 was entitled "Our Merchant Marine; the Cause of Its Decline and the Means to be Taken for Its Revival." Let us now suppose that from the eleven essays presented to the judges of award there had been deduced a sound and practicable solution of the question, what should have been done with the paper? To whom should it have been presented with any hope of its receiving consideration? There is no one. You have fired your gun, but the shell has burst harmlessly in the air.

For a simpler illustration let us take the prize essay of 1886, "What Changes in Organization and Drill are Necessary to Sail and Fight Most Effectively our War Ships of the Latest Type?" and suppose, moreover, that the essay receiving the prize is a complete solution of the question—what comes of it? Nothing.

The question for the Institute to ask of itself, then, is: Can we continue forever to disseminate useful knowledge without a hope of substantial benefits to result there from? If we are to be known by our fruits, we must be able to show them. It is idle to go on sowing with never a hope of reaping. There must come a time when, in answer to the question, "What has the Institute accomplished?" we can point to reforms and progressive steps which will keep the profession abreast, if not in advance, of the nautical world in the great march of events. Hence there must be some power with which the Institute can feel itself in sympathy—a power that will have the eye to see, the ear to hear, and the understanding to act, and that power must be a controlling power. It must be at the head and must dominate the members. Then may we look for steady progress according to some recognized system. For no one at all familiar with our history will be deceived for one moment by an occasional spasmodic effort at rehabilitation under present conditions. How are we to attain this end?

Says the highest official authority, in regard to our need of naval administrators to shape our naval policy, "At the top of the system there should be wise general direction." With regard to the office of Secretary of the Navy: "The Secretary may at once be eliminated from the problem: a civilian, not skilled in the art of war, nor having any technical knowledge with reference to its implements, having no personal staff, his separate office consisting of but one stenographer, one clerk, and three messengers, all the other force having general clerical work." Of the Chiefs of Bureaus: "The inevitable result of throwing large executive duties upon any man is to disqualify him for council. At the present time this function is not performed at all." "Thus it happens, as it has happened for the last twenty years, that the Department drifts along, doing without consideration whatever is done and with no intelligent guidance in any direction."

The vicious system which has so long usurped the place of a naval administration was so forcibly presented in the Report of '85 as to draw from the Chief Executive the remark that "the conviction is forced upon us with the certainty of mathematical demonstration that before we proceed further in the restoration of a Navy we need a thoroughly reorganized Navy Department." This was in 1885.

What has been done since? A bill was drawn up containing the leading features of such a form of naval government as was shown to be consistent with the principles laid down. The Report of 1886 says of it, "A bill embodying the substantial points awaits action upon the House calendar," and there it remains. Now it is not susceptible of proof, but the probabilities are that the bill was killed by influences not entirely foreign to the Navy itself I would not be understood as saying that the bill would have been favorably considered by the House even had it received the approval of the Navy at large. Far from it. The Navy might have been unanimous for the bill and still it might not have reached a second reading. But naval officers, like members of other professions, have friends in both houses of Congress, and they can make their own personal representations to those friends; and whereas it is difficult to procure the passage of any bill, it is comparatively easy to defeat one, whatsoever merit it may possess.

Here then is a forcible illustration—one which would be startling but for its being so common—of the measures of the administration being opposed, and as we believe successfully, by those whose loyalty it should be able to claim. But here again comes in the excuse, that the individuals are not so much to blame as the system under which they hold their official existence. Each one sets himself up for a judge of what is right and proper, without reflecting that allegiance is due to constituted authority, whether the acts of that authority are in accordance with their own views or not.

Moreover, views on the subject of naval administration are sometimes expressed in such an off-hand manner as to suggest much caution in accepting them. While some officers have made a careful study of the subject, others have given it but a passing thought. And yet the latter class will have no hesitation in the wholesale condemnation of the "bureau system," and bureaucracy in general, of a Board of Admiralty, or any other kind of board; an autocracy, or "one man power" in any form. Yet they do not hesitate to express their views, crude as they may be, to members of Congress. There are very few indeed who, without previous study, can draw up a sound, comprehensive form of naval government that will suit our condition, meet our present wants, and at the same time be unassailable on any just grounds.

It is just here that the Institute might render important service to the profession by enlightening the public mind of the Navy on this subject, through the medium of essays and frequent discussions. I am aware that there has already appeared in the pages of the Proceedings a paper touching on reorganization. But the discussion which ensued embraced the entire personnel of the Navy, leaving little time or room for a critical examination of any one of the integral parts. If we limit the essay and discussion to one particular branch, and select at the outset the most important, we shall probably obtain a consensus of opinion as to what is really needed. Beginning at the top, therefore, it is believed that if an essay on the subject of "The Best Form of Naval Administration" was called for, the Institute would have the opportunity of disseminating throughout the service some useful information on the most important question which now concerns our profession. That such a discussion may lead to the first and most important step in the process of the rehabilitation of the U.S. Navy (the reorganization of our Navy Department), is not such a remote possibility as might at first glance be supposed. If the efforts of naval officers could bring about a reorganization in 1842, there seems to be no good reason why they should not accomplish the same in 1888.

In both instances the initiative has been taken by the Department itself, with the great advantage, in favor of the present generation, of having such a medium of communication as the Institute's Quarterly. But while it is true that the Department took the initiative in 1840 in bringing about a reorganization, and that naval officers were largely instrumental in influencing action by which the bureau system was introduced, yet it should be distinctly understood that the Department was not remodeled wholly in accordance with the views of those who had been most active in bringing it about; and forty years of sad experience has shown that they were right.

The question then is: Shall the Institute endeavor, through its pages, so to influence and guide opinion in the Navy that we may, as a body, second the efforts of the Navy Department, and exert ourselves to bring about a correction of the error committed in 1842? It would be "a consummation devoutly to be wished," and if the Institute will take the lead and carry us on to victory, it will accomplish a reform of which its members may well feel proud.

It is scarcely necessary to add that even an ideal form of naval administration is not a sovereign cure of all ills. In the palmy days of the Board of Commissioners, four fine ships of the line rotted away upon the stocks simply because Congress would not give the money to finish them, and of the twelve laid down in 1815-18 only four ever got to sea. The settled policy of our national legislature, covered by a period of over a century, shows that war must be imminent and immediate before preparations to meet it are undertaken. But under the old regime, naval affairs were administered with wisdom and economy, the military character of the profession was maintained and discipline kept up; and that is all we can hope to regain.

The question I submit to the Board of Control is, Shall this great work be undertaken?