United States Naval Institute: Some Thoughts by Dr. Richard Kohn

The following thoughts on the mission change suggested by the Board of Directors of the U.S. Naval Institute come from Dr. Richard Kohn. Dr. Kohn, currently a Professor of History and Peace, War, and Defense at The University of North Carolina, has previously served as the Chief of Air Force History. He has been called one of America’s top military historians, and has written about the value of dissent, and proper expression of that dissent, in the military. Dr. Kohn has serious reservations about the Board of Directors’ desire to change the United States Naval Institute and has given permission to reprint this anecdote:

Whether the Navy deserves it or not, the US Naval Institute, its "Proceedings," and its other programs (not least the book program) have been the most active, independent, professional, useful, and respected institution and journal among the armed forces for many decades. Tom Wilkerson has been an outstanding leader.

Such a change would be catastrophic for the Navy, and its professionalism.

When I was Chief of Air Force History in the 1980s, Barry Goldwater and I were chatting one day in the Secretary's conference room, at a promotion, decoration, or retirement ceremony (I don't remember which), and he turned to me and with passion said, "We need a Naval Institute; the Air Force needs an institution like that!!" I explained to him briefly why we did not have such an institution and why we didn't need one (knowing that its independence, above all, would not be possible given the Air Force's history and "DNA" about air power, and the need to foster independence of viewpoint among the institutions already operating in the Air Force). He wasn't having any, and indeed badgered the Air Force Director of Public Affairs on the subject, in addition to me.

Those who are advocating such a change ought to ponder this anecdote--it's quite meaningful in a number of ways.

The United States Naval Institute is the envy of the other service branches. The open forum for ideas has been lacking in the defense world for members of the Army and Air Force while the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard have benefitted greatly from the ideas generated by the Institute’s "open forum."

Is it time for USNI to become like the Air Force Association (which “educates the public about the critical role of aerospace power in the defense of our nation; advocates aerospace power and a strong national defense”) or the Association of the United States Army (which to “support all aspects of national security while advancing the interests of America's Army and the men and women who serve”), organizations which have little standing in the arena of ideas?

I think not.

US Naval Institute: Communicating Cart Before the Horse

If you have email archives that go forever like I do, you might notice the following. Before the August 2010 Naval Institute News the email signature for official newsletters was:

Since 1873, the U. S. Naval Institute has been the Nation's premier independent forum for critical thinking on issues of national security. Its books, magazines, conferences and heritage resources:

Support professional development of Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen
Invigorate useful debate
Advance a strong national defense
Honor those who have served

Since the August 2010 Naval Institute News the email signature has been:

The U.S. Naval Institute is an independent forum founded in 1873 to advance the knowledge of sea power, to exchange ideas on national security issues and to preserve our naval and maritime heritage. Today, its publications, conferences, online content and blogs:

Advocate the necessity of global sea power for national security and economic prosperity
Support professional development of Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen
Honor those who have served the Nation

Put another way, USNI has been using the new mission statement in an official capacity on email newsletters since August 2010, including as the signature of today's newsletter that explains the ballot proposal to change the mission statement.

At least they are demonstrating honesty through action by removing "Invigorate useful debate." The absence of any useful information by the Board of Directors from which anyone could make an informed vote on this measure has insured no debate.

This must be the new and improved US Naval Institute the Board of Directors envisioned.

Open Letter to the Board of the United States Naval Institute by John Byron

John Byron is a retired Captain of the United States Navy. He is the author of about 100 articles & essays for Proceedings and was Proceedings Writer of the Year in 1983 and 1992. John wrote prize-winning essays in the US Naval Institute’s Arleigh Burke Essay Contest (1998, 2002, 2004, 2005) and was the first Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategic Essay Contest winner in 1982. Additionally, John was the primary adviser to Naval Institute Press on publication of The Hunt For Red October.

A life member, I write to ask that you reconsider two disastrous decisions: changing the Institute’s mission; firing its CEO. My right to address you is found in the attached document: I’m a minor representative of the many who’ve given this institution meaning over its long and venerable life.

Many years ago I heard Lieutenant General Brad Hosmer, the President of National Defense University, offer a challenge to the assembled faculty and students of his colleges that perfectly sums up the meaning of the Naval Institute’s established mission: “Never be afraid to take risks with ideas.” Generations of naval officers, aided by editors of extraordinary grace and competence, have challenged orthodoxy and taken the sea services safely through uncharted seas through nearly fourteen decades of change and turmoil that shaped the world we live in. They — we — “dared to read, think, speak, and write” concerned only with the judgment of our peers and the challenge of advancing the conversation and our profession positively and well. To quote another NDU President, Lieutenant General John Pustay speaking to my graduating class at The National War College, we took up his charge: “Shake the steeples!”

All that now changes, goes away, is obliterated and destroyed forever by this ill-considered initiative to turn the Naval Institute into something it has resisted becoming since its founding: just another damned advocacy group. It’s an easy exercise to highlight the flaws in the proposed new mission:

Just ‘global sea power?’ What if sea power is not the best tool? What of jointness and fighting together? What if the advance of sea power has an opportunity cost that weakens national defense? Etc.

Just ‘economic prosperity?’ What of democratic freedoms? What of human rights? What of protecting the earth’s environment, dealing with global climate change? And whose economic prosperity? All citizens? All people? Corporate America? Who?

It’s all in the eye of the beholder and this proposed mission statement establishes the official beholder’s position as paramount. The more serious concern, the aspect fatal to the Institute, is the inevitable and chilling push for mission correctness that will infiltrate and pervert every aspect of Institute business. “Good essay, lieutenant, but it doesn’t really advocate the necessity of global sea power the way we think best. Go read the CNO’s Posture Statement and try again.” Once. Just once. Do that once and you’ve lost the fleet. And it’s certain to happen; it’s baked into the proposed mission statement and intrinsic to the thought behind it. The next generation of Hollands and Stavridises and Wrights and Owenses and — yes — Byrons will be lost to the pages of Proceedings and the mission of the Institute.

The current situation has three possible outcomes, two unacceptable and one the best of a bad lot:

1. The mission-statement fails. This would lead to the resignation of six Board members, their only honorable option, and then a governance crisis compounded by the lack of experienced executive leadership. That’s an unacceptable outcome fraught with risk to the Institute.
2. The mission-statement passes. This would produce wholesale resignations from members (I’d be one), the end of fleet-derived manuscripts, the departure of all but the wage slaves on the Institute’s wonderful staff, and a governance crisis postponed to next year when a member-nominated slate takes over the Board, one well intentioned but inexperienced and unable to deliver the financial resources the Institute needs. The Institute Press and Naval History would lose their academic underpinnings. The Institute would be forced to remove from Academy grounds. The new rivalry with the Navy League would weaken both organizations. Court challenges might come along to test the Institute’s governance and challenge the Board’s actions. This is even more unacceptable, a death knell.
3. The Board withdraws the mission initiative and offers General Wilkerson the opportunity to return to the CEO position permanently. This would restore the status quo ante, though with the deck littered with broken crockery and a long stretch of healing ahead. Still, it’s the best we can do at this pass, an acceptable resolution of a crisis perpetrated on the Institute by six perhaps well-meaning but seriously misguided Directors stunningly out of touch with the membership that placed its trust in them.

The uproar around this initiative is certainly a surprise to its proponents. Take it as a portend. Perhaps the individuals pushing this invidious bad idea are cocksure in their position … but they are not the majority of the Board. Even if we can’t unring this bell, we need not sink the ship. The Board should undo the tragedy in play and give the Naval Institute back to its members.

A personal note: I’m astonished and saddened by the Institute’s fragility revealed in this crisis. Imagine: three denizens of Wall Street and three retired flags can tear down an institution that’s the envy of the other Services and respected by navies around the world, a mainstay in the life of my navy. Six head-strong individuals can destroy the United States Naval Institute. Shameful.

A Communication Demonstrating Failure to Communicate

US Naval Institute Members received the following email this morning:

March 2, 2024

Dear USNI Member,


The U.S. Naval Institute 2011 Member Ballot included with the April Naval History magazine is invalid, as it does not include an historic change to the Mission of the Naval Institute that has been recommended by the Board of Directors. If you voted using this ballot, it will not be counted.

The Member Ballot included with the March issue of Proceedings is correct in that it includes the proposed change to the USNI mission statement. Please vote/re-vote using this ballot.

Alternately, you may vote online. To do so, you will need to use your Member Number to log in: C########

Members who only receive Naval History magazine will receive a revised ballot in the mail, which is mailing the week of 1 March.

We apologize for any confusion and thank you for your continued support.


Sincerely,


Thomas L. Wilkerson
Major General, USMC (Ret.)
Chief Executive Officer

---

This announcement of a bad ballot mailed to members also represents the first official notification by the US Naval Institute of the existence of a "historic" proposal to change the organizations mission statement.

This proposed mission change is so "historic" in fact, that this first official announcement of the proposals existence fails to even mention any details regarding what is being proposed for members to vote on.

US Naval Institute: The Genesis of Hostile Takeover

On July 13-14 last year, the Board of Directors of the Naval Institute (USNI) and the Board of Directors of the Naval Institute Foundation (NIF) met for a Strategic Planning Meeting to discuss the future of the Institute. Below are the minutes of that meeting.

Board Jul10 Strategic Planning Meeting

As the minutes make clear, I was not in the room. I can only surmise then from the meeting minutes what took place by assuming that these minutes were accepted and in good order at a later date. I also note that Mr. Mark Johnson and Dr. J.P. London were also not present at this Board of Directors meeting.

Note Agenda Item 3:

ITEM 3-1: ESTABLISH THE CENTER FOR SEA POWER STUDIES: The Board requested the CEO prepare the necessary Pro Forma, action plan, Case Statement and NIF pamphlet for potential donors as quickly as possible with a goal of raising the neededfunds and opening the Center set for 1 January 2011.

ITEM 3-2: SUPPORTING INITATIVES: The Board requested the CEO work with theChairman and Director Morgan to prepare appropriate announcements of the new initiativewith the logic that drives the decision for publishing in Proceedings, online, and in a series of email announcements leading up to the 137th Annual Meeting. The Board approved reaching out to a commercial advertising/marketing agency for assistance as needed within our funding capability.

The Board also requested more work be done identifying target audiences, key messages, and ways to access interested parties.

Note Action Item 4:

In a historic step, the Board unanimously agreed to eliminate the Preamble to the current USNI Constitution & By-Laws and amend the USNI Mission to read:

THE UNITED STATES NAVAL INSTITUTE IS AN INDEPENDENT FORUM ADVOCATING THE NECESSITY OF GLOBAL SEA POWER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY.

This decision will be presented to the Members in the Winter 2010 annual ballot.

The minutes of the Board of Directors meeting suggest to me that these actions were linked, and that the first action is what necessitated the second action.

As I understood it, the Theodore Roosevelt Center was the idea that came from the initiative to develop a Center for Seapower Studies. As I understood it the Theodore Roosevelt Center would become a new but distinct function of the Institute and operate as a Think Tank that focused on issues related to seapower, and would not in any way influence existing heritage, history, and publication operations of the Institute. Below are some of the documents related to the development of the Theodore Roosevelt Center for Seapower Studies.

TR Center Assumptions

TR Center Case Statement

However, something happened along the way, because myself and most people never heard of the Theodore Roosevelt Center for Seapower Studies, or never heard much more than the existence of an idea. The facts get murky at this point, and no one from the Board of Directors or the US Naval Institute has been able to honestly clarify these matters in public.

As I understand the chain of events piecing together the facts as they are known, the Board of Directors ultimately decided for some reason, probably funding, that the Theodore Roosevelt Center was not an option, and instead decided to simply add that capacity to the existing operations of the Naval Institute. As I have been told the story, General Wilkerson and a minority of members on the Board of Directors objected, but the outcome of that objection was General Wilkerson being fired as CEO and the minority losing the debate.

As these are the facts as they are known to me, and because the Board of Directors has intentionally not revealed any information regarding their intentions, engaged publicly in any way regarding these activities, and the United States Naval Institute has yet to formally even send out a public notification of a proposed mission statement change by email to all members - we are left to draw our own conclusions.

So based on the facts as I know them, I am left with the impression that if you want to know where the US Naval Institute is heading with this mission statement change, simply read the documents related to the Theodore Roosevelt Center. If you don't believe the Board of Directors intend to make the US Naval Institute like the TR Center, then explain some other why General Wilkerson was fired. There really isn't any other conclusion to draw based on the facts as they are known, although I will gladly entertain opinions if they also provide additional facts.

I am left with the conclusion that the 137 year old Independent Forum and today's members are currently observing a hostile takeover by three Morgan Stanley Wall Street money men and three retired Vice Admirals.

Mr. Stephen M. Waters, The Honorable Robert C. McCormack, Mr. Donald P. Brennan, VADM John G. Morgan, Jr., USN (Ret), VADM Nancy E. Brown, USN (Ret), and VADM Norman W. Ray, USN (Ret) have pulled a Board Room two step for mil-money and power in the name of advocacy, and in that process they will casually discard the priceless value that exists with the credibility of a truly Open and Independent Forum in the United States national security debate - as if that idealism of independence holds no value in today's charged political climate.

The United States Naval Institute and "Advocacy"

Below is a guest post from LCDR Benjamin “BJ” Armstrong, USN. He is an active duty naval helicopter pilot who is currently serving as an MH-60S Detachment Officer-in-Charge. He is a USNI member whose articles have appeared in Proceedings, Naval History and The USNI Blog. He has been a panelist on USNI panels at the 2010 Joint Warfighting Conference as well as the 2010 USNI Naval History Conference.

The concerns that have been expressed by luminaries of the United States Naval Institute like Norman Polmar, Rear Admiral Tom Marfiak (Ret), and VADM Robert Dunn (Ret) are on target. There are many reasons to vote against the change in mission for the Naval Institute including the change in status to a lobbying organization (and risk to the Annapolis facility), the lack of transparency in the decision process, and the mismatch between the new mission statement and the objectives and vision of the Institute. Changing the mission of the Institute will ensure that the relevance of the organization will diminish over the next several years with regards to the Sailors and Marines which the organization claims to support.

None of this means that there is no place for advocacy in the United States Naval Institute. There is always a place for educating the American public about the importance of seapower. In 1919 an article appeared in Proceedings entitled “The Responsibilities and Duties of the Naval Officers of the United States in Educating and Informing the Public on Professional Matters.” It was written by LCDR V.N. Bieg and laid out several suggestions on how the Navy could improve advocacy for the service following the First World War. He wrote, “that the deplorable ignorance exists regarding the very raison d’etre of the navy, its character, its war and peace time work, its thousand and one varied activities, even its uniform, is a commonplace and cannot be denied,” and something had to be done.

The article demonstrates that there is room for advocacy at the Naval Institute, but how the article came to be written is just as instructive. In the early decades of USNI the “Board of Control,” as the Board of Directors was known at that time, published a list of articles that they would be interested in seeing, a “call for papers” in academic or publishing terms. The Board recognized that when the military drew down following “The War to End All Wars” the Navy risked losing out in the struggle over the future force. The best way to advocate for the Navy was a subject on their mind, and they published in their “Topics for Essays: Suggested by Request of the Board of Control” a request for an article on educating the public. The challenge was taken up by a Lieutenant Commander who looked for practical answers that might actually work to draw educational information from the fleet, rather than from the senior officers of the service or from the political class in Washington, D.C.

In the same issue of Proceedings that published LCDR Bieg’s essay there were articles on the officer personnel system, the volunteer force during the Civil War, the use of automatic guns, and an essay about how to properly construct ship models for testing. The breadth of subjects covered in that issue of Proceedings demonstrates the value of the mission as it currently stands. Taken as an organic whole the issue advances “the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power” by providing articles in each of those categories while also containing an article about advocating for the Navy.

Is there a place for advocacy at the United States Naval Institute? Yes. Does that require a change to the mission that moves the focus of USNI from the pre-eminent professional organization of the Sea Services to an advocacy and lobbying organization for the Navy? Absolutely not. As I have written about before here at Information Dissemination, as well as in the pages of Proceedings and at the USNI Blog, our service continues to appear to drift away from knowledge, understanding, and belief in our history. It looks as if the Institute itself is becoming a victim of that same “present-mindedness” that believes that things are so different today, and that we are so much more capable and intelligent than our predecessors, that it is best to ignore history and look only to the present.

It is time that we honor our history, rather than turn our backs on it. There may be a need for a maritime advocacy group or lobbying outfit, perhaps one that has relationships with many organizations like USNI, the Navy League, and even the Surface Navy Association and the Association of Naval Aviators. However, sacrificing the integrity and history of the Naval Institute in order to create such a group is shortsighted. The mission of the United States Naval Institute has worked for over a century. It should remain “To provide 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 opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.

--

Also see another contribution from LCDR Benjamin Armstrong yesterday over at CDR Salamander's blog discussing the United States Naval Institute and Junior Officers.

Open Letter From Dr. Jack London, Member US Naval Institute Board of Directors

Subject: Opposition to the USNI Ballot

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board,

As you are aware, since last summer I have had many misgivings about the direction of our board actions.

I was skeptical about the ‘advocacy’ word going into the mission statement from the first. With the way this entire matter has been so poorly handled and presented to the USNI membership, I strongly oppose the improper course we are now following. I am also deeply concerned about the board’s flawed ‘governance’ processes.

I conducted an extensive survey, contracting 5 CNO’s, 2 SECNAV’s, 16 four star naval officers in all, and NONE supported the explicit ‘advocate’ role for USNI. We should heed their response.

We gain absolutely nothing from a word change to “Advocacy,” that justifies diminishing our image and heritage as the “independent forum” for seapower and maritime policy and service matters. This is our brand, our uniqueness.

Lastly, I believe we have been presumptuous and failed in our duty to our membership (read “shareholders”) in not properly informing them of these actions ahead of time - due care. We have not brought this matter properly to our membership for their knowledge and debate.

I further believe we have not given proper notice about this change, the ballot and the board slate.

These failings must be corrected.

In any case, I will vote against the proposed change. I should hope you will all do the same.

Always my best’

J.P. London


---

Tom Ricks has also published a piece by Captain John Byron (ret) on this issue. CDR Salamander goes long, and has some insider and background.

And finally someone posted on this issue at the US Naval Institute blog. I've been instructed that I cannot do that (ironic and telling, eh?), but I have a feeling the very last thing some folks on the Board of Directors are going to do is tell an enlisted staff member of ADM Stavridis that he can't speak his mind at USNI.

US Naval Institute Mails Bad Ballots to Members

My copy of Naval History Magazine came in the mail today. I note the ballot includes the Election of the Board of Directors and the Election of the Editorial Board, but does not include the election for the mission statement change.

It strikes me as a serious concern that the first ballot some members are getting in the mail doesn't even have the most important issue on the ballot. What happens to ballots that get sent in without the issue on the ballot, are those ballots invalid? Do they get counted, or tossed out, and who informs the members that they submitted a bad ballot to the vote?

Here is a picture of my Naval History Magazine ballot without the mission statement issue.


You can click and enlarge the pictures.

I originally thought this was a case where good people with good intentions were poorly executing an admirable objective in the wrong way.

It is starting to look more and more like a wardroom of assholes trying to shove a shit pie down the Institute memberships throat.

Voting shenanigans are not acceptable.

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter From VADM Bob Dunn

Naval Institute Mission

One day shortly you will be receiving a ballot from the Naval Institute. Among the more important items on which you will be asked to vote is the Mission , listed as Issue 2 on the ballot. What that proposed change would do is to change the current 138 year old Naval Institute Mission from,

" ...provide 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,"

to one of advocacy.

In the event you have not seen the proposal I have attached it for your review. The USNI has well served the sea services and the Nation by providing a forum. Neither the Navy nor the other sea services need another advocate. There is already a plethora of organizations and the Navy's own CHINFO and Chief of Legislative Affairs that do just that. Advocacy is specifically not what the Naval Institute should be all about. In fact, in personal conversation some former CNOs have said to me, “I don’t need another lobbyist.”

Yet, to my knowledge there has not been a discussion of this most important and basic change in the Mission outside the Board of Directors and, I understand, there is no literature with the ballot that offers an explanation.

I most strongly recommend you vote, No, to the change.

Let me also stress how important it is that you vote. The Naval Institute, like so many other membership organizations, seldom garners more than fifteen percent of the members' votes in an election of any sort. When those who care don't vote, those with an agenda will carry the day. If those with the agenda of changing the mission carry the day in this instance, the Naval Institute as it has been known since 1873 will degenerate and eventually pass into history as just another of the plethora of naval oriented organizations and Proceedings will degenerate along with it.

Please vote!

By the way, I write from the perspective of a Golden Life Member, a former chairman of the editorial board for Proceedings, a former interim Naval Institute Press director and a frequent contributor to the forum.

VADM Bob Dunn


---

If you vote using the online ballot system set up at the United States Naval Institute, you may notice the first vote on the ballot is for the Board of Directors. It can be a bit confusing and doesn't come with an instruction manual, so this short tutorial might be useful for those willing to express a sense of opinion towards those who are involved in pushing this change to the mission statement of the United States Naval Institute.

On the first page, you may notice you are asked if you are FOR or AGAINST the election of the nominees listed for Board of Directors. If you choose FOR then select the option at the bottom of the page to "Record my vote Now" you will cast a vote for every member of the Board of Directors. If you choose the AGAINST option, you are taken to a page where you can be more selective. For example, on the first page I choose AGAINST and then selected the option to "Record my vote Now":
After I choose the AGAINST option, I am taken to page 1a where I get to be more specific about my vote. The default on the page is everyone checked, but you are specifically asked to "un-check the nominees you'd prefer not to vote for." There was only one person that I wanted to vote for, so my selection looks like this:
I do not know anything about Mr. Cady or Mr. Miller, but after putting together the extraordinary number of rumors circulating around the roles in the current mission statement change of the other seven people on the list, I feel very comfortable with my vote on this ballot.

I encourage every member of USNI to vote against the proposal to change the mission statement. Previous information on this discussion can be found here and here.

The Mission of the U.S. Naval Institute by Rear Admiral Tom Marfiak (ret)

Dear Norm,

Thank you for sending your thoughts on the forthcoming ballot issue relating to the mission statement of the Naval Institute.

I must confess I was surprised to hear of this development. Although it has been several years , I am proud of what we achieved, and prouder still to have many friends and colleagues with whom I maintain cordial relationships. Yet, I had heard no preliminary whispers. It seems logical to me that changing the mission statement, after some one hundred thirty seven years, is an epochal event. As such, the entire membership should weigh in. From the bright junior officers who represent our future, to the eminent senior officers whose sense of vision has sustained our profession, to the articulate and thoughtful civilian members who enrich our institute with their thoughts and insights, all of us have a role in determining the future of the Naval Institute. If a course change is warranted, we should make it, but knowingly, after a debate in the best traditions of the Naval Institute itself.

As I understand it, we are to shortly receive a ballot where the mission change will be an item, inter alia. Why isn't it a separate item, highlighted, and discussed at some length in the pages of Proceedings? Have I missed something? Has the Naval Institute failed to meet its goals and objectives? Has it failed to adapt to the rigors of the digital age? From my perspective as a former CEO, it has done so brilliantly. The pages of our flagship journal have been enriched by an active and ongoing discussion on the issues before the United States and its maritime services, both as unique services and as parts of the Joint Armed Forces of the United States. Before we vote on a matter of such fundamental importance to the future of the Naval Institute, we should have a far reaching discussion. I know I have been preoccupied with many other issues, but I don't recall us having had this discussion. It may be time to have it, but it deserves more visibility than a checked box on a ballot.

Read the mission statement. It is straightforward. It says what the Naval Institute is, "an independent forum." It defines who is part of it, "those who dare to read, think, speak,and write." Then it says why we exist, "to advance the professional, literary and scientific understanding of seapower and other issues critical to national defense." The brave men who sat down in Annapolis in 1873 wrote well. Their vision was long. They could not have seen the future, yet they gave us a framework for thinking that has withstood the test of time. Before we change it in a fundamental way, we need to examine where we are, where we want to go, and determine if changing the mission statement, and the related vision and objectives of the Institute need to be changed as well.

The vision statement, for example, says that "through intellectual rigor and honesty second to none" the Naval Institute will "test the intellectual wisdom and explore the power of new ideas." How it does that, of course, contributes to our relevancy in the information age. I'll let others comment, but it seems to me that the Naval Institute does that now, just as it has for the past thirteen decades. Further, the objectives of the Naval Institute are clearly stated. They are three. First "foster an understanding of the need for a strong national defense." Second, foster an understanding of "the role of the sea services in preserving it", and third, foster an understanding of our "obligation to the men and women of the all volunteer force who provide it." The final section states three characteristics the Institute must embody. It must be independent, i.e. no government support. Its goals and objectives must "transcend political affiliations." And (this is important), it must "encourage ideas." All of these, the vision, objectives and desired characteristics, are tied together by the open forum. Before we embark on a new course, we should understand more completely the necessity for change, lest we lose that which is most precious to us, our intellectual honesty and our vision.

There are consequences to any action. We should understand the consequences of a vote before we take it. That is what democracy is all about. We need to be an informed electorate. Nothing less than our future depends on it.

Thank you again for alerting me and others. I hope these few thoughts help focus the issue. They are too important not to merit our most careful and thoughtful consideration.

Tom Marfiak
Rear Admiral USN Ret.


---

Rear Admiral Marfiak (ret) hits on an important point that this has not been a transparent process. Furthermore, it would be difficult to suggest this is a call for broader discussion when in fact there is nowhere to actually discuss the issue, except in the broader naval blog community. Any member who has published with the USNI in the past can at any time contribute an opinion on this blog to be published. Just email me using the link in the top right of this blog.

Many of you have emailed me for more information on what is going on at USNI. I really do not know the full story, only parts of it. I will provide more background and history as I know it next week, including where various members on the Board of Directors comes down on this issue. I do know that the Board of Directors effectively fired General Wilkerson as CEO for not supporting this change to the Institutes mission statement. As I understand it, Tom's last duty as CEO will be Honors Night in October and as you might imagine, the Board of Directors has already assembled a search committee to find the next CEO; no doubt a CEO who is more willing to implement this new mission direction.

That is cart before the horse in my opinion, because this mission statement proposal will be going down in flames.

I intend to discuss this issue for the next several weeks, and I hope all of you are sharing information with your network of USNI members over email, social media, and in your place of work should you know other USNI members. As always, I encourage members to email the USNI Board of Directors with your thoughts regarding the new mission statement proposal and other current events at the USNI.

USNI members can begin voting against this proposal online at this link. In playing with it a little, there are a few tricks to the online voting system, so I will likely make a blog post specifically on the online voting system next week.

People have asked me how big of a deal I think this mission statement proposal is at USNI. With the exceptions of the wars and the FY 2011 / FY 2012 budget, I honestly believe this is the most important thing happening in the national security debate in the United States today. From the ashes of this proposal will be an opportunity to boldly move forward the United States Naval Institute, and if done with the right vision and with a commitment to the existing mission statement; I honestly believe the United States Naval Institute today is optimally positioned to facilitate the national security debate of this country in the 21st century just as the United States Naval Institute has done at other times over the last 138 years.

I intend to explain my vision for how that can be accomplished next week.

US Naval Institute Official Announcement on Mission Change

The United States Naval Institute has published an official member ballot announcement regarding the mission statement change.

A few things annoy me about this statement.

The use of the phrase "Proactive advocate" suggests to me the organization would change into a political lobby. That seems to me to be the fastest way to get the USNI thrown off the campus at Annapolis.

"Proper role" is just as bad in my opinion, and in the context of events taking place around the world in 2011 - shockingly ignorant. I'll be revisiting this topic very soon.

I could not be more disappointed by the decision to push this change by the Board of Directors, and when you combine the lack of transparency and the removal as CEO of General Wilkerson as part of pushing this change, I begin to wonder what the motivations are.

Apparently, the Board of Directors at USNI honestly believes that some specific message is most important, as if only someone could perfectly articulate the right collection of phrases and speeches then "global seapower" would suddenly emerge as a national priority.

To me, such logic reveals a lack of understanding regarding modern communications, which means these folks would be completely inept as advocates anyway.

United States Naval Institute: An Open Letter From Norman Polmar

The following letter is being circulated and is for members of the United States Naval Institute. I can guarantee that I intend to discuss this topic quite a bit over the next month.

All,

I am writing to you--fellow members of the U.S. Naval Institute--to urge that you vote against the proposed change of the USNI mission statement that is being mailed out with the March issue of the Proceedings magazine. The current statement is refined from the original, 1873 mission written at the establishment of the USNI (see below). I believe that USNI members who believe in the principles of our 138-year-old professional organization should strongly object to three words/terms in the proposed change of the mission statement:

(1) "an independent forum advocating" I believe these words are self-contradictory. The USNI has established itself as the leading international naval--and increasingly "defense"--forum because it has not "advocated" anything but has let authors (military and civilian, of all ranks, genders, and even nationalities) express their opinions. "Advocating" a position will unquestionably deter the USNI serving as an independent forum.

(2) "global sea power" What does this mean? The Soviet Union from 1970 (the massive Okean exercise) until 1991 was certainly a "global sea power"--does the USNI advocate a rehabilitation of Russian sea power? Or a buildup of Chinese global sea power? Or Japanese? Or ...? And, does "global sea power" include a strong merchant marine--which we do not have and will not develop in the foreseeable future? Or fishing fleet? Or ....? Again, "global sea power" is ambiguous and misleading.

(3) "economic prosperity" Again, for whom? The world? Then the USNI is encouraging every nation (including Iran, N. Korea, China, etc.) to develop global sea power. Or only for the United States? How does "global sea power" help U.S. prosperity--other than the shipbuilding industry?

The proposed new mission statement makes the USNI appear to be a lobbying and "cheerleading" organization for.... I am not quite certain for what or whom. In the years that I have been associated with the Naval Institute (since age 15), I was taught that those roles--lobbying and cheerleading--were the purpose of the Navy League, not the Naval Institute.

The USNI now exists "to provide 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." I believe that mission statement is still valid and germane.

I strongly urge all members to REJECT the proposed change to the USNI mission statement.

All good wishes/Norman

I stand with Norman Polmar, and strongly believe that information and education on the issue will overwhelmingly lead to a rejection of the proposed change to the USNI mission statement. I encourage all members of the United States Naval Institute to forward a copy of this letter, and all other information about this proposed change to every USNI member you know; via email, Facebook, Twitter, and with every other communication tool you prefer.

The mission statement of USNI is Acticle I, Section II of the Constitution and By-Laws and is available from this link to USNI members. The existing mission statement:

ARTICLE I Name and Mission

Section 2. The Mission of the Institute is “to provide 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 proposed change would be:

The Mission of the Institute is “to be an Independent Forum advocating the necessity of global sea power for national security and economic prosperity.”

In discussing this issue with many of you over the last week, several of you have commented that we already have a Navy League. I agree, The Navy League is a great organization that some on the Board of Directors apparently want USNI to compete against. The Navy League mission statement is:

The Navy League of the United States is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating our citizens about the importance of sea power to U.S. national security and supporting the men and women of the sea services and their families.

Some folks on the Board of Directors are trying to pull a fast one here hoping no one is paying attention. I will be doing everything I can to insure every member in my network is aware of the choice represented in this vote. My goal is two fold:

• Help campaign for members to reject this proposal.
• Help get out the vote so that this becomes the largest vote in the 138 year history of the United States Naval Institute.

As I intend to outline in detail over the next month, I believe the United States Naval Institute has been steadily moving forward over the last few years and is poised to do amazing things towards the objective of the existing mission statement, but apparently before the organization takes that step; the members of USNI will have to burn this bad idea to the ground before launching boldly from those ashes. I cannot stress enough how shortsighted I see this proposal at this time by the Board of Directors, because the appropriate analogy as I see it is to suggest this is like fumbling the football on the 5 yard line on first down after driving all the way down the field, and just as you are about to score after being down at halftime.

According to the Constitution and By-Laws of the United States Naval Institute, to amend:

ARTICLE XVI Amendments to Constitution and By-Laws

Section 1. Proposed amendments to or changes in the Constitution and By-Laws must first be approved by the Board of Directors. Then, they shall be circulated to the members entitled to vote at least thirty days before the date the change becomes effective, if approved. Each such member in good standing shall be furnished a ballot on which to record his or her vote, and no amendment to or change in the Constitution and By-Laws shall be made without the favorable vote of two-thirds of the members voting.

I shall have many things to say on this topic over the next month. If any member who has previously been published by the United States Naval Institute (book, Proceedings, blog) wishes to write an open letter of your own to the United States Naval Institute Board of Directors on this topic, I will happily publish that letter on this blog and make sure your letter gets broadly circulated through my network of hundreds of USNI members who over the past week have volunteered to help get the word out regarding this issue.

For those who might want to be heard on this topic, I encourage you to email the USNI Board of Directors with your thoughts regarding the new mission statement proposal.