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.