From comments posted to an article in Foreign Policy (online) yesterday against changing the USNI’s mission statement:

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

Dr. J. P. London
Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board
CACI International Inc

On top of that, from Galrahn’s post it appears that the ballot in the mail is missing the election for the mission statement change. ”
Read that again — the ballot sent out to the membership is fundamentally flawed, conveniently so for the purposes of those seeking to change the course and direction of the Institute. See ‘Phib also.

I’ll be blunt.
Few things chap me more than outright deceitful actions. Incompetence is one thing, but when you set out on a course to deceive a membership and hijack an organization to suite the purpose of a small cabal, it is cravenly selfish and utterly contemptuous of all that this Institution and its members has stood for for the past 137-plus years.
It is time to sweep the decks of these “leaders” and take back our Institute. There will be more to follow on this and for those of you as either member, lapsed member or contemplating joining, this is your call to action. Take charge of your membership and take back our Institution. We bloggers maybe viewed as the minority voice by the proffers of this change — but I sense a growing tide of concern and resentment over not only the change proposal, but the unethical manner in which it is being foist upon the membership. Vote down this measure and throw out those who tried to carry out this putsch.
The future of the Naval Institute is in your hands.
Steeljaw Scribe


  1. Bob Melley

    SJS……right on with these comments……Is this what we’ve come to?
    Man, I sure hope not.

  2. Andy (JADAA)

    Scribe, any back door chatter as to how many hits the on-line voting has been getting? I recognize that if this is like most voting systems, most ballots and emails will go unread or trashed. And that most recipients do not haunt the blogoshpere in their spare time and thus may be unaware of all of this going on with their Institute. I would be interested to see if all the discussion has generated a spike in responses.

    I am also awaiting an articulate, well thought out and persuasive piece from the Board as to why we should be voting in favor of their concept of what defines the Institute. Bueller…Bueller…Bueller? Has anybody seen Bueller?

  3. Stay tuned — working a couple things over the weekend, update on Monday…
    w/r, SJS

Comments are closed.