USNA Concerned Alumni: VanOrden/Smith Exchange

SANGUINE CORPORATION

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

5953 Woodacre Court, McLean, VA 22101

M. Dick Van Orden

Phone: 703-532-1710

FAX: 703-532-2616

Dvorden@aol.com

8 May 2001

Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees

U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

247 King George Street

Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5068

Dear Admiral Smith:

Thank you for your letter of 26 April concerning my loss in the election to the Board of Trustees of the USNAAA. I regret the loss; I would have enjoyed serving with you on the Board, and I believe I could have brought some new ideas to our Alumni Association. With your permission I will write to you in the future about some things that bother me, hoping that I can be helpful.

I have pondered the poor turnout of voters in this region. With some 10,000 to 15,000 alumni members in the Mid-Atlantic Region, a turnout of less than 1,000 for an important election to their Board of Trustees indicates that something is dreadfully wrong with our Alumni Association election process. Or perhaps there is something wrong with the manner in which information to the potential voters is disseminated.

When voters are poorly informed on the reasons a candidate is running for office, there is little motivation for them to vote. Apathy is not usually a characteristic of Naval Academy graduates, but when faced with a choice of candidates who are not known to them, voters will simply pick at random (usually voting for one who represents their service specialty) or not vote at all. Most alumni voters in the recent election chose not to vote at all.

A biography published in Shipmate is little or no help, since it is limited to 150 words, which is enough to state the candidate’s “name, rank, and serial number,” and very little else. Surely there is space in our Alumni magazine to allow each candidate a short paragraph on why he is running and what he hopes to accomplish as a Trustee representing this Region. You, Mr. Chairman, could make a real contribution to future elections if you could ensure that each candidate will be allowed to publish his “platform” for all voters to see and consider in making their choice. I believe that more voters would be motivated to make a choice and vote for a candidate who offers the most potential for doing the things that voters want from the USNAAA.

Most sincerely yours,

M. Dick Van Orden

Copy to: George Watt, President, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association

May 18, 2000

Dear Dick,

I am grateful for your thoughts on voter turnout. Let me share some of mine with you and, at the same time, tell you of our current efforts in increasing the number of respondents to our call for votes.

As Ron Marryott was so fond of saying, “It’s communications, communications, communications.” That is certainly an area in which we have been working very hard. George Watt has been doing an excellent job of emphasizing the need for all of us (staff, members of the Board of Trustees, Class and Chapter Leadership) to keep our members informed and to solicit their feedback on issues under study by the staff and/or the Board. I would add that I have personally told each of our Trustees, as they have been inducted onto the Board, that their principle responsibility is to inform their constituents and represent their views in our deliberations and decisions. I expect you know that, today, we have some 45,000 members and over 80 affiliated local chapters around the world. Regrettably, only 8,500 national members are in a chapter. Through encouraging more alumni to join a chapter, we hope to build a sense of community within the chapters, which in turn will build an informed community of advocates. We are also working closer with Class Presidents and alumni leadership to get the word out and importantly, back. We are not where we want to be but based on inputs we are receiving from the Class and Chapter leadership, and the newly established Communications Committee, we are making some progress. By doing a better job at keeping our members informed about the Academy and the Alumni Association, we expect to increase their interest in the Association. To learn more about the efforts under way in communication, membership growth and advocacy, I urge you to read George’s President’s Report to the May 2001 Board of Trustees, which is on our Website usna.com.

Your thoughts on expanding the availability of space in Shipmate and/or to provide space on our Website where candidates can briefly share why they would like to be elected a trustee of the Naval Academy Alumni Association have merit. It certainly seems to me that we can give it a try but I would hasten to add that for every good idea, there always seem to be valid arguments that make it less attractive in the long haul. For that reason, I have asked George to task the Communications Committee to give us their recommendations on these suggestions.

Another move to increase voter turnout is through electronic polling. We recently announced and offered this capability to the Class and Chapter Presidents. To date the reaction has been enthusiastic and we look forward to receiving specific feedback on how the classes are using this capability, and, importantly, how we can improve it. I see no reason why we should not vigorously move ahead, once we understand all the pros and cons, in expanding its use. We would all welcome the potential benefits of access, ease of use, and low cost.

Again, we always welcome constructive suggestions and yours certainly fits that bill to a tee. I know you have had other Alumni Association issues, based on your trustee candidacy platform, and I would suggest that a chat with George and members of his staff on some of them might shed light on many very positive initiatives currently underway. Frankly, I think we have come a long way in the past several years and I am personally quite proud of what Ron and George and the USNAAA staff have accomplished. That does not mean we can rest on the past, and we won’t. What it means to me though is that we are not satisfied with the status quo. We rely heavily on our members to help make our Association better and, in that regard, welcome their suggestions and help in developing and implementing solutions to tough problems.

Sincerely, Leighton W. Smith, Jr.

cc President and CEO, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association

Merton Dick VAN ORDEN 5953 Woodacre Court

Rear Admiral (Retired) McLean, Virginia 22101-2532

United States Navy Phone: 703-532-1710

E-mail: Dvorden@aol.com FAX: 703-532-2616

21 May 2001

Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees

U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

247 King George Street

Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5068

Dear Admiral Smith:

As I mentioned in my letter to you of 8 May, I would have enjoyed serving with you on the Board and am confident I would have brought new ideas to our Alumni Association. In the absence of an opportunity for direct interactions with you via the Board, I still want to share my ideas and concerns, and will use letters to you to do so. Please note that I am not sending copies to the members of the Board, only to Mr. Watt. May I suggest that, whenever appropriate, you forward these letters and your responses to the members of the Board to stimulate their thoughts and their discussions.

May I add a few thoughts on the recent Trustee elections. A significant number of alumni from a broad spectrum of classes share a common concern about implications of the lack of immediate announcement of authenticated results of the Annual Elections for this year, especially in light of recent changes to the Bylaws governing this issue. A combined count of total votes in both election regions does not truly satisfy our bylaws requirement, yet that is what was given at the BOT meeting when the vote count was requested. Phone messages to candidates a week later gave individual tallies and said that those will be announced by email to Class Presidents. That is a half-“hearted” way of doing what should have been done at the official meeting of the BOT, and the delay further creates suspicions that all was not right with the count at the time of the BOT meeting. Was there some reason the vote counts were suppressed?

Rather than viewing the reporting concerns as a challenge, I suggest that this gives you, as Chairman, an excellent opportunity to address these concerns forthrightly, so as to clear up any questions and promise better reporting in future elections. I strongly recommend you use your bullypulpit in Shipmate to address these concerns. You might also comment on the disgracefully small number of ballots received and the number of ballots disregarded because of irregularities. I have been told that a number of ballots became detached from Shipmate, and thus were not available to voters. Some alumni advised that, after calling the Alumni office to request duplicate ballots and being advised that none were available, they sent in letters and/or non-official ballot forms. These were undoubtedly not counted in the final tally. The question is: just how many such ballots were received and disregarded?

All alumni are delighted that the bylaws now provide a provision for informing the membership of the results of the election process; this will assist in promoting more competition and more alumni interest in the conduct of future elections. Notwithstanding this advancement, the effect is lessened when only the Chapter and Class Presidents are being notified. Today that sort of notification is easily done to a multitude of members using the email addresses on file within the USNAAA office.

One of my motivations in entering the past election was to stimulate a more competitive race, hoping thereby to increase participation in the voting by more alumni. Unfortunately, that increase in interest and increase in voter participation did not result, perhaps because of lack of widespread campaigning. Nevertheless, I note that the two petition candidates in the Mid-Atlantic region polled some 61% of votes cast -- more votes than the two candidates offered by the nominating committee (585 to 376), leading to the question of whether or not the nominating committee is doing its job of putting forth the most worthy candidates who will increase the interest and the participation of alumni voters.

Some will say that individual vote tallies have not been given out by the USNAAA “to avoid embarrassment to those who did not win.” Admiral, you know that is a specious argument. We Naval Academy alumni have lived in a competitive environment our entire lives; we are adults who recognize that we all benefit from knowing how we rank and for what reasons. I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to set the record straight, do as the bylaws prescribe and announce the individual vote tallies for both regions by email, web page, and in Shipmate and put an end to this foolish, juvenile, beating-around-the-bush. I also request that you announce the tally of votes not counted for each candidate, because of ballot irregularities or other causes. The candidates deserve better treatment and all alumni deserve to know how their votes were counted or not counted. Let’s clear the air on this matter, for now and for elections in the future.

Most sincerely yours,

M. Dick Van Orden

Copy to: George Watt, President, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association

Merton Dick VAN ORDEN 5953 Woodacre Court

Rear Admiral (Retired) McLean, Virginia 22101-2532

United States Navy Phone: 703-532-1710

E-mail: Dvorden@aol.com FAX: 703-532-2616

1 June 2001

Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees

U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

247 King George Street

Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5068

Dear Admiral Smith:

Thank you for your informative letter of 18 May. I am pleased with your statement that you always welcome constructive suggestions and that you rely heavily on our members to make our Association better. Improvement is my aim also. I trust that you will consider my suggestions constructive, since that is the spirit in which they are given. I have a few comments and suggestions, as you may have discerned from my platform statement, and I will address some of them in this letter.

With an MBA in Financial Management and experience on several Boards of Directors, I am more than slightly interested in financial reports. It was with some dismay that I found surprisingly scant reports on the fiscal year 2000 financial results of the Association provided at the May 4, 2001, meeting. The rather poorly presented Operating Activities budget comparisons, simply do not meet normal reporting standards. At a minimum, audited Balance Sheets and Income and Expense Statements should be required by anyone with the fiduciary responsibilities that I assume are held by you and the Trustees. The Statement of Financial Position of October 31, 2000, in the report of the December 1, 2000, meeting, is somewhat better, but it reported on only the first three quarters of the fiscal/calendar year. Even that modest beginning is not repeated in the May 4 meeting for the full fiscal year 2000. Surely KPMG had submitted an audit report by that time. It should be shared with the Trustees. I believe that any responsible corporate Board that was not provided with audited statements for the fiscal year that ended four months before a Board meeting would soon be looking for a new Chief Financial Officer. You, Mr. Chairman, should demand proper financial statements, and the Trustees should make use of those statements in their deliberations.

A second concern of mine is the poor performance of the investment of USNAAA funds. As a SEC-Registered Securities Adviser, I have, over the past ten years, successfully managed a number of individual portfolios, ranging from $20,000 IRAs to million dollar investment accounts. I was surprised and shocked when the results of USNAAA investments for the fiscal year 2000 were announced as a loss of 2.2% -- and even more shocked when that loss was greeted with approbation. May I suggest to you that a hard look should be taken at the investment strategy employed by the Association. I have been told that the Association invests 60% in bonds and 40% in equities. If that is true then surely the excellent bond market performance over the past year would have more than made up for even an extremely poor 40% stock portfolio. What, then, is the reason for the poor performance? It cannot honestly be blamed on a “down year” in the stock market because other conservative portfolios have shown positive results for the same year. It seems likely to be either a poor investment advisor or faulty investment strategy, or both.

I have investigated the performance of several similar portfolios for calendar/fiscal year 2000. One, a comparable account of approximately $40 million administered by the First Virginia Bank, is a very conservative portfolio, as I would expect the Association investment account to be. It showed a gain in CY2000 of 4.4%. Another, administered by a private company, with a 60/40 ratio of bonds to stocks, had a return of slightly over 8% last year. An account with a 50/50 split of stocks and bonds, returned 10.7% in CY 2000. These are not the best in the field but are representative of the types of investments that the USNAAA should seek.

So I think you can see why I was distressed to find that our Association’s investments had provided a lackluster performance of minus 2.2% in CY2000. It makes one wonder about the wisdom of contributing to such an account. My class donated $650,000 two years ago; I wonder if that, too, has plunged drastically through poor investment strategy and/or investment management. I have designated the Alumni Association as beneficiary of a rather large amount in my Charitable Remainder Trust, and am contemplating changing that beneficiary to one that is more financially responsible.

Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that you look into the facts behind the Association’s investing for a loss of 2.2% in a year when similar funds showed considerable gains. If necessary, you may want to reorient the investment strategy to one that is more in line with the conservative growth and income objectives of an Alumni Association, or to seek a better performing investment advisor.

Thank you for this opportunity to express my concerns and to suggest some actions that may correct apparent discrepancies in financial management of the Association.

Most sincerely yours,

M. Dick Van Orden

Copy to: George Watt, President, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association

June 15, 2001

Dear Dick,

I am in receipt of your recent letters and will briefly address your points here. Had I known that you had intended to address a multitude of issues to me over time, I would have urged that you utilize the communications infrastructure that we are working hard to improve through your class, your chapter, chapter trustee, and regional trustee. We would like the system to work so that we can engage more alumni in the issues important to all of us. I hoped you will exercise the communications infrastructure, thereby help us make it better. It would also allow your representatives to be better informed on the issues.

There were no irregularities with the vote. Not announcing the results may not have been our most glorious hour but our concerns for the feelings of those involved were legitimate and real. We have subsequently informed our Presidents (a normal communications process which we hope will stimulate communications with their constituency) and will publish the numbers with the minutes. To suggest irregularities is to question the integrity of the staff and those who counted (and have counted) the votes for years. I don’t accept your suggesting of impropriety in the way they were handled or counted. That is, and will be, the extent of my discussion on the matter.

On investments, I believe that we did well compared to the various indexes. That feeling is shared by a number of very successful business people and investment savvy individuals on our investment committees and boards. Our investment philosophies are not only sound but are also periodically reviewed. We always strive to improve. If a change in philosophies or advisors is indicated I trust the Chairman of the Joint Investment Committee will make the appropriate recommendation. As an aside, we are invested in 60% equities and 40% fixed instruments rather than the reverse, as you mentioned in your letter.

We have made significant progress in improving a solid finance and investment management program for the Alumni Association and the Foundation. We now have a solid group of business and financial services professionals in the Joint Finance and Audit Committee, and the Joint Investment Committee of the Alumni Association and the Foundation who address the challenges of fiduciary oversight and risk-adjusted investment performance.

The Joint Finance and Audit Committee recommends a consolidated budget for approval by the Board of Trustees of the Alumni Association and the Board of Directors of the Foundation. By this action the respective boards exercise their fiduciary responsibility. The CY-2001 Consolidated Budget for the Alumni Association and the Foundation was sent to each Trustee and Director via email and/or hard copy for their review and approval. The CFO/Treasurer answered each question raised and recorded a 100% approval of the budget by the Trustees and Directors.

In closing, I want to reemphasize the point I made in the first paragraph: Help us improve the inclusive communications system within the existing board, class, and chapter organizations so that issues that are important to all alumni are vetted in a logical, systematic manner that will benefit all of us.

Sincerely, Leighton W. Smith, Jr. CC: President and CEO of USNAAA

Merton Dick VAN ORDEN 5953 Woodacre Court

Rear Admiral (Retired) McLean, Virginia 22101-2532

United States Navy Phone: 703-532-1710

E-mail: Dvorden@aol.com FAX: 703-532-2616

15 June 2001

Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees

U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

247 King George Street

Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5068

Dear Admiral Smith:

This letter is a discussion of one of the primary reasons I wanted to be on your Board of Trustees. It exemplifies a prominent tenet set forth in my platform statement: the need for better communications among USNA alumni, the Board of Trustees, and the Naval Academy administration. By better communications, I mean not only praise but also clearly stated constructive criticisms of some of the administration’s policies, not simply rubber stamping with palliative statements everything that is done at our beloved Academy or that is planned for its future. Alumni deserve better treatment, better information, and a voice in decisions being made.

Surely it is no secret that there are a number of alumni who view with alarm some of the trends being fostered by the USNA. These alumni believe in traditional values for training and education of Naval Officers, and oppose the lowering of standards in admissions, in physical standards, and in discipline – all of which have stood the Navy and Marines so well in years past. They also believe that the true mission of the Naval Academy is: “To educate and train the core combat leaders of the Naval Services.”

A Board of Trustees should give voice to the beliefs and opinions of its constituency – the alumni it represents and to whom it owes its very existence. Today’s Board contains some members who are elected by alumni year groups, chapters, and regions yet I recognize no efforts to encourage their collection of alumni inputs for presentation to the Board. Without that, the Board will continue to be – as described by many – an “Old Boys Club” that calls the shots as they see them, not as other alumni may see them.

As an alumnus of the Harvard Business School (Advanced Management Program), I receive copies of all of their alumni publications. The February issue of the Harvard Business School Bulletin (comparable to our Shipmate) contains a most enlightening article titled “Advisory Boards Help HBS Assess and Attain Its Goals.” It describes the role of “The Alumni Association Board of Directors” (which I conclude is comparable to the USNAAA Board of Trustees). The article explains its activities as follows:

The Alumni Association Board of Directors serves as an important link between alumni and the School. Comprising some 45 graduates, the board holds three formal meetings a year to communicate the interests and concerns of HBS alumni worldwide to the Dean, faculty, students, and staff of the Harvard Business

School. Members work to enhance the well-being of HBS alumni and improve the ongoing education and participation of all HBS graduates. As president of the

board, Edmund A Hajim (MBA ’64) feels his volunteer work not only has helped make measurable differences, but has allowed him to “make a special contribution by working on ways to connect the alumni to the school.” Hajim, chairman and CEO of ING Furman Selz, considers alumni to be one of the School’s most important resources. His bimonthly status reports in the Bulletin keep alumni informed about the board’s ongoing work.

That, in my opinion, is an ideal model for alumni associations. It sets forth in clear and unambiguous terms the intentions of the alumni board of the premier business education entity of this nation and arguably the best in the world. It contains six edifying statements that you, Mr. Chairman, could adopt as operating guidance for our Board of Trustees. You might even see your way clear to have them embodied in the by-laws of the Alumni Association. They are:

1. “…serves as an important link between alumni and the School.”

2. “…communicate the interests and concerns of HBS alumni worldwide to the Dean, faculty, students, and staff …”

3. “Members work to enhance the well-being of HBS alumni and improve the ongoing education and participation of all HBS graduates.”

4. “…make a special contribution by working on ways to connect the alumni to the School.”

5. “…considers alumni to be one of the School’s most important resources.”

6. “…bimonthly status reports in the Bulletin keep alumni informed about the board’s ongoing work.”

All of the above are directly applicable to our Board of Trustees, and are sorely lacking in our USNAAA operations of today. This is communications at its best, and if the names were changed from HBS and School to USNA, and from Bulletin to Shipmate, would be precisely what is needed by our own Alumni Association and its Board of Trustees.

Thank you for your courteous reception of these suggestions. I wish you well in future operations of the Board of Trustees and hope there will be some future recognition of the needs and concerns of USNA alumni.

Most sincerely yours,

M. Dick Van Orden

Copy to: George Watt, President, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association

U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION (Letterhead)

June 28, 2001

(Address block)

Dear Dick,

It seems our letters continue to cross in the mail. I again suggest that you use the communications infrastructure established for the purpose of representing the alumni. That would include your class and chapter Presidents and/or your representative elected to the Board of Trustees. By using any one or all of those means to communicate your positions, you can keep them informed of the issues about which you are concerned plus give them the opportunity to accurately and adequately represent you.

With regard to your most recent letter, let me be clear in my positions. First, I think the Board of Trustees does communicate with the leadership of the Academy. You will obviously know that John Ryan, and Chuck Larson before him, has addressed our Board at each of the semi-annual meetings. (I cannot address the ones prior to my time as Chairman but I suspect this practice has been in place for some time.) In each of these sessions they have been most forthcoming and at the completion of their prepared remarks, opened the floor to questions. The lively discussions that have ensued are excellent examples of the open and candid dialogue that exists between the representatives of our alumni and the leadership at the Academy. In addition, both Chuck and John have had a personal representative on the Board who I cannot imagine does not provide very straightforward feedback on issues discussed at the meetings. Finally, and importantly, the President/CEO and I both enjoy open access to the leadership at the Academy and neither of us is bashful about expressing our views. I would suggest that the lines of communications are wide open and the flow therein is candid.

Second, I cannot accept that there is no effort to collect the opinions of the Board and the constituents they represent. I have, at every induction of new Board members, made it patently clear that communications is their most important responsibility. I believe there is always room for improvement in the area of communications and we continue to stress that important function as a key responsibility of each Trustee. But I believe our Trustees are bringing forth the concerns of the alumni they represent. You will also know that Ron Marryott and George Watt have both pressed very hard to expand our electronic communications capabilities. While by no means perfect, I am convinced that we are better now than in the past and, importantly, improving with time.

Finally, I could not disagree more with your assertion that, when measured against the six points from the HBS bylaws, our Board is “sorely lacking in our USNAAA operations of today. Dick, that is just not so and you do a disservice to those who faithfully and generously contribute their time and talents, and in most cases their personal resources, to countless hours not only at our semi annual meetings but, as well, participating on/in various committees and functions throughout the year. Our Board is not, as you suggest, “a good old boys club.” Our Trustees are a vibrant and enthusiastic representation of our alumni, properly elected, who are as concerned as you are for the welfare of our Academy. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate a lack of understanding and appreciation of and for their individual and collective efforts.

In order to facilitate the communications between you and the infrastructure I mentioned in the first paragraph, I am forwarding copies of your letters, and my responses thereto, to your class president. I strongly urge that you take advantage of that excellent means of communications for the reasons previously states.

Sincerely,

/S/ Leighton W. Smith, Jr.

LWS:Ihc

Cc: President and CEO, USNAAA

President, Class of 1945

Merton Dick VAN ORDEN 5953 Woodacre Court

Rear Admiral (Retired) McLean, Virginia 22101-2532

United States Navy Phone: 703-532-1710

E-mail: Dvorden@aol.com FAX: 703-532-2616

6 July 2001

Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees

U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

247 King George Street

Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5068

Dear Admiral Smith:

As I feared it might, our dialogue has deteriorated into misinterpretations, denials, and disagreements. It appears that your staff is to blame, since I doubt that some of the statements made would actually come from you. You might also instruct your staff letter-writers that completed staff work includes answers to questions posed and responses to suggestions for improvements. It is impolite -- and an indication of the poorest of communications -- for valid suggestions to be ignored and shunted aside without comment as to their applicability or potential value.

Let me make clear that my letters to you were not, and are not, intended to ruffle staff feathers or to create arguments between us. My intent was to comply with your invitation, in your letter to me of 26 April, which says:

“I hope you will continue to share your insights and wisdom with us as we work through the challenges and opportunities of the future.”

That was, and continues to be, my purpose. We are both dedicated to the same undertakings: To enhance the ability of the USNAAA to serve as a vital link between alumni and the U.S. Naval Academy, and to assist our Academy in its primary role of providing the core combat leaders of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps. If we cannot conduct gentlemanly discourse in furtherance of those undertakings, then what is left for an alumnus to do?

You speak of a “communications infrastructure” that I should use. I did not know of such a “system” and did not realize that there was a chain of command to be followed by alumni in communicating with USNAAA officials. Are intervening levels expected to add their comments and/or interpretations? We both know that such a procedure would only delay correspondence and could confuse the issues at hand. Rather than introduce such delays, I prefer to write directly to you, with copies to class, chapter, and regional representatives. Following your suggestion to “…engage more alumni in the issues important to all of us…,” I will use electronic transmissions to forward our letters to alumni with email addresses I have or can obtain, including class, region, and chapter presidents. I will use U. S. Mail for those who do not have email. I have a packet ready to mail to Jack Adams, our newly elected Regional Trustee.

Early on I suggested that you share these letters with members of the Board of Trustees to stimulate discussion. I still think it is a good idea to do so. Since you did not include all Trustees in your sharing of information suggestion, I will take the initiative to send copies to Trustees for whom I have email addresses. Perhaps I can get a listing of email addresses for Trustees and Class and Chapter presidents from the Alumni Association communications committee. I would appreciate such information.

When I speak of misinterpretations and misunderstandings, one item continues to rankle. You accused me of questioning the integrity of the staff and those who counted the votes in the recent election. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not know who counts the votes, how they are appointed, and how supervised – nor do I care. The only questions I asked were why the count was not made public at the Board of Trustees meeting and whether or not there were ballots that were not counted. No questioning of integrity, just straightforward questions on the administration of the vote count. Neither question has been answered to date.

Please do not let this friendly exchange of ideas become bogged down in bureaucratic tangles, or in staff-engendered stonewalling. I have learned a number of things from your letters, and hope that you have benefited from some of my suggestions. I will continue to state my “insights and wisdom” along with my ideas and concerns in letters to you to stimulate discussions in the future.

Most sincerely yours,

M. Dick Van Orden

Copy to: George Watt, President, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association

Email us your comments and we’ll summarize and forward them without attribution to ADM Smith, RADM VanOrden and Mr. George Watt. If you desire to have your comments forwarded separately or included with attribution please let us know in this email.

All USNA alumni—active duty, retired and civilian—
are invited to JOIN the Concerned Alumni discussion.


United States Naval Academy Concerned Alumni
\| HOME \| CORRESPONDENCE \| ARTICLES & PAPERS \| ROSTER \| LINKS \| JOIN \|
ADM Smith/RADM VanOrden Correspondence SANGUINE CORPORATION OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 5953 Woodacre Court, McLean, VA 22101 M. Dick Van Orden Phone: 703-532-1710 FAX: 703-532-2616 Dvorden@aol.com 8 May 2001 Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION 247 King George Street Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5068 Dear Admiral Smith: Thank you for your letter of 26 April concerning my loss in the election to the Board of Trustees of the USNAAA. I regret the loss; I would have enjoyed serving with you on the Board, and I believe I could have brought some new ideas to our Alumni Association. With your permission I will write to you in the future about some things that bother me, hoping that I can be helpful. I have pondered the poor turnout of voters in this region. With some 10,000 to 15,000 alumni members in the Mid-Atlantic Region, a turnout of less than 1,000 for an important election to their Board of Trustees indicates that something is dreadfully wrong with our Alumni Association election process. Or perhaps there is something wrong with the manner in which information to the potential voters is disseminated. When voters are poorly informed on the reasons a candidate is running for office, there is little motivation for them to vote. Apathy is not usually a characteristic of Naval Academy graduates, but when faced with a choice of candidates who are not known to them, voters will simply pick at random (usually voting for one who represents their service specialty) or not vote at all. Most alumni voters in the recent election chose not to vote at all. A biography published in Shipmate is little or no help, since it is limited to 150 words, which is enough to state the candidate’s “name, rank, and serial number,” and very little else. Surely there is space in our Alumni magazine to allow each candidate a short paragraph on why he is running and what he hopes to accomplish as a Trustee representing this Region. You, Mr. Chairman, could make a real contribution to future elections if you could ensure that each candidate will be allowed to publish his “platform” for all voters to see and consider in making their choice. I believe that more voters would be motivated to make a choice and vote for a candidate who offers the most potential for doing the things that voters want from the USNAAA. Most sincerely yours, M. Dick Van Orden Copy to: George Watt, President, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association May 18, 2000 Dear Dick, I am grateful for your thoughts on voter turnout. Let me share some of mine with you and, at the same time, tell you of our current efforts in increasing the number of respondents to our call for votes. As Ron Marryott was so fond of saying, “It’s communications, communications, communications.” That is certainly an area in which we have been working very hard. George Watt has been doing an excellent job of emphasizing the need for all of us (staff, members of the Board of Trustees, Class and Chapter Leadership) to keep our members informed and to solicit their feedback on issues under study by the staff and/or the Board. I would add that I have personally told each of our Trustees, as they have been inducted onto the Board, that their principle responsibility is to inform their constituents and represent their views in our deliberations and decisions. I expect you know that, today, we have some 45,000 members and over 80 affiliated local chapters around the world. Regrettably, only 8,500 national members are in a chapter. Through encouraging more alumni to join a chapter, we hope to build a sense of community within the chapters, which in turn will build an informed community of advocates. We are also working closer with Class Presidents and alumni leadership to get the word out and importantly, back. We are not where we want to be but based on inputs we are receiving from the Class and Chapter leadership, and the newly established Communications Committee, we are making some progress. By doing a better job at keeping our members informed about the Academy and the Alumni Association, we expect to increase their interest in the Association. To learn more about the efforts under way in communication, membership growth and advocacy, I urge you to read George’s President’s Report to the May 2001 Board of Trustees, which is on our Website usna.com. Your thoughts on expanding the availability of space in Shipmate and/or to provide space on our Website where candidates can briefly share why they would like to be elected a trustee of the Naval Academy Alumni Association have merit. It certainly seems to me that we can give it a try but I would hasten to add that for every good idea, there always seem to be valid arguments that make it less attractive in the long haul. For that reason, I have asked George to task the Communications Committee to give us their recommendations on these suggestions. Another move to increase voter turnout is through electronic polling. We recently announced and offered this capability to the Class and Chapter Presidents. To date the reaction has been enthusiastic and we look forward to receiving specific feedback on how the classes are using this capability, and, importantly, how we can improve it. I see no reason why we should not vigorously move ahead, once we understand all the pros and cons, in expanding its use. We would all welcome the potential benefits of access, ease of use, and low cost. Again, we always welcome constructive suggestions and yours certainly fits that bill to a tee. I know you have had other Alumni Association issues, based on your trustee candidacy platform, and I would suggest that a chat with George and members of his staff on some of them might shed light on many very positive initiatives currently underway. Frankly, I think we have come a long way in the past several years and I am personally quite proud of what Ron and George and the USNAAA staff have accomplished. That does not mean we can rest on the past, and we won’t. What it means to me though is that we are not satisfied with the status quo. We rely heavily on our members to help make our Association better and, in that regard, welcome their suggestions and help in developing and implementing solutions to tough problems. Sincerely, Leighton W. Smith, Jr. cc President and CEO, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association Merton Dick VAN ORDEN 5953 Woodacre Court Rear Admiral (Retired) McLean, Virginia 22101-2532 United States Navy Phone: 703-532-1710 E-mail: Dvorden@aol.com FAX: 703-532-2616 21 May 2001 Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION 247 King George Street Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5068 Dear Admiral Smith: As I mentioned in my letter to you of 8 May, I would have enjoyed serving with you on the Board and am confident I would have brought new ideas to our Alumni Association. In the absence of an opportunity for direct interactions with you via the Board, I still want to share my ideas and concerns, and will use letters to you to do so. Please note that I am not sending copies to the members of the Board, only to Mr. Watt. May I suggest that, whenever appropriate, you forward these letters and your responses to the members of the Board to stimulate their thoughts and their discussions. May I add a few thoughts on the recent Trustee elections. A significant number of alumni from a broad spectrum of classes share a common concern about implications of the lack of immediate announcement of authenticated results of the Annual Elections for this year, especially in light of recent changes to the Bylaws governing this issue. A combined count of total votes in both election regions does not truly satisfy our bylaws requirement, yet that is what was given at the BOT meeting when the vote count was requested. Phone messages to candidates a week later gave individual tallies and said that those will be announced by email to Class Presidents. That is a half-“hearted” way of doing what should have been done at the official meeting of the BOT, and the delay further creates suspicions that all was not right with the count at the time of the BOT meeting. Was there some reason the vote counts were suppressed? Rather than viewing the reporting concerns as a challenge, I suggest that this gives you, as Chairman, an excellent opportunity to address these concerns forthrightly, so as to clear up any questions and promise better reporting in future elections. I strongly recommend you use your bullypulpit in Shipmate to address these concerns. You might also comment on the disgracefully small number of ballots received and the number of ballots disregarded because of irregularities. I have been told that a number of ballots became detached from Shipmate, and thus were not available to voters. Some alumni advised that, after calling the Alumni office to request duplicate ballots and being advised that none were available, they sent in letters and/or non-official ballot forms. These were undoubtedly not counted in the final tally. The question is: just how many such ballots were received and disregarded? All alumni are delighted that the bylaws now provide a provision for informing the membership of the results of the election process; this will assist in promoting more competition and more alumni interest in the conduct of future elections. Notwithstanding this advancement, the effect is lessened when only the Chapter and Class Presidents are being notified. Today that sort of notification is easily done to a multitude of members using the email addresses on file within the USNAAA office. One of my motivations in entering the past election was to stimulate a more competitive race, hoping thereby to increase participation in the voting by more alumni. Unfortunately, that increase in interest and increase in voter participation did not result, perhaps because of lack of widespread campaigning. Nevertheless, I note that the two petition candidates in the Mid-Atlantic region polled some 61% of votes cast -- more votes than the two candidates offered by the nominating committee (585 to 376), leading to the question of whether or not the nominating committee is doing its job of putting forth the most worthy candidates who will increase the interest and the participation of alumni voters. Some will say that individual vote tallies have not been given out by the USNAAA “to avoid embarrassment to those who did not win.” Admiral, you know that is a specious argument. We Naval Academy alumni have lived in a competitive environment our entire lives; we are adults who recognize that we all benefit from knowing how we rank and for what reasons. I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to set the record straight, do as the bylaws prescribe and announce the individual vote tallies for both regions by email, web page, and in Shipmate and put an end to this foolish, juvenile, beating-around-the-bush. I also request that you announce the tally of votes not counted for each candidate, because of ballot irregularities or other causes. The candidates deserve better treatment and all alumni deserve to know how their votes were counted or not counted. Let’s clear the air on this matter, for now and for elections in the future. Most sincerely yours, M. Dick Van Orden Copy to: George Watt, President, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association Merton Dick VAN ORDEN 5953 Woodacre Court Rear Admiral (Retired) McLean, Virginia 22101-2532 United States Navy Phone: 703-532-1710 E-mail: Dvorden@aol.com FAX: 703-532-2616 1 June 2001 Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION 247 King George Street Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5068 Dear Admiral Smith: Thank you for your informative letter of 18 May. I am pleased with your statement that you always welcome constructive suggestions and that you rely heavily on our members to make our Association better. Improvement is my aim also. I trust that you will consider my suggestions constructive, since that is the spirit in which they are given. I have a few comments and suggestions, as you may have discerned from my platform statement, and I will address some of them in this letter. With an MBA in Financial Management and experience on several Boards of Directors, I am more than slightly interested in financial reports. It was with some dismay that I found surprisingly scant reports on the fiscal year 2000 financial results of the Association provided at the May 4, 2001, meeting. The rather poorly presented Operating Activities budget comparisons, simply do not meet normal reporting standards. At a minimum, audited Balance Sheets and Income and Expense Statements should be required by anyone with the fiduciary responsibilities that I assume are held by you and the Trustees. The Statement of Financial Position of October 31, 2000, in the report of the December 1, 2000, meeting, is somewhat better, but it reported on only the first three quarters of the fiscal/calendar year. Even that modest beginning is not repeated in the May 4 meeting for the full fiscal year 2000. Surely KPMG had submitted an audit report by that time. It should be shared with the Trustees. I believe that any responsible corporate Board that was not provided with audited statements for the fiscal year that ended four months before a Board meeting would soon be looking for a new Chief Financial Officer. You, Mr. Chairman, should demand proper financial statements, and the Trustees should make use of those statements in their deliberations. A second concern of mine is the poor performance of the investment of USNAAA funds. As a SEC-Registered Securities Adviser, I have, over the past ten years, successfully managed a number of individual portfolios, ranging from $20,000 IRAs to million dollar investment accounts. I was surprised and shocked when the results of USNAAA investments for the fiscal year 2000 were announced as a loss of 2.2% -- and even more shocked when that loss was greeted with approbation. May I suggest to you that a hard look should be taken at the investment strategy employed by the Association. I have been told that the Association invests 60% in bonds and 40% in equities. If that is true then surely the excellent bond market performance over the past year would have more than made up for even an extremely poor 40% stock portfolio. What, then, is the reason for the poor performance? It cannot honestly be blamed on a “down year” in the stock market because other conservative portfolios have shown positive results for the same year. It seems likely to be either a poor investment advisor or faulty investment strategy, or both. I have investigated the performance of several similar portfolios for calendar/fiscal year 2000. One, a comparable account of approximately $40 million administered by the First Virginia Bank, is a very conservative portfolio, as I would expect the Association investment account to be. It showed a gain in CY2000 of 4.4%. Another, administered by a private company, with a 60/40 ratio of bonds to stocks, had a return of slightly over 8% last year. An account with a 50/50 split of stocks and bonds, returned 10.7% in CY 2000. These are not the best in the field but are representative of the types of investments that the USNAAA should seek. So I think you can see why I was distressed to find that our Association’s investments had provided a lackluster performance of minus 2.2% in CY2000. It makes one wonder about the wisdom of contributing to such an account. My class donated $650,000 two years ago; I wonder if that, too, has plunged drastically through poor investment strategy and/or investment management. I have designated the Alumni Association as beneficiary of a rather large amount in my Charitable Remainder Trust, and am contemplating changing that beneficiary to one that is more financially responsible. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that you look into the facts behind the Association’s investing for a loss of 2.2% in a year when similar funds showed considerable gains. If necessary, you may want to reorient the investment strategy to one that is more in line with the conservative growth and income objectives of an Alumni Association, or to seek a better performing investment advisor. Thank you for this opportunity to express my concerns and to suggest some actions that may correct apparent discrepancies in financial management of the Association. Most sincerely yours, M. Dick Van Orden Copy to: George Watt, President, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association June 15, 2001 Dear Dick, I am in receipt of your recent letters and will briefly address your points here. Had I known that you had intended to address a multitude of issues to me over time, I would have urged that you utilize the communications infrastructure that we are working hard to improve through your class, your chapter, chapter trustee, and regional trustee. We would like the system to work so that we can engage more alumni in the issues important to all of us. I hoped you will exercise the communications infrastructure, thereby help us make it better. It would also allow your representatives to be better informed on the issues. There were no irregularities with the vote. Not announcing the results may not have been our most glorious hour but our concerns for the feelings of those involved were legitimate and real. We have subsequently informed our Presidents (a normal communications process which we hope will stimulate communications with their constituency) and will publish the numbers with the minutes. To suggest irregularities is to question the integrity of the staff and those who counted (and have counted) the votes for years. I don’t accept your suggesting of impropriety in the way they were handled or counted. That is, and will be, the extent of my discussion on the matter. On investments, I believe that we did well compared to the various indexes. That feeling is shared by a number of very successful business people and investment savvy individuals on our investment committees and boards. Our investment philosophies are not only sound but are also periodically reviewed. We always strive to improve. If a change in philosophies or advisors is indicated I trust the Chairman of the Joint Investment Committee will make the appropriate recommendation. As an aside, we are invested in 60% equities and 40% fixed instruments rather than the reverse, as you mentioned in your letter. We have made significant progress in improving a solid finance and investment management program for the Alumni Association and the Foundation. We now have a solid group of business and financial services professionals in the Joint Finance and Audit Committee, and the Joint Investment Committee of the Alumni Association and the Foundation who address the challenges of fiduciary oversight and risk-adjusted investment performance. The Joint Finance and Audit Committee recommends a consolidated budget for approval by the Board of Trustees of the Alumni Association and the Board of Directors of the Foundation. By this action the respective boards exercise their fiduciary responsibility. The CY-2001 Consolidated Budget for the Alumni Association and the Foundation was sent to each Trustee and Director via email and/or hard copy for their review and approval. The CFO/Treasurer answered each question raised and recorded a 100% approval of the budget by the Trustees and Directors. In closing, I want to reemphasize the point I made in the first paragraph: Help us improve the inclusive communications system within the existing board, class, and chapter organizations so that issues that are important to all alumni are vetted in a logical, systematic manner that will benefit all of us. Sincerely, Leighton W. Smith, Jr. CC: President and CEO of USNAAA Merton Dick VAN ORDEN 5953 Woodacre Court Rear Admiral (Retired) McLean, Virginia 22101-2532 United States Navy Phone: 703-532-1710 E-mail: Dvorden@aol.com FAX: 703-532-2616 15 June 2001 Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION 247 King George Street Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5068 Dear Admiral Smith: This letter is a discussion of one of the primary reasons I wanted to be on your Board of Trustees. It exemplifies a prominent tenet set forth in my platform statement: the need for better communications among USNA alumni, the Board of Trustees, and the Naval Academy administration. By better communications, I mean not only praise but also clearly stated constructive criticisms of some of the administration’s policies, not simply rubber stamping with palliative statements everything that is done at our beloved Academy or that is planned for its future. Alumni deserve better treatment, better information, and a voice in decisions being made. Surely it is no secret that there are a number of alumni who view with alarm some of the trends being fostered by the USNA. These alumni believe in traditional values for training and education of Naval Officers, and oppose the lowering of standards in admissions, in physical standards, and in discipline – all of which have stood the Navy and Marines so well in years past. They also believe that the true mission of the Naval Academy is: “To educate and train the core combat leaders of the Naval Services.” A Board of Trustees should give voice to the beliefs and opinions of its constituency – the alumni it represents and to whom it owes its very existence. Today’s Board contains some members who are elected by alumni year groups, chapters, and regions yet I recognize no efforts to encourage their collection of alumni inputs for presentation to the Board. Without that, the Board will continue to be – as described by many – an “Old Boys Club” that calls the shots as they see them, not as other alumni may see them. As an alumnus of the Harvard Business School (Advanced Management Program), I receive copies of all of their alumni publications. The February issue of the Harvard Business School Bulletin (comparable to our Shipmate) contains a most enlightening article titled “Advisory Boards Help HBS Assess and Attain Its Goals.” It describes the role of “The Alumni Association Board of Directors” (which I conclude is comparable to the USNAAA Board of Trustees). The article explains its activities as follows: The Alumni Association Board of Directors serves as an important link between alumni and the School. Comprising some 45 graduates, the board holds three formal meetings a year to communicate the interests and concerns of HBS alumni worldwide to the Dean, faculty, students, and staff of the Harvard Business School. Members work to enhance the well-being of HBS alumni and improve the ongoing education and participation of all HBS graduates. As president of the board, Edmund A Hajim (MBA ’64) feels his volunteer work not only has helped make measurable differences, but has allowed him to “make a special contribution by working on ways to connect the alumni to the school.” Hajim, chairman and CEO of ING Furman Selz, considers alumni to be one of the School’s most important resources. His bimonthly status reports in the Bulletin keep alumni informed about the board’s ongoing work. That, in my opinion, is an ideal model for alumni associations. It sets forth in clear and unambiguous terms the intentions of the alumni board of the premier business education entity of this nation and arguably the best in the world. It contains six edifying statements that you, Mr. Chairman, could adopt as operating guidance for our Board of Trustees. You might even see your way clear to have them embodied in the by-laws of the Alumni Association. They are: 1. “…serves as an important link between alumni and the School.” 2. “…communicate the interests and concerns of HBS alumni worldwide to the Dean, faculty, students, and staff …” 3. “Members work to enhance the well-being of HBS alumni and improve the ongoing education and participation of all HBS graduates.” 4. “…make a special contribution by working on ways to connect the alumni to the School.” 5. “…considers alumni to be one of the School’s most important resources.” 6. “…*bimonthly status reports in the Bulletin* keep alumni informed about the board’s ongoing work.”** All of the above are directly applicable to our Board of Trustees, and are sorely lacking in our USNAAA operations of today. This is communications at its best, and if the names were changed from HBS and School to USNA, and from Bulletin to Shipmate, would be precisely what is needed by our own Alumni Association and its Board of Trustees. Thank you for your courteous reception of these suggestions. I wish you well in future operations of the Board of Trustees and hope there will be some future recognition of the needs and concerns of USNA alumni. Most sincerely yours, M. Dick Van Orden Copy to: George Watt, President, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION (Letterhead) June 28, 2001 (Address block) Dear Dick, It seems our letters continue to cross in the mail. I again suggest that you use the communications infrastructure established for the purpose of representing the alumni. That would include your class and chapter Presidents and/or your representative elected to the Board of Trustees. By using any one or all of those means to communicate your positions, you can keep them informed of the issues about which you are concerned plus give them the opportunity to accurately and adequately represent you. With regard to your most recent letter, let me be clear in my positions. First, I think the Board of Trustees does communicate with the leadership of the Academy. You will obviously know that John Ryan, and Chuck Larson before him, has addressed our Board at each of the semi-annual meetings. (I cannot address the ones prior to my time as Chairman but I suspect this practice has been in place for some time.) In each of these sessions they have been most forthcoming and at the completion of their prepared remarks, opened the floor to questions. The lively discussions that have ensued are excellent examples of the open and candid dialogue that exists between the representatives of our alumni and the leadership at the Academy. In addition, both Chuck and John have had a personal representative on the Board who I cannot imagine does not provide very straightforward feedback on issues discussed at the meetings. Finally, and importantly, the President/CEO and I both enjoy open access to the leadership at the Academy and neither of us is bashful about expressing our views. I would suggest that the lines of communications are wide open and the flow therein is candid. Second, I cannot accept that there is no effort to collect the opinions of the Board and the constituents they represent. I have, at every induction of new Board members, made it patently clear that communications is their most important responsibility. I believe there is always room for improvement in the area of communications and we continue to stress that important function as a key responsibility of each Trustee. But I believe our Trustees are bringing forth the concerns of the alumni they represent. You will also know that Ron Marryott and George Watt have both pressed very hard to expand our electronic communications capabilities. While by no means perfect, I am convinced that we are better now than in the past and, importantly, improving with time. Finally, I could not disagree more with your assertion that, when measured against the six points from the HBS bylaws, our Board is “sorely lacking in our USNAAA operations of today. Dick, that is just not so and you do a disservice to those who faithfully and generously contribute their time and talents, and in most cases their personal resources, to countless hours not only at our semi annual meetings but, as well, participating on/in various committees and functions throughout the year. Our Board is not, as you suggest, “a good old boys club.” Our Trustees are a vibrant and enthusiastic representation of our alumni, properly elected, who are as concerned as you are for the welfare of our Academy. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate a lack of understanding and appreciation of and for their individual and collective efforts. In order to facilitate the communications between you and the infrastructure I mentioned in the first paragraph, I am forwarding copies of your letters, and my responses thereto, to your class president. I strongly urge that you take advantage of that excellent means of communications for the reasons previously states. Sincerely, /S/ Leighton W. Smith, Jr. LWS:Ihc Cc: President and CEO, USNAAA President, Class of 1945 Merton Dick VAN ORDEN 5953 Woodacre Court Rear Admiral (Retired) McLean, Virginia 22101-2532 United States Navy Phone: 703-532-1710 E-mail: Dvorden@aol.com FAX: 703-532-2616 6 July 2001 Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees U. S. NAVAL ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION 247 King George Street Annapolis, Maryland 21402-5068 Dear Admiral Smith: As I feared it might, our dialogue has deteriorated into misinterpretations, denials, and disagreements. It appears that your staff is to blame, since I doubt that some of the statements made would actually come from you. You might also instruct your staff letter-writers that completed staff work includes answers to questions posed and responses to suggestions for improvements. It is impolite -- and an indication of the poorest of communications -- for valid suggestions to be ignored and shunted aside without comment as to their applicability or potential value. Let me make clear that my letters to you were not, and are not, intended to ruffle staff feathers or to create arguments between us. My intent was to comply with your invitation, in your letter to me of 26 April, which says: “I hope you will continue to share your insights and wisdom with us as we work through the challenges and opportunities of the future.” That was, and continues to be, my purpose. We are both dedicated to the same undertakings: To enhance the ability of the USNAAA to serve as a vital link between alumni and the U.S. Naval Academy, and to assist our Academy in its primary role of providing the core combat leaders of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps. If we cannot conduct gentlemanly discourse in furtherance of those undertakings, then what is left for an alumnus to do? You speak of a “communications infrastructure” that I should use. I did not know of such a “system” and did not realize that there was a chain of command to be followed by alumni in communicating with USNAAA officials. Are intervening levels expected to add their comments and/or interpretations? We both know that such a procedure would only delay correspondence and could confuse the issues at hand. Rather than introduce such delays, I prefer to write directly to you, with copies to class, chapter, and regional representatives. Following your suggestion to “…engage more alumni in the issues important to all of us…,” I will use electronic transmissions to forward our letters to alumni with email addresses I have or can obtain, including class, region, and chapter presidents. I will use U. S. Mail for those who do not have email. I have a packet ready to mail to Jack Adams, our newly elected Regional Trustee. Early on I suggested that you share these letters with members of the Board of Trustees to stimulate discussion. I still think it is a good idea to do so. Since you did not include all Trustees in your sharing of information suggestion, I will take the initiative to send copies to Trustees for whom I have email addresses. Perhaps I can get a listing of email addresses for Trustees and Class and Chapter presidents from the Alumni Association communications committee. I would appreciate such information. When I speak of misinterpretations and misunderstandings, one item continues to rankle. You accused me of questioning the integrity of the staff and those who counted the votes in the recent election. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not know who counts the votes, how they are appointed, and how supervised – nor do I care. The only questions I asked were why the count was not made public at the Board of Trustees meeting and whether or not there were ballots that were not counted. No questioning of integrity, just straightforward questions on the administration of the vote count. Neither question has been answered to date. Please do not let this friendly exchange of ideas become bogged down in bureaucratic tangles, or in staff-engendered stonewalling. I have learned a number of things from your letters, and hope that you have benefited from some of my suggestions. I will continue to state my “insights and wisdom” along with my ideas and concerns in letters to you to stimulate discussions in the future. Most sincerely yours, M. Dick Van Orden Copy to: George Watt, President, U. S. Naval Academy Alumni Association Email us your comments and we’ll summarize and forward them without attribution to ADM Smith, RADM VanOrden and Mr. George Watt. If you desire to have your comments forwarded separately or included with attribution please let us know in this email. All USNA alumni—active duty, retired and civilian— are invited to JOIN the Concerned Alumni discussion.
Site maintained by on behalf of the Concerned Alumni by Ray Trygstad '77 and Rob Sandri '91