GARY L. BEAVER’S RESPONSES
TO CONCERNED ALUMNI’S QUESTIONNAIRE
M y name is Gary Beaver and I would like to serve as the Eastern Region trustee on the Association’s Board of Trustees. I appreciate the opportunity to provide my views to the Concerned Alumni. As some of you know, I, too, am a member of the Concerned Alumni having joined in August 2001. I think I should start first with a brief biography. In fact, reading some of the information passed by Concerned Alumni played an important role in my decision to seek the trustee position.

I am the son of a Marine Corps veteran who retired after 31 years as a Master Gunnery Sergeant. I graduated with distinction from the Naval Academy in 1977, and entered the Marine Corps serving as an infantry officer until I was selected in 1979 for the Funded Law Education Program. I graduated from Duke University’s School of Law in 1982 and served on active duty as a judge advocate until 1989. I had an interesting variety of assignments as a judge advocate, including: prosecuting criminal offenses in both military courts-martial and in federal district court; providing legal assistance to military members and their families; defending the Department of the Navy against civil lawsuits in federal district court and providing advice to commanders on a wide variety of matters, including military justice, administrative law, personnel law, and environmental law. Upon leaving active duty, I entered the USMC Reserve, in which I now serve as a Colonel assigned to the Staff Judge Advocate’s Office at Marine Forces Atlantic (MARFORLANT) in Norfolk, Virginia. In the Reserves, in addition to serving several different tours as a judge advocate, I served a three-year tour in the early 1990s as a commanding officer of a 200-Marine Communications Company based in Greensboro, North Carolina. More recently, I performed three weeks active duty in November 2001, providing legal advice to U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany, as a temporary assignment from MARFORLANT.

After leaving active duty in 1989, I went into private practice with a law firm in Greensboro, North Carolina where I continue to reside and practice law (focusing on commercial litigation). I also handle some appeals by veterans of denials of their claims for benefits. About 1994, I began efforts to establish a Naval Academy Alumni Chapter in Greensboro. Those efforts were successful in 1995. I have continuously served as an officer of the Chapter since its founding and presently serve as its President. We normally have been 40 and 50 dues-paying members. I have continuously been a member of USNAAA since graduation and recently became a life member.

I am married and have two children, ages 16 and 12 years. I am actively involved in my church and in various community organizations, including serving as a trustee on the Board of Trustees for the local chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

Next, I want to inform you why I joined the Concerned Alumni. For about the last five years, I have heard the rumblings in the ranks of our alumni about how the Association is being managed and how the Naval Academy is been run. I do not pretend to know all of the facts which triggered the discontent that I have read in various e-mails. However, I know enough to see that there are communications problems between the members of the Association and those who lead the Association and lead the efforts to raise money for the benefit of USNA.

I take these communication problems very seriously. I am currently representing an organization of veterans who survived the Chosin Reservoir campaign in the Korean War. I am defending the organization against a fee claim by an attorney. However, underlying that dispute was a factional dispute within the veterans’ organization. By necessity, I had to review thousands of pages of documents related to the underlying dispute and found it is impossible to determine what triggered the dispute between two factions with virtually equal numbers of supporters on the Board of Directors for that organization. However, having reviewed the communications between and among members of both factions, I have reached certain conclusions about the proper way to operate a fraternal organization (such as USNAAA).

First, it is important to ensure that the members are given the broadest representational rights possible without creating restrictions which would prevent the Board from taking necessary actions on behalf of the Association. Second, the information flow from the leadership of the Association should be detailed, timely, and candid. It will never be possible for the Board to satisfy every member with every action taken, but it is necessary that the members at least be provided an opportunity to understand what actions are being taken and for what reasons. You would be amazed at what uninformed suspicion can do to hurt an organization. Third, communications should not be a one-way street. When appropriate, on matters of particular importance or of Association governance, the membership should be given the opportunity to provide input to the leadership before action is taken.

Fourth, the Association should, under appropriate circumstances, assist the membership in having their voices heard on matters which affect the reputation of USNA. I know that there are legal limitations on the Association becoming an advocate of political viewpoints and I do not advocate that it engage in political debates. When public policy issues of importance to veterans and alumni arise and a significant number of alumni express their desire to become involved in such debates, the Association should assist them by providing information on who and how to contact about such issues (without voicing an opinion of the Association). However, when nonpolitical issues arise which directly affect the reputation of USNA and, consequently, all of its alumni, the Association should (discreetly) voice its opinion to the USNA leadership. Of course, the USNA leadership is free to heed or ignore any advice offered, but I believe that the Association should not hesitate to advocate or defend the interests of its members.

Finally, sound corporate governance requires its leaders to “check their egos at the door.” The leaders must serve the membership. All decisions should be made based upon what is in the long term interests of the country, USNA, and its alumni and good people can disagree about what is in the best long term interests of the country, USNA, and its alumni. I am not a bomb-thrower. I want to help USNA and the Association, not hurt them. I would sooner have my position on an issue lose if it means winning would hurt USNA. Like I tell the kids I coach in YMCA basketball: “It is not about you,. It is about the team.” If you want a strong advocate for USNA and its alumni, I am your man. If you want someone who will “take no prisoners,” I am not your man.

I believe my responses below follow the principles that I have just stated.

Questionnaire Responses

1. Views on proposed amendments to USNAAA Bylaws.

   Amendment A

   I agree with providing for the possibility of a write-in vote for Chairman and Vice-Chairman. I trust the judgment of the alumni not to elect a person who is not suitable for the position. We have apparently operated with the write-in possibility since the 1970s without problem. If the alumni mistakenly choose someone who cannot properly discharge the duties of the office, the By-laws provide for removal of any trustee for cause by two-thirds vote of the Board.

   Amendment B

   I agree with providing flexibility by allowing a multiple slate election for Chairman and/or Vice Chairman if both the Nominating Committee and the Board of Trustees approve by simple majority votes of each. I see no harm in allowing more flexibility to the Association leadership which also offers more choices to the membership. The day may come when two very different courses can be taken by the Association in some important area of its operations and having a candidate on each side of such an issue gives the members a method of indicating a preference.

   Amendment C

   I agree that the provision for two Board elected trustees should either be eliminated or revised to define the constituencies for those Trustees. As it stands now, their constituency could be viewed as the Board majority that elected them and the provision could be seen as a way of allowing a faction of the Board to seize control or to increase its control over the Board’s decisions.

   Amendment D

   I agree that the timing of the nomination process should be altered to allow prospective candidates who are not selected/approved by the Nominating Committee adequate time to solicit and obtain petition signatures.

   I agree that the number of signatures on a nominating petition should be reduced to 100. In an election in which only 2,000-odd members vote, 100 persons is a significant total – almost 5% of the number that will actually vote. In addition, for persons in states with smaller Chapters (like my state of North Carolina) there may be less than 150 dues-paying members of Chapters in the entire state. Obtaining signatures can become very difficult unless you are from a large Chapter.

   I do not agree with electronic petitions. When someone signs by hand, they usually recognize the seriousness of the act more than by clicking a box on a return e-mail. However, retaining the requirement for handwritten signatures makes all the more important the need to give prospective candidates ample notice of the need to use the petition route.

   Amendment E

   I agree that vacancies in the Vice-Chairmanship and the regional trustee positions should be filled by a majority vote of the Board, not just the Executive Committee. It is the most representative and, in my limited experience, the usual way, Board vacancies are filled in these type organizations. I also agree that such votes should be conducted as efficiently as possible which will usually be by electronic communications. I would expect the Nominating Committee to conduct an expedited solicitation of candidates from the membership, to gather appropriate information about the candidates, and to provide such information to the Board members so that they can make informed decisions. Vacancies in Chapter trustee positions should be filled by the affected Chapter.

   Amendment F

   Not having previously served on the Board, I have never witnessed the problem of trustees being asked to vote on By-laws amendments without adequate information to make an informed decision. However, the anecdotal evidence indicates that this has been a problem. The problem should have been avoided by circulating amendment proposals and rationales well in advance of a Board meeting to both trustees and the membership. Whenever that did not occur, the problem could have been solved by tabling the votes on such matters if the trustees complained that they were not given adequate time to become informed before a vote. As that apparently has not occurred in the past, the proposed amendment appears to have a sound basis though it reduces flexibility and speed in making needed changes.

2. The Association has the right to discuss all aspects of USNA policies and operations and, when appropriate, voice constructive criticism. Of course, the active duty leaders at USNA have the right to ignore such criticism as they, not we, are charged with the responsibility and authority for setting USNA policies and conducting USNA operations.
   
3. Shipmate magazine is the voice of the Association. Because it is primarily informational, it should allow USNA leaders to offer their thoughts, in appropriate measure, on its pages.
4. I think it is appropriate for the Association, the Foundation, and the classes to raise money to assist in funding capital projects and operations at USNA. I do not believe that I have been provided with adequate information about the needs and proposed uses of the funds to be able to opine whether the amounts sought are appropriate. I also have concerns about providing millions of dollars in unrestricted funds to the USNA Superintendent without being informed about the range of uses for that money. Some may want to make unrestricted donations but I believe that others want to know more about on what their donations will be spent. One of my goals if elected is to improve the communications between the Association members and those who raise and control such funds. The members deserve more information and the fund-raisers will be more successful in raising funds if they provide such information.
5. Persons who donate money for the benefit of USNA should be allowed to designate its uses, if they choose, whether it is for construction costs, endowing professorship chairs, or supporting a particular athletic program. Obviously, such donations would be used to support programs already receiving federal government funds. I do not think the issue is whether “the Association” should fund faculty salaries in what particular proportion as the fund-raising apparatus does not appear to put the Association in position to make such decisions, at least not directly. The more important question is, “Who is making such decisions and under what guidelines are they doing so?” Again, I believe it is important for the membership to be informed about the entire fund-raising apparatus, where the donated funds will be spent, and who controls how much is spent on what. We are an Association of responsible adults, many of whom are experienced in leadership and managing the funding of capital projects and operations. We can be trusted to understand such matters and the difficulties inherent in allocating resources.
6. The Naval Academy Foundation must be responsible to the Association and its members or the members will not support it. I think there is room for significant improvement in informing the members about how the Foundation operates, what it is doing, what it is planning, and how its Board members are selected. I am a Chapter President and have never been provided what I would consider adequate information about the Foundation and its workings.
7. If elected Trustee, I would set up a group e-mail by which I could communicate with a single point of contact from each Chapter in the Eastern Region and other significantly large groups of members, such as the Concerned Alumni. I would use the group e-mail as a conduit to pass and receive information from the Eastern Region members. I would hope that the thousands of alumni in the Eastern Region would understand the need to use this structure in most instances so that I would not be overwhelmed by the volume of e-mail traffic.
8. While I doubt that the membership either needs or wants to be polled on every issue, there are some issues for which input from the members should be solicited. Amendments to Association By-laws is one such issue. I would use the mechanism described above.
9. The Association has begun a period where its role and the role of the alumni vis-a-vis USNA are changing. USNA is likely to need increased private funding in the years to come. The Association should play a significant role in allocating the donated resources of its members and improve the flow of information to and from the members about funding issues.
10. Changes in technology, too, are causing changes among the membership. The Association must effectively harness the ease and speed with which large groups of alumni can be reached to improve the flow of information to and from the members about Association and USNA activities and issues. The Association has put the mechanisms in place, e.g., its web page, and provided much information already. However, I believe that we can improve the information content with more detail about how the funding process works and how the funds are used.
11. Finally, I believe the Association, when appropriate, should ask the USNA leadership to provide better information on hot-button issues and should offer its collective opinion (privately in most cases) on some issues or advise the members when and how to offer their opinions. For example, there have been several misconduct cases in recent years in which an appearance existed that USNA athletes involved were not punished as harshly as a non-athlete would have been punished. I believe it appropriate for the Association leadership to ask for some explanation. Another example is the recent request by a USNA athlete for a fifth year so that he could play football while his classmates prepared to fight terrorism in their military specialties. To the vast majority of alumni, the answer to that request is self-evident in light of USNA’s mission. The Association should offer its opinion on such matters because they affect the reputation of USNA and all of its alumni. The Superintendent and Commandant are free to give such opinions whatever weight, if any, they wish but we should not sit by and be deemed to tacitly approve such a request by our silence.
12. I have read information about the ethics courses at USNA and am aware of the heated debates among alumni about those courses. I think midshipmen need effective leadership training and ethics classes are part of that. I will continue to gather information about the courses and, whenever appropriate, pass such information to my constituents and/or raise issues to the Board.
13. I am also aware that many older alumni think that USNA is not delivering good officers to the fleet. I disagree. As a 1977 graduate who served more than 12 years on active duty and who still serves in the Marine Corps as a reservist, I have been favorably impressed by almost every USNA graduate that I have encountered. We must all take care not to judge all recent graduates by anecdotal evidence about the few bad apples. In this day of the Internet and the Association’s daily gathering of news articles about USNA graduates, it is easy to learn the bad news on which the media will always focus and dwell – good deeds and hard work are not deemed newsworthy. Frankly, whenever USNA dismisses a mid for cheating I consider it a good sign that the system is working to rid the naval service of a future bad apple. Civilian colleges kick students out for cheating from time-to-time but it is not considered newsworthy. Likewise, sexual misconduct at civilian colleges is not given the wide publicity USNA has received.
14. Bottom line – USNA is turning out a pretty good young officer – in my opinion, about an 8 on average. Of course, we would all like to see nothing but 9s and 10s but I doubt that it is realistic. However, we should do what we can to help USNA continue to improve its programs.
15. As one who signed on with the Concerned Alumni in August 2000, I agree with the central goal of the CA – improve communications between the Association leadership and its members – and will work on achieving that goal. I hope those of you in the Eastern Region will consider voting for me to serve as your Trustee.

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