higher standard, The

Sea Power, Aug 1997 by Burgess, Richard R

Special Committee to USNA Board Issues Report, Recommendations For Future

The Special Committee to the Naval Academy's Board of Visitors has issued its report on the ability of the Naval Academy to fulfill its mission of developing midshipmen to serve as officers. The report, The Higher Standard, five months in the making, was released to the public by the committee at a 23 June news conference at the Academy in Annapolis, Md.

The 20-member Special Committee, co-chaired by retired Adm. Stansfield Turner and Goucher College President Dr. Judy Jolley Mohraz, was formed to assess the performance of the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) following a series of highly publicized incidents that since 1989 have brought "unfavorable attention to the institution." The Board asked the Special Committee to address the question: "Is the United States Naval Academy fulfilling its mission ... of developing midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically to serve as officers of the Naval Service and leaders of the nation?" The committee's answer was "yes". The committee also concluded that the institution is "fundamentally sound," but that there are certain "facets of its operation" that must change "if the Academy is to live up to the high standard it represents."

The committee praised the Academy's superintendent, Adm. Charles R. Larson, and the USNA commandant, Capt. William T. R. Bogle, for changes they implemented that have "recharged the atmosphere of the Academy, resulting in a greater respect for leadership and a renewed sense of vigor within the Yard." The committee "found no evidence that the publicized incidents were related or the result of systemic problems," but said that the Academy's handling of at least some of the incidents "resulted in aggravating adverse publicity and creating cynicism among midshipmen, alumni, and the general public."

The Special Committee recommended three broad strategies to improve the Naval Academy as an institution: (1) institutionalize sound and stable management; (2) enhance the education and professional development of midshipmen; and (3) "continue to seek improvements," by, for example, refining the recruitment and admissions process and taking "active steps to recognize diversity as strength."

A More Representative Board

The committee recommended, in the report's section on management, that the Board of Visitors take a more active role in providing "outside review of the Academy." To facilitate the process, the committee suggested Congress should revise Title X of the U.S. Code and change the appointment process and composition of the board-nine members of Congress now serve on the 15-member board-to include leaders from academia, the business and diplomatic communities, and the professions. The secretary of the Navy was urged to further institutionalize the process by scheduling annual meetings with the board and consulting with it on such matters as selection of the Academy's superintendent.

The superintendent himself was urged to determine which data would be most useful in measuring "how the Academy is performing in key areas." That data should perhaps include, the committee said, comparisons of academic performance over time, and "against appropriate external benchmarks," a comparison of the fleet performance of USNA graduates with the performance of officers from other commissioning sources, the equity and timeliness of honor procedures, attitudes toward women and minorities, and the career development of officers formerly serving at the Academy.

One of the committee's most direct criticisms addressed the Academy's overly defensive response to unfavorable publicity: "The Naval Academy does not belong to the Navy, the Marine Corps, or the Department of Defense; it belongs to the American people. The public pays for it and is entitled to know what happens there. In a democratic society, a public institution must operate in maximum candor, both about its achievements and its shortcomings. A defensive posture doesn't help-and often hurts-the institution." The committee recommended a more open and proactive communication strategy that is more positive and less protective.

Noting the frequent turnover in the Academy's leadership in the past-55 superintendents in 152 years-the committee expressed concern over the volatility and loss of institutional memory risked by such frequent turnover, and recommended that the superintendent: (1) be a three-star Navy or Marine Corps officer; (2) be appointed for four or five years with the possibility of reappointment; and (3) be exempted from statutory retirement based on length of service and allowed to serve "at the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy" until the statutory age limit (currently 62) for military service.

Concerns and Oversights

To enhance the education and professional development of midshipmen, the committee recommended increasing the effectiveness of the faculty by integrating the civilian faculty "into all aspects of the Academy's mission" and by assuring "a steady stream of highly qualified military faculty." The committee expressed concern that "the pool of naval officers with graduate degrees is shrinking," and said that, unless the Navy places higher value on service at the Academy, naval officers will not consider faculty assignment to be career-enhancing.