I want to personally thank each of you for the recognition you have given me with the presentation of the 50-Year Class Award. I can think of nothing more meaningful and humbling than to receive recognition from those I consider brothers and family. I will treasure it always.

It all began some 27+ years ago when you elected me to serve as your Class President at our 25th Reunion. Jim Glaza left some large shoes for me to fill, and I recall feeling honored to be given that duty. It took some time to see through your snickering and realize that I had become the permanent 'Stuckee.' I got to do the work and you got to do the bitchin'.

Over the years, we, as a Class, have come a long way and accomplished quite a bit. Jack Brush and Jim Waddle have been the voices of reason; Jock has performed flawlessly as the faithful, and frugal, keeper of the coin; Rosie continues to be the long-suffering recorder of our feats--and originator of this annual weekend bash; Dick Sexton has provided excellent leadership to make the Class Advisory Senate an important influential body. Ace Holman personally initiated our very successful website, which, more recently, under the direction of Les Querry and JT Smith, has become one of the best of all graduated classes. Jim Glaza has faithfully served as the class host and provided the "GlazaGate" at every home football game.

Anytime something needed doing, a classmate stepped up. George Luck gave us a memorable 50th Reunion Book and stepped up to organize the Northwest Class Group. Both Tony Burshnick and Wayne Kendall have taken on the monthly class luncheons in D.C. and C-Springs, respectively. Tony Bilello and Jim Bujalski gave us a great 2nd Lt Bars presentation for the Class of 2010. Who could deny Al Johnson's questionable efforts as President/CEO of the Ski & Lawn Mower Repair School?

Also, as you know, we have produced two Distinguished Graduates: Ron Yates & Mike Loh; and, one Academy Distinguished Service Award winner: Jock Schwank. If all that doesn't define unselfish effort in the name of brotherhood, then I don't know what does.

I must mention my constant advisor and sage counselor, Carole. And, if there was ever any question that she does not constantly have the best interests of the class in mind--you can forget that thought right now.

I view this award as evidence that we, the members of the Class of 1960, have collectively set the standard for other classes to follow in doing the right thing when it comes to leadership across the full spectrum of our lives.

Every time I look at this award, I feel great pride in being counted a member of the Class of 1960, the best class ever to graduate from the U.S. Air Force Academy.

---

16 November 2017

Dear Board Directors,

We, the undersigned presidents and chairs of USAFA's supporting foundations, want you to be aware of some encouraging developments in our relationships and how they pertain to our ability to improve our support to the Academy and to each of our missions. Since the end of August 2017, the presidents and board chairs have held three productive meetings. Our goal is simple: to join forces as a coordinated team dedicated and positioned to best serve USAFA and our respective missions.

At the 24 August meeting, each organization presented to the others the essence of their respective missions. It didn't take long to realize that the Superintendent, his staff and the cadets would be well-served if they had support organizations, all pulling in the same direction. Together we provide the following: a robust fundraising arm; an active and supportive alumni organization; a profitable athletic corporation; a reliable prep school scholarship program; an organization to fund and manage distinguished visiting professor academic chairs; and a specialized organization to support the needs of the McDermott Library and enhance the preservation of Academy and Air Force History. It quickly became evident that each of these organizations exists for one reason--to make our Academy better--and that we would all be more successful if we worked together to that purpose.

Realizing our basic agreement to work together as a team was a significant, yet incomplete action, during our 21 September and 2 November follow-up meetings we dove a little deeper into some of the "devils in the details." These details include status of the upcoming comprehensive campaign, the Superintendent's and each supporting foundation's campaign needs/priorities, and how we might all benefit from an organizational adjustment to ensure long-term coordination enabling mission relevancy and financial stability of each foundation.

There is plenty of work still to be done, but again, we wanted to update you on ongoing actions and ask for your support as we continue this journey to become more effective in our roles as USAFA's Supporting Foundations.

//SIGNED//

---

This is a very difficult letter to write. It is generally based on my personal observations and opinions gained over several years. You can understand that many of these thoughts may be tinged with emotion and, along with others, difficult to substantiate. I believe that often perceptions become the facts we wish to see in events of this nature. But, it is truly hard to sit by and watch an organization you trusted and supported for a number of years fall from a progressive forward leaning entity without either doing or saying something about it. I ask you to use this letter as a starting point to get informed and form your own thoughts on the health of the AOG.

In my opinion, the Association of Graduates (AOG) is entering a period of decline brought about by significant changes in its leadership. This change resulted from a move to widen the scope of representation. This move was based on a member perception that the previous Board of Directors (BOD) did not adequately represent the graduate community. Hence the association bylaws were changed to allow popular election of the directors. Previously, the directors were nominated by a committee that searched the graduate community and identified individuals with the skill sets and experience to direct a multi-million dollar organization with tens of thousands of members. When located, the nominees were vetted, asked to serve at their own expense, presented to the board, and named on the ballot for election by the entire membership.

Following the bylaw change, that process was sacrificed for a membership wide popular election. The ballot then consisted of those members who expressed a desire to serve. There was little or no consideration given to their skills or ability to perform in the corporate arena as dictated by the size and financial assets of the association. Consequently, following two regular elections under the current process, a majority of the sitting directors appear to have neither the skills nor the experience to further the aims of the organization. This has caused severe turbulence in the AOG staff, affiliated fund raising organizations and the entire graduate community.

The majority of newly elected directors support the platform put forth by the Alumni Reunification Committee (ARC), an organization formed and endorsed by graduates who were displeased with the actions and decisions of previous boards. They perceived the previous leadership to be autocratic, dictatorial, opposed to openness, and focused on fund raising in deference to graduate services. They also believed the AOG leadership had been weak and unwilling to become involved in the running of the Academy.

Consequently these new directors came into office with a mandate of openness, change and reunification of the graduate community. It is interesting to note that the first resolution the incoming BOD passed was to continue the directions of the outgoing board--so much for change. Incidentally, in the four months they have been sitting, they have held more closed meetings than the previous board held in four years--so much for openness. As for unification, since the most recent election there have been more personal attacks, back-biting, and name-calling across the graduate community then any time in memory. A larger wedge has been driven through the graduate community than any time in the past--so much for unification.

The previously mentioned decline in BOD skills began after the 2005 general election when a large number of major donors began to question the management abilities of the elected directors. That trend continues as those donors have withdrawn their support from the AOG and turned to an independent agency outside the purview of the association. This group expressed a total lack of confidence in the AOG Board leadership. The loss of their contribution is tantamount to setting the association back some 15--20 years.

Additionally, over the past year, the development offices of the AOG have been decimated by the loss of several key personnel in the major giving sector. They found they could not perform under the circumstances resulting from that loss of confidence in leadership. Consequently, without a real prospect of significant available funding, the BOD has revised the operating budget downward and instituted a hiring freeze. Neither fact bodes well for future growth of the association and it annual financial support to the Academy and services to the graduate community.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the AOG, Jim Shaw, has resigned from the AOG. With his departure, the association has lost a significant asset and with his departure, we have lost access to the Superintendent's Office. As CEO, he was a regular guest at all senior staff meetings and often asked to provide input for the graduate community. Based on recent BOD actions, the Superintendent has withdrawn that privilege and restricted his contact with the AOG. Rumor has it this gulf has deepened since the BOD did not respond to the Supt's annual needs list in time for the Academy to submit its annual budget to the Department of the Air Force.

Work performed under the current board has slowed considerably. For example; the Alumni Relations Committee, under the chair of one of the ARC directors, has been unable to reach even one of its self-stated goals and has yet to move a single issue out of committee for a vote of the full board. Granted, the number of Directors was reduced over that period but non directors have stepped up to fully man that committee as well as several others. It is unclear to many observers where the board is focused and how they spend their time.

Communications from the BOD to the graduate community have not improved much under the new Board of Directors. The best method for graduates to stay abreast of the Boards deliberations through the AOG website and the minutes posted there after each BOD meeting. As an example, the provisional minutes posted following the 27 October, 2007 meetings contain information of BOD deliberations concerning their personal reimbursement. This is interesting in light of past precedent. For the first time in history the BOD wants to be reimbursed for expenses. We have now gone from a BOD that gave time, treasure, and talent to a board that wants to take treasure from an already strapped AOG budget and yet to show little talent in solving the financial problems they created.

It is imperative that each of us read those minutes and if questions or concerns arise, you need to bring them directly to the attention of the Board and our Class Senate Representative--Dick Sexton.

---

It is no secret to anyone that the Association of Graduates (AOG) has entered a period of turmoil. It is also a fact that this has been coming on for more than two years. It all started with a portion of the graduate community feeling that the Board of Directors (BOD) was not representative of the community of graduates as a whole. An active minority formed an organization called the Alumni Reunification Committee (ARC) in an effort to bring about changes in the direction and goals of the AOG. Their primary concept was to replace the sitting board which was largely composed of members selected by a nominating committee with members selected through open election by the general membership.

History has repeatedly shown that it is possible to run an organization of a few hundred members and a financial corpus of a few hundred thousand dollars with leaders selected by a popularity contest. History also has shown that it is folly to run an organization--like the AOG, with several thousand members and a financial corpus in excess of $25 million in the same manner. Organizations, the size of our AOG, require leadership equipped with certain specific and well proven skill sets to effectively and efficiently keep it viable. Often, the only method of acquiring those talents is to recruit senior corporate and military managers willing to donate their time and skills on a pro bono basis simply because they feel connected to the organization and it goals.

Such a skilled and dedicated BOD has been replaced over the past two elections by the current members most of whom have neither the skill sets nor the talents to provide effective vision and guidance for the AOG. They do not possess the experience, contacts, or project the confidence to further the goals of the AOG. Where past boards have met the changing needs of the institution, the membership, and the organization, this board will be forced to struggle to keep the AOG a viable Academy organization.

In the fund raising arena, for the past 15 years, there has been a concerted effort by the leadership of the AOG to bring under one umbrella, all of the fund-raising entities affiliated with The Academy. That goal was very near completion when the current board took over. Within the last few months, the process has fractured and been set back several years. Unfortunately the current BOD appears to be unable to come to grips with determining what the role of the AOG should be in terms of seeking major donations and soliciting annual donations. Several of those fund raising agents have expressed a profound lack of confidence in the present AOG Board and its leadership and withdrawn their corporate and financial support. Frankly, the large donors just don't trust the present AOG Board with the management of their donated monies. Consequently, many of the large donors have formed a separate foundation outside the purview of the AOG--taking with them a major share of the funds the AOG had planned on acquiring in the near future.

That lack of confidence has permeated throughout the graduate community. AFA Annual fund revenues, to include Sabre Society funds have shown a marked downward trend over the last two quarters as have the number of significant contributions. Budget projections by the AOG staff have also been revised downward to reflect less than optimistic expectations in both annual giving and major gift contributions.

The lack of confidence in the current board has had a major impact on the AOG staff. Within the last several months, the entire senior development (major gifts) staff has departed, leaving a significant void in the major gift fund raising capability of the AOG. They will not be easily nor quickly replaced as budgets have had to be reduced to meet lower revenue expectations.

What does this mean to every member of the graduate community? Well, now you can expect to receive many more individual solicitations from any number of organizations. Most fund raising activities affiliated with The Academy have access to the same graduate rosters and you can bet they will be contacting each and every one of us with requests. In previous years this intrusiveness by other Academy-oriented organizations was held to a minimum because of the cooperative relationships established by past Boards and Jim Shaw (AOG President/CEO).

How about us in the Class of 1960? Rest assured, we saw this coming and took steps to protect our funds. Both our Class Fund and our 50th Reunion Gift Fund are secure. I ask you to continue to support the class in your commitments to those two funds. How and to what extent you wish to support any other Academy oriented fund raising effort is solely up to you.

If you have any thoughts or need clarification on any of these points, please contact me and I will do my best to supply answers or more data.

---

Just from talking to some of our classmates, I know that you are interested in how the Academy is fairing with regards to the leadership and the cadets themselves. I serve as a Graduate Associate for the 14th Cadet Squadron and Carole and I sponsor cadets from the classes of 2010 and 2011. I am not as well versed on the academic regimen as some but I do maintain a working knowledge of how the management and the cadets are getting along.

First, let me say that Lt.Gen. Regni, as superintendent, is the best thing that has happened around here in a long time. He has an excellent handle on the place and is an insightful and dynamic leader. As a grad, he has done a super job of separating the wheat from the chaff. The cadets have a great deal of respect for him and he is setting a great example and providing a good role model. The Superintendent's vision and leadership will continue to have significant influence on the Commandant and Dean in their areas of responsibility.

DGen Susan Desjardins, the Cmdt., may not be Ben Cassidy or Moose Stillman but she does have the wing marching with more precision and improved their conduct and behavior. They still have a long way to go but there is progress.

The Dean, BGen Dana Born, has introduced a number of new educational techniques. Much of the education is being delivered by computer and there is far less face time with the instructors. And the proxy servers often become overloaded and go down, thereby interfering with the cadets' ability to complete their assignments on time. This is a major departure from what we knew and what today's incoming cadets are used to. However, the cadets are sharp and are adjusting to the change.

The Director of Athletics, Dr. Hans Mueh has his eyes set on improving the financial status of the department. He has been forced into a very dynamic situation with the loss of several major intercollegiate team coaches. But, if the football, basketball, and hockey teams keep winning, he might come off looking like a genius.

Unfortunately, there is a significant lack of traditional role models for the cadets. Not one of the senior leaders has experience in combat and only the Cmdt. is rated. This anomaly extends all the way into the squadrons as many of the AOCs come with specialties other than flying. In this era of terrorism, maybe combat leadership in the skies does take second place to technical skills.

The powered flight training program at the Academy airfield has been eliminated. Now the only flight training is composed of soaring and the jump program. The powered flight training assets have been transferred to a contract operation at the Pueblo airport. There a program has been installed screen all officers (Academy and ROTC) headed for pilot training. Of course, the aero club is still available for some of the cadets to train during their off time.

On the plus side, marching tours and Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) are back. In September punishment tours were re introduced for violations involving alcohol. One of our cadets mentioned that up to 99 tours were awarded for such offenses along with "Community Service". The guilty cadet must stand at the cadet area entrance gates and distribute hand-outs concerning alcohol abuse. SERE training will be re installed as mandatory instruction for all cadets starting in the summer of 2008. I notice the other day that quite a few cadets were marching.

Honor is still an issue with the Wing. The honor code and system is not the one we are familiar with. True, the basic elements of the code are the same but the ways in which it is administered vary from the black and white model we experienced. There are incidents where consideration is allowed according to class, and seriousness of offense. The Supt has begun to return the Honor Code to the Cadet Wing and back officer management out of it. This appears to be working but it will require more time to completely take hold.

A subsidiary issue revolves around the belief by some grads that they should have a say in the running of the Academy. This came to a head as a result of letters sent to Gen Regni following the last honor incident. Those letters purportedly told the Supt how he should address the situation. Since neither the AOG nor the graduate community is shown in the Superintendent's chain of command chart, he rightfully did not feel bound to respond. That act should not be interpreted to mean that graduates have no say in the functioning of the Academy; but any advice graduates are asked to give, should be given respectfully and with the understanding that the military leaders are solely responsible for managing the Academy.

Every one of the present senior leaders is an active member of the AOG. As grads with the latest information on every subject related to Academy issues, they are clearly in a position to respond to any and all arising situations. Their actions may not always sit well with every graduate but they do have the best interests of both the Academy and the nation in their decisions.

---

Over the past few years the communications capability of the individual has significantly increased. This increase has provided the individual to express his thoughts and positions directly to a wide spectrum of decision makers. It has resulted in individual power and given each of us the capability of taking a greater part in determining the directions of our Association of Graduates (AOG) and Class Leadership. But, to work, the individual must be informed, involved, and take the time to supply response.

Recently several electronic platforms have emerged to assist you in learning the facts, positions and directions of both the class and the AOG. I have listed some of the relevant websites that have joined the class website as resources that supply information for discussion of subjects of possible interest to you as an alumnus and classmate. There may be others but these are a start. Of course there is our class website; www.usafa.net/1960/. The Association of Graduates has: www.usafa.org, and www.zoomienation.usafa.org. The AOG has recently added the ability to directly contact the BOD through the "Contact U" feature. Additionally the site now has the capability to forward individual e-mails. (see ZoomieNation, dtd. 11/01/2007). There are two other sites primarily addressing AOG issues. They are www.usafa2day.com and www.usafatoday.com. I am sure there are others but this list will provide a wealth of knowledge to keep you informed and aware of most of the current controversial items.

I urge you to take the effort to become informed of the topical issues and get involved. We all have opinions and do need to make the effort to let those in leadership positions know how we feel. As you well know, it is easier to sit back and complain than to speak up and become part of a solution.

Another aspect of our class communication concerns internal communication across the class. Thanks in large part to the efforts of Ace Holman, Les Querry, Jock Schwank, Jim Glaza, and Rosie Cler, we have developed a fairly extensive class roster. It contains current e-mail addresses of grads, alums, and next of kin for our deceased classmates. As you can imagine, keeping it current is a bear. The only way we can retain usefulness of such a roster is by your efforts to insure we have current data on you. Please let either Jock (Jock@schwank.com) or Rosie (RCtherose@aol.com) know of any changes you make to your address, e-mail or phone number. They will do the rest

Thank you for your time. I hope this helps.

---

I want to update you on several items of interest to you and the class. As you may know there has been talk across the graduate community about communication between classes and classmates. Two-way communication between and within our class is crucial to insuring that we maintain the close ties we have enjoyed over the years. And as we all age, our memory tends to go flat at times. With that in mind and knowing that many of us are not wholly computer literate, "snail mail" is still the best way to communicate. This letter lists ongoing and contemplated items which may be relevant to the Class.

First, let me emphasize the need to keep our class roster is as up to date as possible by sending us timely changes to your mailing and e-mail addresses. The AOG, Rosie, and I attempt to maintain a current and complete roster. You can help by sending any changes to Andi: (719) 488-4317 or Bacfly60@gmail.com ; Rosie: (505) 897-4420 or RCtherose@aol.com .

Our class website has been a great communication tool and we thank Charlie Holman for his efforts in making it one of the best the class websites. (Although at present experiencing some problems, efforts are underway to get it functional). You can access the resurrected site through https://www.usafaclasses.org/1960/afa60.html or by going to the "Class Pages" page on the AOG site and clicking "1960". The AOG will change their page to link to this new address. (To get to "Class Pages", click "AOG Services" and then "Constituent/Public Services" and then "Class Websites") Charlie would welcome some help in continuing management of the site. Any of you that are enjoying retirement, looking for some diversion, have the skill sets, and would be willing to help out (or know a classmate who might), please let me know. You can contact Charlie "Ace" at: (251) 660-8732 or cholman1234@hotmail.com .

The AOG has brought a new feature online.ZoomieNation is an interactive site designed to serve the graduate community. It contains many features including the capability to form chat rooms addressing subjects of individual concerns. It is part of the association's drive for more robust communication across the membership. You can access the site at: zoomienation.usafa.org/.

Our Class Historian is now Ralph Lalime. As you scale your lifestyle back and come across any "junk" from your ancient foot locker, contact Ralph before you put it on Ebay or consign it to the garbage can. (If anyone has the early "Newsletters' produced by the AOG prior to the initial CHECKPOINTS, let me know.) Any questions or thoughts, contact Ralph: (703) 569-7187 or trlalime@yahoo.com .

Those of you who attended the 45 th reunion recall a photo CD from Les Querry containing hundreds of photos taken by him from 1956-1959. Les is now deep into a project to digitize photos, video clips and text provided by other members of the Class. Send him any photos or clips (period 1956-2007) that are relevant worth sharing. He will digitize them, return them and then produce a DVD for each of us (or relatives of deceased classmates), having them available at the 50 th reunion. Contact Les' at (540) 554-2416 or lesquerry@wave2net.com .

George Lester had asked each of us at an earlier reunion to write our personal biography and send it to him to preserve in a common collection. Some of us have already done it. And I have spoken to several others who have completed theirs but not forwarded them or are working on them. If you haven't made the attempt, this is another useful way to spend some time doing something productive. They don't have to be works of art but more importantly, just your story. George can be contacted at: (249) 404-1933 or GeorgeTLester@hotmail.com .

The annual Inter Service Weekend will occur this autumn in conjunction with the AF--Army football game played on 3 November, 2007. This year Bruce Mosier is the point guy for the weekend. Contact with the Embassy Suites has established it as the probable housing site. Remaining details will be finalized within the next two months. Bruce will get them on the wire. If you have any questions, thoughts, concerns, contact Bruce at: (719) 481-5813 or mosiermanor@myway.com .

A European River Cruise (Eastern Europe to the Black Sea ) is being planned for 11-23 August of next year. The intention is to co-celebrate our 70th birthdays with classmates, family and friends. Details will be sent to you by Jim Glaza. Please contact Jim at (719) 481-9222 or jimglaza@comcast.net ASAP as space may be limited.

The annual meeting of the Utah Chapter of the Al Johnson Ski & Lawn Mower Repair School is again on the books for 2008.MiniSki XVIII will take place around the end of February and the first week in March 2008. The exact timing and details have yet to be worked out but it is anticipated they will not vary much from past years. Each year more of our younger generation relatives have been attending. And each year the fun factor has increased as they lend their enthusiasm and energy to the mix.

The 50th Reunion Class Gift Fund raising effort is showing great progress. The received cash and pledges have exceeded our goal, a very encouraging sign. To date, of the 173 classmates that we could solicit, 134 or 77.45% have responded with either a pledge or cash. Now, the focus will shift to honoring those pledges over the remaining years and hoping that we can achieve a higher percentage of participation across the class. We are nearing the age when our IRAs are maturing and there is a tax advantage in designating a portion of your minimum distributions to charitable causes. Questions? Contact: Al Johnson: (703) 549-0383 or AJohnson1960@cox.net .

The Heritage Trail Construction Project (50 th Class Gift Project) is proceeding. We have accumulated enough cash to issue a Request for Proposal this summer. The Good Earth Company has tendered a bid which is now being reviewed. If accepted, Good Earth will begin moving dirt in late June 2007. By 2010 our portion will have been completed. If you have questions contact Andi: (719) 488-4317 or Bacfly60@gmail.com .

The AOG Bylaws adopted in 2006 established a Class Advisory Senate as a two way channel of communication between the AOG leadership and the graduate community. The concept was for the AOG Board of Directors to consult the Senate on major issues and the Senate to advise the Board based on member inputs. Each class selected a representative and Dick Sexton volunteered to represent our class. The Bylaws are vague on just how the Senate was supposed to operate. Dick got together with me, Jock, Duck and Dick Coppock ('61) to draft a set of operating procedures. Those procedures were approved by the AOG Board and Dick was elected President of the Senate. The Senate is up and running thanks in large part to Dick's efforts. There are a number of major issues facing the AOG this year on which the Senate will be seeking member input. Among those are the establishment of a foundation and addressing the results of the member survey. Dick will keep us informed and look for input on these and any other issues that you want the Senate to bring to the attention of the Board. More information is available on the AOG website--click on About the AOG and go to Class Advisory Senate or contact Dick: (719) 481-2936 or sextonrch@aol.com .

We conducted a survey following the 45 th class reunion to determine the agenda for the 50 th Reunion in 2010. Of the 178 forms distributed, we received 76 replies. The result indicated that we hold the reunion in September on a home football weekend, and that the reunion last four days in Colorado Springs using a reasonably priced hotel (Embassy Suites). In addition to the football game, events requested were: a hospitality suite, an informal dinner, lots of free time, golf, a memorial service, lunch at Mitch's, a tour of the Academy, a State of the Wing discussion, and class meeting. The exact date will be determined when the 2010 USAFA football schedule is firm. We will, of course, inaugurate our portion of the Heritage Trail. There was little interest in any merchandise other than ball caps and T-shirts or Sweaters. There was a strong desire indicated to invite widows, former AOCs and ATOs. Questions -- contact: Andi; (719) 488-4317 or Bacfly60@gmail.com . (There has been some thought that a Reunion Book might be appropriate. If you have thoughts or wish to assist in this project contact George Luck; (425) 337-2128 or george.luck@verizon.net .)

The Class of 1964 has committed to a Mall of Heroes as a class gift. The Mall will be located just below the "Bring Me Men" ramp (in front of the old Cadet Dispensary). The mall will initially contain full-size bronze statues of Richter, Sijan, and Bourque. Richter and Sijan are modeled in flight suits and stand on corners of the central square. Val is modeled in his cadet parade dress, in the center of the square, with a saber at "present arms". The concept is that as squadrons march past the mall en route to the parade ground, they will go to "eyes right-present arms," to honor the fallen and return Val's salute. It will be a fitting tribute that we can all share. I will assure that Rod Wells (Class President) and the Class of 1964 know of our appreciation for their efforts.

On 11 May, 2007 the AOG and the Academy dedicated the Memorial Pavilion and Directory Kiosk on the grounds of the cemetery. The Memorial Pavilion is intended for the conduct of funerals and memorial services. It is designed to be heated or cooled on demand relieving all the hours folks have had to brave the fickle Colorado temperatures and winds during interment services. It comfortably seats 100-150 people with facilities to accommodate reflection and viewings. Adjacent to the east wall there is a columbarium appropriate for interment of urns. In conjunction with the pavilion, a kiosk replaces the cemetery directory. It contains an interactive system to locate burial plots and provide some information on the individual. All in all, this is an extremely fine upgrade to the cemetery and will play a major role in dignifying future funeral services

Class Rings. If you lose or have lost a class ring, notify the AOG. They maintain a lost and found list of class rings. Contact don.mccarthy@aogusafa.org .

Thanks for your time and interest. If you have any thoughts, concerns, suggestions, questions, complaints, or whatever, please contact me; (719) 488-4317, bacfly60@gmail.com , Duck; (719) 633-6534, af60duck@msn.com or Jock, (719) 594-0860, jock@schwanks.net .

---

Within the next several days, as members of the Association of Graduates, you will be given the opportunity to vote electronically on a petition formulated by a group calling itself the AOG Reorganization Committee (ARC). The complete discussion and vote on this petition can be found on the AOG website. It is imperative that you be fully aware of the issues involved with this petition prior to voting as it impacts the way the AOG will function in the future.

I am writing to you because I have some insight into a few of the basic details and the related ramifications embodied within the petition. Basically this petition concerns two major issues, which directly address the AOG Board of Directors and how the organization is governed.

The first issue involves the by-laws of the organization. The AOG has evolved from a very small organization of a few hundred members and scant funds in 1968 to the present organization of over 37,000 members with a multi-million dollar fiscal corpus. During this evolution, the by-laws have required periodic change. Initially, all by-law changes were proposed by either the Board or members and required a membership vote prior to enactment. As the organization grew, this method became very cumbersome, took an inordinate amount of time, and, at times, was often overcome by events. Consequently, over time, the Board assumed the responsibility to change/amend the by-laws to meet the changing needs of the organization--a much more efficient, effective, and timely process, but always accomplished with the best interests of the entire organization in mind.

Second, the ARC petition seeks to revert to the original method of electing directors through full membership popular vote. This method was, again, quite effective for the AOG as described in 1968. As you recall a slate of, say 20 names, was placed before the membership who were asked to vote for, maybe, six. The six top vote getters were elected to serve. This then became a "popularity contest" with little or no regard for the skills and talents necessary to run the organization. With growth came increased judiciary responsibility and accountability. It therefore became logical to populate the Board with some of the financial management, legal, non-profit organization management, and etc. skills necessary to guide the AOG. Today, a nominating committee consisting of a majority of non-board members searches the graduate base for the requisite skills and talents to meet the AOG needs. When identified, and vetted, these names are presented to the sitting Board, and when approved, advanced to the membership for their vote. (A process followed by most successful public corporations). This process is commonly called "shaping" and has, arguably, proven very successful for the AOG over the last six years.

The Board has recognized that to shape the entire Board would not necessarily represent the graduate community and has moved, in the 2005 election, to limit the shaping and place in election candidates for popular vote which would better represent the at large graduate community. In doing so, the Board recognizes that the needs of the AOG must remain flexible over time and the shaping might well change to meet future needs. But in all cases it remains a representation of the graduate community.

The ARC petition seeks to return both the by-law management and the election of directors to the original method whereby the full membership vote is required and the management of the AOG would revert to the aforementioned popularity contest. Don't mistake me. I am a strong believer in democratic selection and fully trust the graduate community to select good people to direct the AOG. I do, however ask that you consider in your deliberations the benefits to be gained by placing the AOG management in the hands of some of our graduates who have had experience and gained the skills and talents to efficiently run the organization in the best interests of the graduates and the institution.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, I can be reached on my cell (719) 460-0035 or e-mailed : 2Biancurs@adelphia.net. Thank you for listening. My main interest is to stimulate thought and, possibly, give you a starting point to consider the upcoming vote in an informed manner.

---

Dear Andi,

I appreciate your thoughts. I disagree with the notion that by law approval by the membership is too cumbersome. USAA is an example. Also my wife belongs to Business and Professional Women (BPW) and they have their by laws approves by the members. Now we can argue the point, but the fact is some organizations have member approval and others do not. At least 4000+ of graduate members of the AOG want the power to approve or disapprove by laws. So, let us have a vote, in accordance with the laws of Colorado.

A shaped board is just one way of running the AOG. There are other ways. Let the members decide. Personally, having the AOG BoD say that they are making every effort to let the membership have more voice is putting the cart before the horse. It should really be up to the members. As it stands, the BoD can do what it deems best without answering to the membership. Well intentioned or not, such a way of governance is putting the fox in residence in the hen house. I believe the AOG BoD suffers from Inside the beltway syndrome. Fresh blood and other than 0-6 and above and CEO of this and that needs the addition of ordinary grads willing to work for the good of the AOG. The folks on the board need to run in the circles other than what they are used to.

As for the truth of each side, well, there is the AOG website and USAFA Today website. Everyone can read all the postings and decide for themselves. We grads are not that easily influenced and I know for a fact that both sides of this issue have dissent in the ranks. So be it. Let the issue be decided by a consensus of the members and not just a consensus of the BoD.

Your figure of 37,000 members put me off at first as I thought the grad membership was more like 22 or 24,000, Then I remembered associate members . If there truly are some 13,000 non-grad members with voting rights, this needs to be changed. Only graduate members should have the vote in the AOG. But this is another issue for later.

Thanks for your view. Now you have mine.

Good luck on the election.

---

I'm forwarding an article that appeared in the April 27 edition of the Rocky Mountain News for your information to read and compare with Harry Pearce's letter that we all received in the past couple of days. Both sides have some valid points, and I'm sure that we will hear even more in the next six weeks from other sources as well. What-ever your decision as to which side convinces you of their position, I would urge you to vote. The outcome will have a significant impact on the AOG.

---

---

This is the first time I have e-mailed the class, simply because it is too important to ignore. I'm weighing in on the AOG issue with Andi, Jock, Wayne, Harry Pearce, et. al. Unlike them, however, I choose to cut to the chase.

POINT 1: The goal of the ARC, while couched in positive platitudes, is really very simple. They want to impose their unstated (but verbally discernible) agenda on the grads: the AOG should be an organization of confrontation! The ARC is convinced that confrontation will somehow result in modifying Academy administration and cadet behavior. In fact, confrontation will do nothing more than alienate the AOG from the very people truly able to affect the Academy and severely marginalize the limited effectiveness the AOG has developed through supportive cooperation.

POINT 2: A "popularly" elected Board, says the ARC, is the only way to go. I, too, served on the Board for several years. As you might expect, 30% of the "popularly elected" members did 100% of the work. Most members, if they attended meetings at all, were there on an ego trip. The current "shaped" board, on the other hand, can select skills, availability, and, yes, even contribution capability in the selection process. 100% "popular elections" will surely weaken the board and diminish the AOG's influence.

I have learned that at least 55 of you have initially supported the ARC. I will assume it was strictly because you had heard only one (skewed) side of the story. By now you should know both, resulting in rejection of the ARC's agenda. VOTE! (See you at the 45th!)

---

Open Letter #2 to the Class of 1960

Approximately two months ago, I wrote and posted an open letter on the class website. That letter asked that you take the opportunity to become aware of the events unfolding here at the Academy. I am now writing a similar letter in an attempt to keep the class "in the loop" as to the graduate response to those problems. As you can imagine the reactions have ranged across the board as to what should be done and by whom.

You, as one of the more mature elements of the graduate community, realize that we, the graduates, probably are the one group with the deepest vested interest in the institution, the problems that have occurred, and the actions being taken to combat those problems. As a whole, the graduate community has been, in some instances, very vocal or, more generally, inwardly critical of many of the changes instituted, either on our behalf or independently as responses. And, as we are all painfully aware, often our opinions of those actions, although presumably rational and well thought out, can become shadowed by our emotions.

First of all, let me assure you that the Association of Graduates and our Board of Directors is acutely aware of every issue. And, I am convinced they share deep concern for the future directions the Academy takes. They are openly conscious of their individual and collective fiduciary responsibility to represent the graduate community in all of their dealing with the Academy and the Air force leadership. They do understand the responsibilities tied to their position as board members and are aware of their full accountability to us, the members of the association. From my perspective, it is a great board, manned with excellent skills whose talents are wholly focused on the good of the association and its members.

The Board does, however, recognize that, in the past, two-way communications between the board and the graduate community have fallen woefully short and need to be significantly improved. The board recognizes a further need to focus more emphasis on their look outward and is actively pursuing improvement of all its communicative mechanisms to achieve that end. There is a contractor effort to develop, man and maintain a new more robust website which will facilitate two-way communication with the graduate community.

I do need to stress the point that we, the AOG members, like any individual in any other membership organization, has the personal responsibility to understand how the governance elements of the organization work and the methods available to that body for action. Along with that responsibility we, as members, are free to communicate directly with any one or all of the Board members at any time. I can assure you that every Board member will listen directly to you and discuss any relevant issue you would like to discuss--as long as it is done in a polite thoughtful way.

Many of you are, or may have been, concerned or dissatisfied that the AOG Board has appeared to be non-responsive to most of the fixes instituted at the school and therefore may have concluded that you were not being adequately represented. Consider this: If the AOG leadership had charged into the fray with counter positions to the actions outlined in the "Agenda for Change", that may have satisfied a significant number of graduates. But, the result would only have met the "feel good" requirements and probably been very ineffective overall. Remember, the AOG and graduate membership is not in the line of command, thus contentious actions may well have resulted in the AOG not being invited "back to the table".

Historically in similar situations, the effectiveness of an involved governance body gains a greater strength and influence in retaining access to the decision makers--this is commonly exercised through quiet conversations. Let me further assure you those conversations are ongoing as every important decision-making level by individual members who have acquired and possess excellent records with that type tactics. Only time will tell if their actions will achieve any results. But this method holds a far better potential to achieve a desired solution?

I share your concern with the directions the Academy appears to be going. And probably, like each of you, I have considered many actions I would take--if I were king. But, I am not king so I see a responsibility to try to keep you informed and encourage discussion and reasoned thought. If you do not already know of it, there is a website, created by a grad, namely www.usafatoday.com. Among other features, it incorporates an open forum for graduate discussion. Several grads have registered and taken the opportunity to air opinions on many of the current events unfolding at the school. It might be a resource to choose to investigate as you develop your thoughts.

And, again, as I stated in the previous communication, I am more than happy to hear from each any one of you on any subject. I do not have all of the answers but will do my best to listen and pass on anything that know as these issues unfold.

---

Open Letter to the Class of 1960

As I am sure you all are aware, following the on-going problems here at the Academy, everyone in the Air Force leadership is advancing solutions. The most definitive approach signed by the Secretary of the Air Force is the "Agenda for Change"--which is driving almost every reform effort. Needless to say that document contained a host of issues. And, it seems that a measure of success has become the implementation of every one of those recommendations as rapidly as possible. Some of which may be more beneficial than others. Regardless, in toto, a significant change in the traditional culture. And, we all know the dangers in moving toward change prior to the ramifications being well thought out.

I have just returned from a luncheon meeting of the local chapter of the AOG. The guest speaker was the Colonel who was the principal drafter of the new Officer Development System (ODS) at the Academy. I will try to control my emotions, but nevertheless want to attempt to alert you all that numerous changes are going on here at the school. They are extraordinary and have far-reaching impacts. It is difficult to argue with the objectives of the ODS program as it states the self-evident fundamentals of Air Force leadership. The issues, as I see them are not the goals, but the methods proposed to arrive at those goals. For example; doing away with demerits and marching tours and going to a UCMJ based system.

I am writing this letter to you in hopes that you will take some time to become familiar with the "Agenda for Change," some of the imbedded issues, and read about several of the actions being proposed and implemented. The change from (as the administration states) "the fourth class system to a four class system" radically changes the entire experience, as we knew it. A question that might be asked is; Is this all necessary, and is it the proper approach to solving the identified problems? Almost all of the information available can be found on the class websites, and the Academy and AOG websites

In a recent meeting with Jim Shaw, President of the AOG, expressed the thought that he was not getting any feedback from the graduate community. When I responded with the small feedback I had from the class, he kept asking me the "sample size". My response that it was in the single digits did not carry much weight. As graduates, we probably have more vested interest in the Academy than any other single group. And since I feel, that as graduates, we would like to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, my first thought was to do what I could to insure that a wider number of grads becomes informed.. As an informed class, we could make our thoughts known in a way that would and could be heard.

I will not presume to tell you how or what to think, but only ask that you form your own opinions and discuss these opinions within those arenas where you believe appropriate. And those of you who wish may well provide feedback to Jim Shaw which, in turn, will enable him and the Board of Directors of the AOG to speak for the graduate community.

Of course, anything you wish me to pass on, I will. And, I will do my damnest to supply you with any additional information. Thank you for your time and interest.

---

The Colorado Springs Gazette

Date: Saturday, December 20, 2003

Headline: AFA halting demerits, marching as punishment

REFORMS: Punishment to reflect cadet offenses

Officials base revised discipline system on Uniform Code of Military Justice

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON * The days of Air Force Academy cadets marching up and down the campus square as punishment for minor infractions are nearing an end, as Pentagon officials have agreed with plans to phase out the academy's cadet disciplinary system.

The disciplinary system featuring demerits and forced marches has been a hallmark of the military academies for decades, but Air Force Academy commanders are doing away with it, relying solely on the punishment available under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that is used at Air Force and other military bases across the country.

The decision comes as new Air Force Academy leaders try to restore the school's reputation after revelations a year ago brought to light a serious failing in the academy's handling of sexual assaults of cadets.

Academy spokesman Johnny Whitaker said the change will leave cadets better prepared to be part of the Air Force when they graduate.

"As we're trying to fix the culture and fix the problems that we face across the board, whether it's the sexual assaults or the underage drinking, one of the major goals is to bring the Academy back - to close the gap between it and the operating Air Force and do away with things that are academy-unique," Whitaker said.

Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, commandant of cadets at the academy, briefed Air Force officials at the Pentagon on the changes during a videoconference this week.

The U.S. Military Academy and U.S. Naval Academy are not changing their cadet disciplinary system, which is similar to the Air Force Academy's.

Officers hope to completely phase out the old cadet system by the time cadets return from spring break.

The Air Force has identified 142 sexual assaults that had been reported at the academy from 1993 through 2002. Top commanders were replaced in April as Air Force leaders sought to institute major reforms.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice always has applied at the academy for serious offenses. For example, of the 42 reported sex-assault cases in which a cadet suspect was identified by the alleged victim, six were court-martialed under the code, and eight were punished through administrative avenues available under the code.

The cadet disciplinary system gave commanders a way to deal with minor infractions, such as being late to class or breaking curfew, that don't warrant a formal military reprimand or charges.

Cadets found breaking the rules could be assigned to march back and forth across the Terrazzo, the academy's courtyard - for each infraction, or could be assigned demerits.

"It's going to be interesting how they implement this," said Michael Nardotti, a retired major general and former chief lawyer for the Army.

Nardotti served on a congressionally created task force to investigate sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy.

The cadet disciplinary structure offers leaders flexibility to punish cadets without using the formal administrative reprimands of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he said.

The congressional task force found no evidence that there were problems or abuses of the cadet disciplinary system but did now study the matter carefully, Nardotti said.

Some aspects of how to deal with minor infractions are being worked out, Whitaker said, but it will be a graduated system in which punishments will reflect the offenses.

Cadets could be given verbal counseling or a letter of admonition in cases in which the offense doesn't rise to the level of a formal reprimand or a court-martial.

Under the revamped system, only Air Officers Commanding - active duty officers who supervise the cadet command structure - will be able to impose punishment of cadets.

Under the cadet disciplinary system, cadet commanders could assign tours or demerits.

---

Date: Saturday, January 19, 2004

Thanks for the poke in the u know what to get us thinking and responding. I have looked at the Agenda and the ODS document and here are some thoughts.

The Agenda seems to address the fundamental culture of the whole academy and seems to put into place processes to address that. But they seem mostly to be moving organizational blocks around rather than truly address attitudes and beliefs by everyone (cadets and staff) at the academy. Making AOC's Majors only, insuring doors are open, removing cadets from the demerit system, a couple of lectures a year, etc., will only set conditions (perhaps). And alcohol? Is alcohol even allowed in the cadet area? I am very curious to see what the impact of jurisdiction of the UCMJ will do vs the cadet demerit system. I am awaiting a description of haw this will all be handled.

It seems to me there needs to be a concerted effort to fundamentally address issues of personal and group integrity and honesty, starting from the commissioned leadership on down to the 4th class cadet. Having high expectations for exemplary behavior and conduct may be addressed by the ODS, but I had a hard time getting past the verbiage in it. I think the principles stated and the basic thrust of the ODS are laudable, but I would like to see how it in fact will be operationalized on a day to day basis with accountability and become the fundamental set of principles which guide all persons at the academy . Simply having doors open, separate billets, dormitory security and monitoring systems, etc., are specific actions that may hinder further improper conduct but they also remind me of prisons and public schools vs setting a climate of true respect and belief in integrity and honor.

Academy discipline and training necessarily must be rigorous with the highest standards of behavior and performance as it must produce officers with the moral courage and integrity to accomplish the most difficult of missions. The introductory paragraphs of the Agenda do a good job of stating this. I think of our classmates, especially those who have fallen in battle, and do not know of one who has not met the highest standards of integrity and honor. While some of the things we did as Doolies (uniform drill?) may in today's world be inappropriate or even stupid, I cannot recall a time that I was not treated with personal respect, even though I was pushed and pushed to levels that I did not know I could reach by the ATO's and others.

Academics, the Honor System, the Discipline system seemed to work. While we all know that not everyone followed all the rules all the time, we knew what the consequences should we be found wanting. And I think we held (and still do) each other accountable for our personal and group integrity and honor. I recall that we were reminded of MacArthur's notion of "Duty, Honor, Country". Is that notion still valid, 50 years later? It seems to me that in three words this encompasses much of what is in over 20 pages of the ODS. Certainly much overt direct action needs to be taken for cadets and others at the Academy to explore the meaning of leadership and for all of them to internalize those ideas. Cadets need to live those concepts every day so it becomes part of who they are rather than simply a set of rules or conditions. I remember it being stressed to us that we needed to know that we could trust and rely on each and every one of our classmates whatever the situation, that our behaviors should always without question lead to mission accomplishment with honor and integrity and the highest regard for especially those under our command.

Not being part of that environment now makes it difficult for me to criticize the current actions. Having spent most of my life in school leadership positions rather than the military, I perhaps do not have perspective needed to truly be a critic. But I do know that I am dismayed that cadets can even think they can behave in the ways as indicated in the public reports, etc.

These remarks are from only one person who has been distant from the academy other than the occasional reunions. Take them for what they are worth and hope to see you at the 45th.

---

Date: Jan 26, 2004

Just thought you might be interested in some of the dialogue that is starting amongst the graduate community. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Feb AOG Board meeting.

LONG RANGE PLANNING: 01 April 04 will be the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Air Force Academy. I would like to have a Founders Day Luncheon at Ft. Meyer. Put it on you calendars and I will get back to you a few weeks before for a commitment.

---

Dear AOG Board Members,

Please add my support to the proposals expressed below by Art Kerr. I strongly support Tom Eller's proposal and urge the AOG Board of Directors to immediately implement his Proposal to Return the AOG Board to Competitive Elections.

In addition, I request the Board to implement the following actions, as detailed in my classmate Ed Gunter's recent letter to AOG Board members:

--A free and open dialogue for grads in Checkpoints, and a forum on the AOG web site where grads can make their voices heard. This should be done immediately.

--Open financial records and Board of Director's meeting minutes to the graduate community through the use of Checkpoints and the AOG web site. This should be done immediately following the 7 Feb 04 Board meeting.

In a message dated 01/25/04 6:48:46 PM Central Standard Time, akdocent@hitl.washington.edu writes:

Ted Legasy and other members of the board have received a concise proposal developed by Tom Eller, a former AOG president. I urge the board to immediately implement this Proposal to Return the AOG Board to Competitive Elections. We made a huge mistake in changing the bylaws to set up the current board selection procedure. We need to correct this mistake right now. We don't need to "study" the situation any longer - we need action now to create a better sense of legitimacy for the board as a representative body for the membership. As it is now, the board is constructed as a separate entity that is not representative of anybody except its own self-perpetuating group. This is just plain wrong. And this is not to say that anyone's sincerity and dedication is at all doubted; it's simply that what we have now is just not reflective of the American way that we all serve to protect and defend. American is based on representative elections. This is straightforward "apple pie" stuff. We need a true electoral connection uniting the members and the board. Do it now!

---

I am pleased by Bill Boisture's recent response. It contrasts sharply with his previous e-mails that reflected a cavalier and condescending attitude towards the graduates, which are supposed to be his constituency. Bill's apparent change of heart coupled with the fact that even Jim Ulm is reading his e-mail and "making copies" is truly encouraging. Add to this the fact that Mark Anderson recognizes in hind sight that the AOG Board should have taken a more a more active role when the Agenda for Change was announced. I was delighted to hear when Mark said that "In hindsight, the board should have come out publicly to challenge those (changes that) went well beyond the immediate problem of sexual assaults." I am also pleased that Mark has accepted responsibility for not pushing harder to reach a consensus. I am also pleased to see Ted Legasey's pro-active stance on all these issues. Unfortunately, there are still other Directors in the AOG Board that have remained gripped by paradigm paralysis. I hope they also awaken from their lethargy.

Once again, let me summarize the failures of the AOG Board of Directors and hope that they will be addressed and CORRECTED. Remember that Jim Shaw and the AOG Staff are supposed to be implementing the tasks assigned by the Board, not the other way around. If Jim Shaw and the AOG Staff do not follow the directions of the Board then it is time for replacements. Actions to correct each of these failures are not that difficult. I know because when a handful of us founded the AOG back in 1967 we took steps to insure that none of these failures would exist.

1. Failure to state clearly what portions of the Agenda for Change they favor, oppose and why.

2. Failure to provide a forum in the AOG website where we can conduct an intelligent dialogue about USAFA issues.

3. Failure to report what is taking place at the Board of Director's meetings.

4. Failure to provide at-large nominations and free and open elections for Board of Director Members.

5. Failure to defend the "heart and soul" of "our Academy" by acting as the conscience of USAFA and opposing politically correct actions.