United
States Air Force Academy Class of 1968
'68 Class Gift Committee Decision Making Process
Fellow Members of the Class of ’68,
Fifty years ago, the Class of ’68 faced a myriad of uncertainties
about fighting a new type of war under unfamiliar conditions. Today’s
generation of cadets faces similar uncertainties – the need to
“fight to win” in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing
technological environment. By supporting the Class of ‘68 50th
Reunion Gift, you will be participating in our collective effort to
minimize those uncertainties, by providing an “edge” to
the next generation of Air Force officers who will be responsible
not only for maintaining the security of our Nation’s cyber systems,
but also for conducting an entirely new type of warfare on a global
front. So, to the extent there is a unifying link between the Class
of 1968 and the Class of 2018 – and beyond – it is one of
a commitment to confront those uncertainties head-on, by providing
tomorrow’s warriors the extra “margin of excellence”
that drove our own Class to rightly boast “’68 We’re
Great”!
During the course of the Gift Committee’s recent conversations
with individual Classmates, as well as our members’ review of
various postings on social media, we have seen a number of recurring
questions concerning how and why we reached our decision. What follows
is an attempt to answer those questions and to address your various
concerns:
• What Was the AOG’s Role in the Gift Selection Process?
In a word, “none.” Although the AOG has
been indispensable in assisting our Class to organize the upcoming
reunion events, it does not have any role in graduate “development”
– i.e., fundraising. Rather, fundraising activities are conducted
under the umbrella of the USAFA Endowment, Inc. – an entirely
separate 501 (c)(3) organization that operates independently of the
AOG. Throughout the course of the committee’s deliberations,
the Endowment’s staff provided invaluable assistance both in
terms of expert counsel and logistical support.
• How Were the Members of the Gift Committee Selected?
In his capacity as Chairman of the ’68 Reunion, Mike Parkinson
approached the USAFA Endowment for advice on how to organize a class
gift. Using criteria the Endowment had used for past successful class
gifts, Mike identified a gift committee. The criteria identified by
the Endowment limited early class involvement because such involvement
typically creates dissident factions. The criteria also specified
a cross-section of our Class, by including members who had spent their
professional careers both in military and civilian pursuits. With
our members running the gamut of “two bars to four stars,”
we believe that the committee fulfills the stated objective. It bears
emphasis, however, that we are not – and don’t pretend to
be – experienced fundraisers; rather, we are simply your Classmates
doing our best to find a way in which to honor our Class by meeting
a very real and immediate Academy need that would not otherwise be
met.
• What Criteria Guided the Gift Committee in its Decision-Making
Process?
The committee devoted its first two meetings to the development of
criteria that would guide its decision-making process. These criteria
are explained in greater detail in the fact sheet that accompanied
the earlier “blast” email and mailer. In a nutshell, they
are: (1) Is it meaningful? (2) Is it enduring? (3) Is it visible?
And (4) Will it recognize the Class of ’68? In the final analysis,
the committee believed that the Cyber Competition Team fulfills all
of these criteria and, in many respects, represents an academic analog
to USAFA’s “Wings of Blue” and AM 490 programs:
° “Meaningful”:
The Cyber Competition represents one of the Dean’s highest academic
priorities;
° “Enduring”:
The gift will endow the current cost of the team’s intercollegiate
competitions indefinitely;
° “Visible”:
There is intense competition for selection to the team itself (~100
cadets competing for 15-20 slots annually); and team members provide
peer-to-peer instruction to approximately 200 rising third-class cadets
each summer;
° “Recognizes
the Class of ’68”: Our Class will be the only donor to the
endowed fund and will be recognized through regular announcements,
team awards and other publicity.
• In Addition to the USAFA Cyber Competition Team, What Other
Gift Suggestions Did the Committee Consider – and Why Were They
Rejected?
Over the course of the 18-month period leading up to the selection
of the USAFA Cyber Competition Team, the ’68 Gift Committee considered
several capital and programmatic proposals. Early on, however, the
committee came to understand that unless the Academy supported a particular
proposal, it would refuse to accept the gift. As a result, some initially
appealing ideas (e.g., squadron plaques listing the names of past
graduates) had to be discarded. (In the case of the squadron plaques,
the Academy indicated that it would decline the gift because of the
costs associated with maintaining and updating the plaques on an annual
basis and, also, because the Academy does not have squadron-specific
records for the early graduating classes.) Still other proposals were
rejected because they remained undefined and were likely to remain
so even by the date of the ’68 Class Reunion (e.g., Desert Storm
memorial on the Heritage Trail.) Then, there were several proposals
that the committee felt must be rejected due to concerns over whether
they constituted a “charitable purpose” and, if not, would
not be tax deductible. (In this regard, two proposals immediately
come to mind – first, funding headstone markers for the Class
of ’68 [overly exclusionary and too narrow a class of potential
beneficiaries] and, second, renovation of the Carlton and Otis Houses
[potential violation of the IRS’s “private benefit rule,”
given the fact that both the Superintendent’s and Commandant’s
homes are now owned by for-profit private entities]). Lastly, there
was a category of “spit-in-the-ocean” proposals – all
of which were rejected because of the concerns that the Class of ’68
would become “lost in the crowd.” Among these were contributions
to the anticipated multi-million-dollar renovation of Falcon Stadium,
the construction of a premier-seating area at the Field House, to
be known as the “Falcon’s Nest,” and restoration of
the Air Gardens.
• Why Didn’t You Poll the Class for Their Ideas?
The Endowment advised that based upon its own past experience, early
class polling would probably result in factionalized groups, with
each group lobbying for its own preferred ideas, but with none of
those ideas being achieved in the end. As a result, the committee
tested its two finalists -- restoration of the Air Gardens and the
endowment of the USAFA Cyber Competition Team -- among a limited group
of our classmates in one-on-one emails and telephone calls. Although
the results were not unanimous, the overwhelming support was in favor
of supporting an endowment of the Cyber Competition Team.
• Is It Too Late to Reconsider the Gift Committee’s Decision?
For all practical purposes, “yes.” To date, approximately
10 percent of our Class has given or pledged amounts that comprise
almost 50 percent of our goal. These gifts and pledges have been made
as a result of our Classmates’ belief in the importance of the
project and in reliance upon the committee’s assurances that
we will honor the donors’ intent. While we recognize that not
all of our Classmates support the project, we nevertheless hope that
those who choose not to do so will find other ways in which they may
“give back by paying forward.”
• What’s Next?
One-on-one contacts with classmates are the best way to achieve “buy-in”
to what we are hoping to accomplish with our gift to honor the Class
of ’68. We have already received an encouraging – and enthusiastic
– response from the following Classmates who have generously
agreed to serve as volunteers, but as you can see, we need many more.
If you do not see your graduation squadron listed below, please consider
adding your names to the following group of our classmates who have
volunteered to ensure that ’68 Remains Great! You may do so by
emailing us at 1968USAFA@gmail.com.
CS-01: Bill Crimmel
CS-07: Geo Roberts
CS-15: Ed Leonard
CS-17: Mark Torreano
CS-22: Bill Eckert
CS-24: Neal Starkey
CS-26: Gary Vasek
CS-27: Bob Sallee
CS-28: Gary Hoffman
CS-30: Dale Oderman
