What's in a Name?
Your association will retain its mission and maintain its strength.
By Lt. Gen. Michael A. Nelson, USAF-Ret.

In the short time since the Board's decision to recommend to our members a new name—Military Officers Association of America—I've visited several chapters and one council to discuss the recommendation and to listen to questions and reactions. Other Board and staff members also have been on the road, and we've received other input as well.

Understandably, the range of reactions is wide. On the positive side, many declare themselves ready to vote in favor now. This group includes, but isn't limited to, most chapter leaders, who face their own recruiting problems and applaud the removal of an unnecessary deterrent, "retired."

A few have expressed opposition, citing primarily the equity built up over the years in our current name. They are, of course, right about the hard-earned value of our name. But the research done by the Board showed that a smart transition plan could overcome this hurdle quickly. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the new name would soon carry even greater influence in the halls of power than does TROA.

Another group, perhaps the largest at this early stage, is simply listening and reading, weighing the matter before they mark their ballots in August. From those, a couple of questions seem to come up more often than others.

The most common asks for reassurance that a name change won't mean a shift in emphasis from retired issues to something else. Having listened to the Board's discussion, I can say confidently that we intend to remain firmly on our well-established course. We will continue to push relentlessly for improvements in health care, approval of concurrent receipt, beneficial changes to sbp, and advances on issues relevant to active duty quality of life, compensation, and benefits. If that latter activity surprises you, please know that we've been working on active duty subjects, albeit with less visibility than retiree issues, for a very long time. We'll continue to do so but, as always, without sacrificing our effectiveness or passion for retiree objectives.

Another question asks what results we can expect from a change. Surveys indicate that very few members will leave in protest. In fact, most of those surveyed who were skeptical or opposed at the outset came to agree after considering all the rationale. Bottom line: Our research shows that with a name change, our total membership will outpace the no-change projections in about a year and will produce an aggregate increase over no-change projections of approximately 28,000 in four years. And since numbers equal influence on our members' behalf, that's a very powerful argument.

The use of "military" has prompted some to ask how this affects officers of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Our research concluded these officers were willing to support any move, including this one, that would strengthen our association. This was confirmed by officers of both organizations sitting on the Board.

You may have questions of your own. As we're committed to answering them all, we've put together a list. They're on page 28 of this issue and on our Web Base (www.troa.org). Or call our Member Service Center, (800) 245-8762. We want you to have no questions remaining when your ballot arrives with the August issue of the magazine.

We don't often have an opportunity to affect our organization positively for decades to come. I thank you in advance for giving the proposal your consideration and hope you will agree that it is the right thing to do.