For Every Officer
MOAA’s board of directors should reflect the wider membership.
By Adm. Jerry Johnson, USN-Ret.

In 2002 MOAA’s board of directors proposed the name of the association be changed from The Retired Officers Association to the Military Officers Association of America. After more than a year of studies, discussion, and analysis, the board concluded the new name would better describe what MOAA is and whom it serves. Nearly 90 percent of members who voted approved this proposal.

Now, after an additional year and a half, the association has both anecdotal evidence and hard data showing the new name is having the desired effects. The Member Service Center no longer gets all those calls from police and other non-military officers asking if they’re eligible to join. Everyone on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch knows the highly respected association formerly known as TROA now is MOAA. And MOAA has increased the numbers of active duty, Guard, and Reserve members, who well understand the association has been supporting their interests for many years.

With an eye toward continuing to capitalize on our new name, I asked the members of the Governance Review Committee to suggest any structural changes in our association they thought would be beneficial. In addition to some minor adjustments to our bylaws, the committee proposed in March to eliminate the requirement that officers serving on the board of directors be retired.

After deliberating this proposal carefully, the board concluded that MOAA should, indeed, have active duty, active-status (drilling Guard and Reserve), and former-officer representation on the board. Since the “jointness” legislation of the late 1980s and the end of the Cold War, our nation has explicitly relied on its “total force” capabilities—that is, the efforts of active duty, Guard, and Reserve forces. And MOAA should have a governance structure that is comparably “joint.”

Additionally, the composition of MOAA’s board of directors should mirror the association’s mission and objectives. MOAA’s mission statement says it should be “the professional association for every officer, at every stage of life and career.” And many “retiree” issues—such as TRICARE For Life and amendments to the Survivor Benefit Plan—are followed closely by active-force personnel, who someday will be retirees themselves.

Active duty officers now comprise less than 10 percent of our membership, and active-status officers comprise less than 2 percent. I don’t anticipate many of the 36 board seats—perhaps four or five—will be filled by these officers. After all, retirees always will predominate in MOAA’s membership, and the association’s support of retirees will never waver. But it is vital that the skills and perspectives of serving officers be brought to bear on the business and direction of this association.

The board’s decision to recommend this bylaw change was unanimous. We are confident this will be an important step forward for MOAA, and we urge your approval of this recommendation.