Q18: Do you think there should be a clearer distinction between the fund-raising activities (the West Point Fund) and other AOG activities?

The issue of AOG/WPF separation and fund-raising activities invoked numerous comments on this survey supporting both sides of the issue.  The following comments can generally be categorized in the following manner:

[001]  I find it hard to understand why a publicly funded school needs to solicit $$ from anyone else

[002]  For the average grad out there who is working a 10 hour day or a company or spending 200 days of the year in the field, it is difficult to distinguish what the money given is going to be used for and the difference in focus between the two.

[003]  IF the AOG raises the funds from the graduates, then it is the graduates funds to use for the Academy. Reading the recent limited Financial statement that was distributed, it seems the AOG will just rool over on anything the Sup says he need for money. The AOG and Sup should negotiate as peers. But again, they seem to take their orders and never question the Sup/Com.

[004]  AOG should exist to serve the needs of the graduates. The West Point Fund serves the needs of the cadets. They are not the same thing.

[005]  Money given to AOG should benefit graduates, and not be siphoned off for cadet athletic activities.

[006]  There should be a clear distinction between the AOG and the WPF, especially in literature going out to the membership. Alot of AOG info is not being read because it is erroneously assumed to be a monetary solicitation, and immediately trashed.

[007]  Most universities raise money through the various alumni groups. Why should USMA be any different. An additional organization requires more overhead which detracts from the function of raising funds.

[008]  I think fund raising and lobbying efforts by graduate organizations is a fact of life. If the AOG does not openly and actively do this for the academy no one else will. Many officers would probably see this in a negative sense and feel the Army should fully fund USMA requirements. Don't see this as possible. This means the AOG needs to step forward and take the role.

[009]  Perhaps it is fine that AOG heads up the fund-raising efforts, but I would amplify the difference between the AOG's fund-raising efforts versus what they are doing for grads. Improved membership will directly lead to greater contributions. If asking for money is emhasized above and beyond the benefits of membership, then membership will lag.

[010]  I am not sure. I am somewhat confused sometimes as to whether there is any connection between class gifts and AOG donations. I am contributing for the former, but do not know whether this is considered to be giving to West Point as a whole or something completely seperate (I can't really afford to do both just at the moment.)

[011]  Fund raising for their institution is an accepted major responsibility for alumni groups in the U.S.

[012]  I am not aware of any blurring of lines, I just think too much time is spent on asking for money and not enough on developing good public relations.+

[013]  It make sense to me that the AOG should administer the West Point Fund. However, the AOG should be very careful to seperate fund-raising activities from the many other activities it sponsers.

[014]  Any fund raising for West Point by whatever organization perception wise is lumped together in my opinion.

[015]  I am planning on leaving my estate to USMA. However, I am not sure at this point where & how to establish it to insure it is used in the way I desire.

[016]  All other Alumni associations that I know of are activly raising money for their schools. The difference with USMA is that we are being asked to provide money for tasks that should be paid for by congressional appropriations. I have no problem with that.

[017]  Alumni associations traditionally raise funds for the institution, this is a legitimate AOG function.

[018]  From what I know the present arrangement is the best available. The Academy Administration cannot actively solicit non-appropriated funds (or so I believe) and AOG fills this void giving the Academy a way to fund non-appropriated items.

[019]  I think fund raising is a normal activity of alumni associations. The question will be for wyat purposes the money is to be used. In this respect West Point is not much different from state universities that receive part of their funds from state legislatures and part from alumni.

[020]  I get several contribution forms. Consolidate them and allow the graduate to determine where he wants his money to go.

[021]  I will never give the academy another nickel as long as they continue on their current unConstitutional path.

[022]  I have no objection to raising funds for the Aca- demy. I must be assured that we are not putting our heads in a funding noose which Congress will tighten once they find the grads will pay for some activities.

[023]  The Fund should continue to be linked to AOG, but there should be significantly better coordination between the two in terms of mailings and objectives. Also, the Fund makes too many separate requests for funds - consolidate them!

[024]  Graduates do not know the difference between the AOG and the WP Fund

[025]  My concern is a comingling of funds that are or would be donated in support of West Point only to be earmarked for AOG activities; i.e., compensation and benefits for AOG employees. I strongly believe the AOG has a significant role in fund-raising activities; however, these funds should not be utilized to extend benefits outside the West Point community.

[026]  It seriously dilutes the purpose and direction of the AOG, and, more importantly, serves to make it lesss relevant.

[027]  I believe that the AOG has two distinct goals: service to USMA and service to the AOG members. I respond to AOG in personal and altruistic ways. I believe that a clear separation of fund raising and other support to USMA from support to graduates is good for AOG and for both its goals. This separation need not be independent organizations; separate divisions and mailings are fine. I find particularly annoying the steady stream of AOG sanctioned gifts, cruises, and "opportunities" which bombard my mailbox. I recommend that AOG offer and publicize the option of not making names available to commercial interests. Perhaps AOG could create these opportunities in an AOG electronic store for those who wish to shop.

[028]  Really don't see any great distinction.

[029]  USMA should not be funded by contributions any more than (for example) the Infantry School is funded. The Service academies should be funded by the American people through their taxes. If our government does not fund it, we should not have it.

[030]  The real test: Are we successful, are we getting the funds we need. If not, a change may be one alternative.

[031]  Yes, this would make it more clear what any fund raising is for - right now i get requests for donations and I was kind of wondering what the AOG needed the money for.

[032]  It's confusing where my money goes--my class or the Aog?

[033]  Since the classes also raise funds, it is important to "hit" on people only for very clearly understood reasons - (ie) only one "USMA" hit per year - whether AOG or Supe Fund.

[034]  Whatever Don't like having professional fund raisers

[035]  Your yes also includes separation rather than just answering.

[036]  It is somewhat confusing that the AOG collects for both the WPF and other AOG projects. My first priority is to the current cadets and programs that provide value to their education at USMA. Funding for alumni facilities and projects are a secondary issue for my contributions. I believe the current structure allows for this distinction, but there is still some ambiguity.

[037]  I guess I'm not completely clear on the distinction between the AOG and the West Point Fund. Perhaps more information would be helpful.

[038]  I am not opposed to AOG involement.

[039]  It is unclear to me just how the funds raised by the AOG are separated. Class projects are clear, but the rest is not...to me.

[040]  AOG has added requirements to what classes are doing with respect to their gifts/projects. I would like a clear explanation of what AOG is doing in that area and why.

[041]  People only like to be asked for money once. Having two separate groups asking for money for the same organization (USMA) is confusing and hurts rund raising.

[042]  I should be able to answer this but can honestly say I don't have it clear in my mind, even with the current email traffic. Isn't there a Supe's Fund anymore? I get mail from West Point asking for money and get it from my class asking for money. Fortunately I haven't received any calls that I can recall. I usually only give in response to class projects and plan to do so again.

[043]  I have absolutly no problem with AOG performing all of its' current functions. I do want a seperation within fund-raising, so I (and others) can have more influence as to where our money goes.

[044]  But I am concerned that everytime I get a mailing it is ref money. I have a strong belief that USMA is not like other colleges and should be funded by the gov't.

[045]  I need some answers to my previous notes before I can commit funds.

[046]  Didn't know there was a difference. It just seems there is a bit of overkill in fundraising when these are also combined with the efforts of the class.

[047]  I don't have a clear understanding of how funds are diverted to USMA through the AOG. Sounds like a good topic for an article in forthcoming Assemblys.

[048]  Consolidate into one fund and let USMA run it-like an endowment association.

[049]  I agree that fund raising for the Academy is a proper AOG function. However, I do not think fund raising should be the primary mission.

[050]  It is difficult to understand the communications concerning fund raising, who is really raising the funds, and for what purpose.

[051]  I think the chief pitfall to be avoided is the AOG coming to be seen as principally a fund raising agent for the Academy.

[052]  Not being intimately involved with what is going on at West Point, the different fund raising activities do become confusing. There should be one annual event, like the Combined Federal Campaign, for raising money.

[053]  See comment above.

[054]  I would like to have clicked on the top one (yes, AOG-----) and made an additional comment. I believe fund raising is out of control and would be less necessary if the size of the academy was reduced. Again, see Gen Kutyna White Paper

[055]  WE know that the Supe needs help on funding. Question is; how else can he use local socities to help in this endevor?

[056]  Any organizations used for ensuring continued success of WP programs, activities or other essential purposes for its continued existence, should be under one fund with a board that oversees all expenditures with a prioritized agenda.

[057]  How does the the West Point Fund relate to Class Gift Funds? The distinction is not apparent.

[058]  AOG should be primary for all fund raising. The academy command team should focus on the mission of the academy and not raising funds to supplement government funds.

[059]  While it is noble for graduates to contribute to their favorite WP activities, it should not be the main focus of AOG. AOG needs to focus its attention on its own purpose which graduate activities and programs.

[060]  Any fund raising needs to be tied to specific objectives. I don't like giving money when I do not know how it will be spent. First tell me the objective THEN tell me how much it will cost and allow me to target those projects.

[061]  The AOG should be treated as a college foundation, with the fund raising arm and the alumni relations arm under one roof. I do not have a problem with mingling the two functions.

[062]  Also, what is the difference between the class giving funds and the West Point Fund? When I receive my statements for the class gift donations it comes in a West Point Fund envelope. These need to be separated. I earmark money for different purposes for these two funds. I have not even received a request for donations to the West Point Fund since I pledged money to my class fund. The Academy is foregoing funds by using this approach. I am, as are most of us, intelligent enough to separate our donations to specific purposes in the various funds (West Point, Class, AOG).

[063]  I don't think you should have this question even on the survey. You raise a point without sufficient background information. Most people do not know the inner workings at West Point. Having been stationed there and knowing quite a bit about the Superintendent's Fund and AOG Fund Raising, I think you should not pin any credence to the answer of this question. Also, currently I am employed at HQ, USAREC as an analyst for demographics and survey information. You are baiting your answer.

[064]  To this day I have trouble figuring out where money is going; such as how much goes to the class fund and what goes to others. It prevents me from giving more.

[065]  You have confused me. Obviously I don't read the solicitations carefully enough.

[066]  Not sure why tax dollars don't pay for more. My class is paying $750,000 to renovate Thayer road!

[067]  Perhaps the issue is in the public relations area...as an association executive I run many foundations as a part of our associations but am always cautioned to keep the basic goals and fund-raising separate. It seems to me that it is, at least early on, a matter of educating the membership.

[068]  Goes to mission statement. What is the purpose of the AOG? Fund raising or providing a service to graduates? I suggest service is the mission and we should not allow civilan and military leadership to use the AOG for their fund raising efforts.

[069]  USMA officials cannot legally solicit gifts for the Academy. They must have an authorized agent, hence the AOG.

[070]  USMA given current budget and manpower constraints could not handle effectively the efforts required to run the West Point Fund. However maybr some thought should be given to having a separate Alumni group other than current trustees oversee and run the West Point Fund.

[071]  The WPF may just be one of our more important functions.

[072]  If fundraising is a major goal, it should be in the mission statement. Once your mission statement is whole, the things that the organization should do become more clearer and functions more focused

[073]  Without seperation I am reluctant to open my AOG mail for fear that it may only contain another appeal for funds.

[074]  USMA is a US government funded organization of the US Army set up to provide qualified officers to the US Army who are educated in a manner that will help them succeed as career officers. It is the US Army's responsibility to provide appropriate facilities and services to cadets not alumni.

[075]  It would nice to know all the needs for fund-raising and that we were kept abreast of what was being spent where. I have not contributed as much as I could because I am not sure where the money is going and where are the greatest needs.

[076]  Money for West Point should be used as you guys see fit. Once I write a check, the money is out of my hands. I will simply not write another check if the fund goes astray.

[077]  Yes, AOG should be separated from the West Point Fund ALSO, local societies should not maintain $ reserves without having a purpose. Spend the money, don't just invest and save. Local socities are not run for profit. Is the aog run for profit? Everyone should know this answer.

[078]  Persistent rumors about AOG fund management and a perceived lack of focus on the part of AOG for USMA have caused this answer. If the Supe has turned over the West Point fund to AOG, the AOG has not done a good enough job of organizing the drive for USMA funds. Case in point, where is my end of year mailing for the West Point Fund - or whatever it's called now?

[079]  If the Supe was still responsible for the fund raising--- at least at the top of some more experienced grads probably from AOG, then he might be more responsive for such things as cleaning house at AAA.

[080]  Receiving all the fund raising opportunities is rather tedious ... however, I understand their importance to the AOG. Heck, one of these days I may even take advantage of one of them! In the mean time, please take extra care that each offer is top of the line and meaningful.

[081]  All I hear from AOG has to do with fund raising. Let WPF solicite and AOG inform.

[082]  Separate the entities nominally but share support staff in the most economically efficient way. I look forward to getting things from AOG, but annoyed by WPF. Different letterhead should do the trick.

[083]  it is very unclear to me what the boundaries are.

[084]  I have difficulty responding to fund raising issues. Since graduating from WP, I have graduated from two other schools and attended two others. I presently teach at a small private college. All of these schools need money more than WP and WP will come last when I hand out money.

[085]  I'm still confused by the difference between the West Point Fund and the AOG. After some years of trying, I've come to accept that the two are different. I would guess that many graduates who are not working daily with DAA or the AOG are even more confused. Maybe a Napoleon's Corporal explanation is needed.

[086]  The Grantsmanship Center, Los Angeles, CA provides great guidance on grants & funding. Perhaps a relationship with this LA organization would have value! One book in their library worth reading by anyone getting into the grants & funding biz is THE INDIVIDUAL'S GUIDE TO GRANTS, by Judith B. Margolin, ISBN 0-306-41309-4. Secondly, consider establishing AREA grantsmanship & funding entities across the entire US. Why not, isn't USMA a national school? One more thought! The letters from Kosciuszko to T. Jefferson discuss the value of ACADEMIES to the preservation of OUR AMERICAN REPUBLIC; urge someone at USMA delve into the subtle meaning buried in those letters. Most of these letters were written after TJ left the Presidency; most were written in French, too; Kosciuszko lived outside Paris! Most interesting, the topics discussed between those two national heroes & leaders!! Kosciuszko's letters could make one rethink what & who were the real motivating forces behind the formation of the US Military Engineering Academy at West Point in 1802!

[087]  I do not believe the AOG or the West Point Fund should supplement Congressional support. This would include painting, repairs, or other O&MA activities.

[088]  Some corporations will specify matching EDUCATION gifts which need a category that more clearly fits that narrowed purpose.

[089]  I think the AOG is now focusing to narrowly on fund raising.

[090]  It may be a good idea to separate the AOG from fund raising, but what is the main source of funds? Probably the Grads. Perhaps fund raising should not be such a high priority. This certainly derserves study.

[091]  Fund raising is a good fit w/ the AOG mission. It also keeps the opinions of the alumni viable and meaningful.

[092]  Not sure AOG does much other than fund raising now. Not that that's bad -- it has to be done.

[093]  Concern that AOG focuses first on supporting graduates and not appear as solely a fund raising activity

[094]  West Point should be completely funded through tas dollars, as it is a branch of the U.S. armed forces. I've never heard of someone making a donation to a local national guard unit to buy weapons... Because this is related to the tax extortion isssue, I believe that at a minimum, if we donate to *any* Academy fund, it should be out of *pre-tax* dollars so we don't end up paying for it twice.

[095]  It's unclear to me the difference between AOG fund raising and the West Point Fund. I'd like to see onlyone fund raising activity for the Academy.

[096]  Given the mission stated in an earlier question, I think fund raising is clearly a part of the AOG mission. It seems that the Chairman has already separated the AOG and WP Fund. I think that this is a big mistake.

[097]  AOG should raise funds for what graduates want to do, not for what government funded USMA wants to do.

[098]  I am not convinced that they should be separated, but they should be distinctly different. What does "separated" mean?

[099]  All the funds seem jumbled in my mind. Class fund, AOG fund, WP fund, etc. Why doesn't the AOG try to inspire every classmate in every graduating class to give a dollar or two a month to the AOG. Help them start allotments. I think that would solve a lot of your financial woes.

[100]  The distribution of funds is the question. If contributions are lumped together in one fund, there is a question as to how the contribution is truely used.

[101]  As mentioned above, there should be clearer lines drawn between what graduates should "want/need" to support and what should be rightful taxpayer funding.

[102]  It already is a distinction. Letters, articles, flyers... have been sent out and some graduates just don't read them.

[103]  At times, it seems that fund raising is the primary role of AOG - this perception minimizes the Associations other important roles.

[104]  It's OK to mix the roles/functions, but you run the risk of many people thinking of you as fund raisers only. In other words, they will see everything that you do as a ploy to get their money.

[105]  If fund raising for USMA is now an AOG activity, it should be separated in order not to turn off graduates from the normal AOG support. There is already much dissention as to the push for AOG funds to provide basic USMA operational funding, and I, along with many other graduates see that as an abuse of AOG funding purposes and principles. This issue must be addressed if the AOG is to maintain its role effectively.

[106]  At any institution, the focus of the alumni is on fundraising for the institution. It is more appropriate to have the AOG do fundraising than the Supe.

[107]  I'm not happy with the commercialization of AOG but I'm a realist as well. Any effort requires money. I'm not a big contributor to any cause but I do have an occasional worth-while idea.

[108]  I think there should be a distinct separation that will prevent graduates with directly associating the AOG with fund-raising. Graduates should have a positive, non-money-related view of the AOG such that they do not associate all AOG operations, information, mailings, with asking for money. I do not think this is actually happening; however, having fund-raising activities included in AOG operations is likely to have this type of perceived feeling about the AOG.

[109]  I don't really understand the relationship between the fund(s).

[110]  A house divided will fall. To raise funds, the graduates must be educated as to why a federal agency needs private funds. This is particularly true of graduates in year groups of the 30s, 40s, 50s and some 60s. At the same time, many of these same year group graduates have no idea of what is ment by the term "margin of excellence" - remember that these graduates all "did the same thing" - all took the same courses, participated in athletics (inter-murder or corps squad), etc. Most have no feel for programs like Crossroads Africa, etc.

[111]  I'm not familiar with the machanisms used by successful alumni programs such as UCLA, TAMU, ND, etc. but I think it would be a good idea to study them and model after them if we could remain consistent to the purpose and goals of AOG in doing so.

[112]  I disagree with fund raising for junk at the Instituition. I believe that the upkeep and initiation of new physical plant "thing" at the instituition are a public responsibility with one category. That one category is AAA associated things. I realize that the cadets as a whole would have acess to those same athletic facilities and therefore I have comprimised my position to a certaoin extent. But, I do not want some one complaining on the very remote chance that one of the atheletic teams should do well and having been partially subsidized by the taxpayers, etc.

[113]  See comments above. AOG should get out of the business of raising capital for USMA

[114]  Yes, the purpose/goals of the WPF and AOG are different. I don't feel that a seperate support structure needs to exist for WPF - this will simply waste funds would could be better directed to academy needs. AOG funds could then be used to support AOG member programs.

[115]  I tend toward "Yes" on this one, but am grateful for the "ignorance" option!

[116]  No, but all of the activities need to be prioritized and there needs to be more focus to AOG's activities.

[117]  See my comments in 17 above. AOG need to change its image from send us your money to what can we do for you.

[118]  I believe there is some confusion among many graduates as to just what the distinctions are. The various roles should be clearly articulated.

[119]  As stated in a recent Assembly, AOG must be careful in not over doing the fund raising and thus causing resentment among the graduates. I realize that there are some very wealthy graduates out there who are very welling to give substantial sums. Some of us that are in public service have many demands on their contributions.

[120]  for greater efficiency and clarity

[121]  Answer is: Yes, with explanation that AOG does all fund raising and a list of the categories.

[122]  I think it is important to know th;e amount assigned to each of these funds

[123]  It seems to me that the currect emphasis is on fund raising rather than primary functions.

[124]  Separation would lead to more staffing and facilities costs, diluting the effects of fund-raising.

[125]  I think the AOG and WPF should have separate missions and management. However, the AOG could/should be the prime line of support for the WPF (it could be an AOG mission/goal).

[126]  Fund raising should be a USMA function.

[127]  But see par. 17 comments above.Comments in

[128]  The present organization can be made to work.

[129]  Can't think of a reason to separate, but have not heard arguments either way.

[130]  If the Supe can get appropriated funds to support staff then it should be separated. If not, let AOG run it ANS make all the decisions on what it supports.

[131]  self explanatory

[132]  Currently, there are too many fund-raising activities and it is confusing as to who is collecting the money/mailing the requests. If AOG conducts the West Point Fund, then it should be made clear. However, I think it is best for one organization (AOG in this case) to spearhead all activities that involve fundraising from graduates.

[133]  If the three prime AOG functions are to support the USMA, raise funds, and provide services to graduates, and if these can coexist within the AOG without one diminishing the others, it probably is not necessary to separate the the WPF from the AOG. From a distance, it appears to me that the expanded staff and scope of the WPF have been accommodated within the AOG, and that creating a separate entity might muddy the water, although I am not aware of all the factors involved.

[134]  I would say yes, only to the extent that seperation gives the AOG more options in the targets for the funds raised. In almost all cases, the goals and targets will be the same, and the West Point fund will benefit, but without having to commit to it.

[135]  Suspect there should be some separation, and a clear decision process to assign prioities for the expenditure of $$.

[136]  I prefer to hear about what AOG is doing separately from periodic appeals for giving.

[137]  Fund raising should be as it was - under the Superintendant's Fund and NOT a function of AOG. The current funding arrangement seperates West Point Graduates from direct government funding for the Academy. This I believe was the insedious reason the fund was taken from the Superintendant and given AOG in the first place and should be reversed.

[138]  Looking at the management goals and this question leaves me questioning how important the AOG currently treats the WPF. Looking at goal 5 leaves one to wonder what the relationship is and how important the fund is to the AOG. Note the terms in quotes which illustrate this ambiguiry: (a) "Monitor" the expansion of the WPF and the development of the 2002 capital campaign. (b) "Assist" the WPF in soliciting 2002 gifts, particularly those directed to the Army Athletic Project.

[139]  Two senior management teams seems redundant, but fund raising must be a separate accountable division and not dominate managements' focus.

[140]  i don't care to.

[141]  AOG can maintain a certain independence that would be good for the academy.

[142]  Since I don't understand what purpose that would serve, I'm at a loss to understand why go through the trouble.

[143]  I thought one of the primary purposes of AOG was to raise money for USMA cadet activities and I agree strongly that this should be one of its primary purposes.

[144]  Somewhere, USMA needs to continue - in both reality and ... more ... the perception - to be involved in "fund raising" through the budget process. A number of folks have gained the vision that USMA "did its best" and handed off the rest.

[145]  I do not have enough information to decide at this time. However, something to consider offering graduates is an avenue to express concerns about the way things are in the services, particularly in the reserves and the National Guard. A support forum for those who have lived up to the ideals of West Point and by having done so meet obstacles that seem insurmountable. Case in point, the National Guard gleans all of the benefits from being brought under the fold of the Total Force, financiall, equipment, training, etc, but the conflicts and contradictions inherent in the doctrines of separation of federal & state and military & civilian provide a fertile breeding ground for abuses of power and position, fraud, waste and abuse that has no enforceable avenue of discipline or correction.

[146]  Funds collected by AOG activities should be used to support AOG projects. The Supe's Fund should be used to fund programs, etc, which are necessary for the funtioning of the Academy and the Corps, and which are not properly funded due to shortfalls in the approved Academy Budget. AOG funds should not be used to fill in Governmemtal shortfalls in the Supe's Budget. The Supe needs to get Congress to fill in shortfalls.

[147]  However, fund raising for cadet activities should be a distinct and seperate activity.

[148]  But my inclination is that there is no inherent conflict in the AOG performing the fund-raising function. The conflict, as I see it, is in the setting of priorities and who makes the decisions. An overly centralized fund-raising program, I feel, will restrict giving. Class Projects may not always be in sync with the Academy administration needs or even the AOG leadership, but local autonomy and sense of ownership of projects is of vital importance. The AOG may advise class groups on needs, but should not take steps to be a governing authority.

[149]  DON'T BLEMISH OUR REPUTATION W/ QUESTIONABLE FUND RAISING ACTIVITIES.

[150]  I think there should be no need for the AOG to have to raise money for USMA. I think if USMA provides a desired service to this country, then it deserves to have its needs fully funded by tax dollars. On the other hand, if the school or an activity at the school has trouble getting taxpayer support, then maybe something is wrong with the academy or the activity....or at least, the public's perception of the value of the academy or activity. If the customer (taxpayers and Army commanders) doesn't perceive value from our product, then it's our problem, not theirs.

[151]  USMA should get its funds for the Cadets. AOG should get its funds for Grads.

[152]  Didn't come up on screen.

[153]  I think it should be more clearly stated. All I get from the AOG is a continual begging for money.

[154]  If AOG raises the funds, AOG should be the final authority on where they are spent.

[155]  This has made AOG an ex officio arm of the admin.

[156]  I disagree with the current focus of AOG being focused on fund-raising.

[157]  I disagree with many of the present USMA policies, even when Congressionally mandated when there is no active USMA resistance. Accordingly, I am the more hesitant to support the AOG when there is such hand-in-hand linkage between the two organizations.

[158]  I think there needs to be a cooperative effort to raise funds.

[159]  As stated, how do I know if AOG is raising funds other than the West Point Fund?

[160]  Fund raising is a primary function of most AOGs for other universities.

[161]  While alumni contributions are a necessary part of maintaining the Academy, it should not be a function of the AOG. AOG should assist and share inforation to solicit contributions, but the two operations have different functions and should have different goals.

[162]  none at all

[163]  I think there should be a clearer distinction. I am not sure whether or not the AOG should continue to be the "agent". There is a perception that AOG is preoccupied with this function.

[164]  It appears to me that AOG has a lot of funds for its own welfare that should be used to support USMA.

[165]  Funds should be raised for widows and orphans only. No more bricks and mortar and visiting professors.

[166]  Contributing to development of an institution always seems different that contributing to an Alumni Fund/Organization. The perception that you are funding salaries for high ranking retirees was one comment I have overheard on more than one occasion.

[167]  see above

[168]  It makes sense for the AOG to manage both financial activities. The one suggestion that I would make is that a clear distinction be made in any correspondence to graduates on the purpose and ultimate recipient of each fund raising activity.

[169]  Feedback I have gotten from the Class of 1980 indicates resistance to raising funds for capital items that the West Point Fund might support. It blurs the line between class supported fund raising and AOG supported West Point Fund fund raising.

[170]  I think the AOG should be the governing body for the WPF, however I think that function needs to be advertised better. My first reaction to the name AOG is still the gift shop under Cullum Hall and "Assembly". As yet I don't make the connection that it is the WPF comptroller, or sustains any other key functional areas at USMA. That needs to be more evident.

[171]  N/A

[172]  Fund raising is difficult at best. However, there are so many different activities that appear to be seeking contributions that we, at the giving end, can be confused and even overwhelmed. I would like to see ONE effort that would collect, pool, and distribute the funds according to the financial needs as determined by a committee of persons who can better prioritize the distribution of funds. These funds should somehow either go through the respective Class Fund or at least ensure that the giver's class receives credit for the contribution. I want to support the USMA, but since there is a posting of 'scores' that compare contributions by Class, I want my contribution to the needs as identified by the AOG/Superintendent to enhance the 'score' of my Class.

[173]  See prior remarks

[174]  to me, the two are synonomous. Current cadets and alumni are all West Pointers and the funds untimately promote both groups.

[175]  This would bring a clearer focus to the purpose of the fund raising.

[176]  Absolutely be separate!!!! Why do we always try to reinvent the wheel???? Look at other colleges who have lived and died via the fund raising route. comunication on fund raising can be via the AOG and/or the Academy but should be directed by the Academy. Perhaps this won't work due to our status as a federal public institution--but it would be nice for us to known this.

[177]  There is more efficiency in combining informational releases with opportunities for giving.

[178]  I am very much opposed to the recent "empire building" changes made to AOG fund raising, the "set-asides", and the size of the staff.

[179]  Ibeleive class projects are better supported. AOG should gain the support of class reps for projects to maximize class participation.

[180]  The West Point Fund and it's activities such as the raising of funds for improved Athletic facilities should be an active Academy function!!!

[181]  Yes, but not necessarily separated from the WP Fund. My experience from the Cl of '60 gift committee campaign is that there are still some who do not understand the need for private funding. Unfortunately, many in my class do not subscribe to the "Assembly." I suspect the correlation is high. Every means needs to be exercised. Try the AAA ticket office mailing list or include an appeal when distributing football tickets, AAA applications, etc. All WP related functions need to include the need for private funding in their meetings, gatherings, agendas. I am trying the approach that emphasizes the percent of participation, comparision to other cadet companies, other classes, etc. It is surprising how many have never contributed; in this case, a direct approach (letter from someone they know, a telephone call from same individual, try the AAA approach-especially if they are purchasing or being given football tickets) is about the only alternative(s) left.

[182]  No need to seperate functions and duplicate the people requesting money for USMA related items.

[183]  i do not support the AOG as a fund raising instrument for the academy. It should exist primarily to support graduates "AOG."

[184]  Why was fund raising transferred? What are the legal implications?

[185]  There should be a distinction beyween funds raised for the direct benefit of the academy ( and rthe corps) and the funds used for administrative functions.

[186]  My answer is "no," the two should not be seperated, but wanted to expand on the thought. It is every grad's duty to contribute to the academy to give something back for what each of us has received, which is why I believe the West Point Fund MUST be an AOG function. I was surprised by the latest Assembly saying that AOG was concerned about expanding fund raising activities lest grads be turned off. I don't think the AOG should reach the extreme reached by political fund raisers by hitting up the same donors repeatedly, but there are a lot of graduates who have never donated anything back to the academy.

[187]  If an association of graduates wishes to assist a fund-raising activity in a specific area, it should be allowed to do so, but, the primary emphasis of AOG should be for the GRADUATES, with secondary emphasis towards raising funds for USMA.

[188]  Too many different avenues exist to contribute money to West Point. By that I mean, I get solicitations directly from the AOG, from my class, and from other classes. I know a talley is kept on how much each class gives. I do not want to contribute to a specific group if my class does not get credit for it. I think better cordination nedds to take place so that I do not get several solicitations for money at one time.

[189]  I figure the money is equally well used in either fund.

[190]  Big time fund raising is a full time job. I don't know if the money raised by the WP Fund justifies hiring separate fund raising staff. If so, then it should be separated from the AOG, both to ensure Fund money goes where it is supposed to go, and to assure the AOG staff does not become distracted from its work.

[191]  All these activities need a unified lead structure to operate under.

[192]  I realize there is a shortage of federal funding but I don't like being badgered about money. Check the O-4 payscale!!!

[193]  This is a really tough question - I am struggling with a similar one as a key employee of the Boston Latin School Association, a private foundation raising money for a public school (grades 6 through 12). Our fund is about $13.0 million and we are looking at a capital campaign in the area of about $20.0 million. The real question is - should the superintendant's fund exist or should the AOG be the fund raiser? Further, should we be looking at ways to seriously increase funding for USMA. I look at the recent annual fund results for my class at Harvard Business School - $13 million. And that was for my class alone for one year. What would that kind of money do for USMA? I look at my class of '63 project at USMA and at the needs of the school. Who should be determining how gifts should be directed. If someone wants to give seven, eight, or nine figures for a project, then maybe they can have some say. But I am rambling. I hope this provides some food for thought.

[194]  It is rather blurred to me. Maybe I haven't paid close enough attention to what has been sent out.

[195]  Studying this now...I feel that we are headed in the right direction by making fund raising an important mission of the AOG. I think we should examine successful college/university, e.g., Texas A&M, fund raising organizations to determine how best to organize w/i the AOG framework to best do the job.

[196]  People need to be aware of the difference in the two organizations, because they are indeed totally different.

[197]  There needs to be more info that this fund replaced the Sup's Fund, and more info about who and what benefits from it. Is it part of United Way?

[198]  Believe separation of the funds will enhance accountability.

[199]  I feel stringly that the WPF should leverage off of AOG membership and activities. Combining the two should provide great synergies.

[200]  But most of us see AOG as only a fund raiser

[201]  I think the current structure ensures funds are focused on USMA activities versus other AOG pursuits, i.e. excessive marketing.

[202]  I think that AOG should be responsible for the fund-raising but that all fund-raising activities should be clearly marked with their purpose - ie Prep School Scholarships, New facility, etc.

[203]  Fund raising should be one of the institution's primary activities - run out of the Superintendent's office. It is one of a University President's most important activities in other top notch schools in the U.S. Running fund raising out of the Superintendent's office would give it the "status" and "visibility" it deserves. Associations of Graduates in other institutions frequently play an important, but secondary role in fund raising. I question why AOG or any such organization should be responsible for fund raising. This should be the institution's function - and more specifically, the Superintendent's. If need be, get a Supe who can step up to the job!

[204]  I would like to see a simplified giving process (one annual gift) in which total gift, including matching funds, could be designated on a percentage basis, i.e., the WPF, class fund, AOG, AAA.

[205]  As an active donor to USMA causes, I can say that I am confused about the many differentfunds/drives etc...

[206]  I'm not sure you can separate the two. To perform specified AOG tasks, you need Money. However, the general consensus is, the membership in general is tired of all of the associated fund raisers from AAA, AOG, Class drives, local society drives, to special drives (such as to help fund the Army-Navy pre & post gane activities), and death bequests.

[207]  I am leading a fund drive for my class to make a major gift in 2000 at our 40th reunion. There are competing calls for money from various entities at West Point, and it is confusing to me and to my classmates. I think it should be made clear to all graduates just exactly who is solciting funds for what purposes at West Point. Teams, the AAA, Bicentennial Activities, West Point Fund, etc.

[208]  (null):(null)

[209]  AOG should do fundraising, not USMA. For USMA to do fundraising, it would politicize the organization. Plus, fundraising is a very logical role for AOG.

[210]  It was never clear to me that the Superintendent's fund had transferred to the AOG. I think this distinction must be made clearer. Your first option makes it sound like the AOG would be seperated from this effort. That is not required, but I do think that the fund raising effort should be clearly just that, and not mixed in with other AOG efforts.

[211]  One of the principal reasons for existence of any university /college alumni organization is to help further the institution's objectives. That is mainly done through raising funds to support the programs. USMA alumni/alumnae should begin to recognize that reality. AOG needs to continually educate us on what is needed and badger us for the funds. You have picked up the intensity in the last several years. Keep it up.

[212]  A well defined, coordinated effort should be made from all "funds" requesting donations from graduates. It seems like we are bombarded from all sides which I believe may confuse some graduates into doing nothing.

[213]  Any funds raised by the AOG should not be used to improve the physical plant of USMA; that should remain the responsibility of the Supe. AOG funds should go towards preparing suitable candidates for USMA (prep school), liaison activities between the Army and West Point and post graduation activities.

[214]  In my view, so much effort is focused on fund-raising that fund-raising is perceived as the primary function of the AOG. Mailings I receive from AOG shouldn't elicit the same response from me as typical fund-raising appeals or junk mail; typically they do. I understand that fund-raising is very important, but it can detract from the purpose of raising funds.

[215]  I think the separation would help avoid any conflict of interest. The WP Fund should be dedicated exclusively to supporting the mission of USMA. The AOG loosely follows that goal, but would be freed to follow a broader agenda if not forced to consider the potential conflicts..

[216]  But stronly suspect that the first response is correct!

[217]  Biggest criticism I have always heard is there are no controls for the Supe-That person can spend the dollars for anything they want and some of the items in the past are controversial.

[218]  I tend not to participate - probably due to a lack of understanding on what is funded and what is not.

[219]  The Supe should be connected as at other colleges, but I realize there may be laws prohibiting this. Do what we can within the law to better the Academy and the Supe's ability to lead it.

[220]  If promoting the welfare of the Acqademy is the AOG mission, fund-raising is a task required to support that mission.

[221]  I don't know why fund raising came from the Supe to AOG; it seems to me that fund raising should be a function of the Academy as a direct line responsibility. Was the Supe's Office unable to obtain adequate support from the Army or Congress directly in its role to "raise and support an Army"? Do we have to resort to private fund-raising sources to keep West Point on the books of the nation? I am not in favor of an employee buyout of a national asset. If the Supe can't make the case before the nation, does that mean that the nation doesn't want or need a military academy? It looks to me as if the Army has taken its normal role before Congress, ie. too proud to lobby; above all that political maneuvering; and just decided to try to lean on its soldiers (the very ones who have paid the price time and again) to take up the slack. This is a national disgrace that ought to be stopped.

[222]  It all must be coordinated. This will also facilitate the distinction among graduates/others who are solicited for funds.

[223]  I don't like communication from AOG always having a solicitation tied to it. It is like listening to PBR if they always had fund raising week. But, I don't think it needs to be a separate department/association. It needs to be a separate function/activity. I tune out PBR during their fund raisers after I donate, becuase it is just anoying. I miss some good news in that week. If you don't make a distinction between activities, you run the risk of being tuned out for everything.

[224]  It is beginning to seem as if AOG's only purpose is to raise money for the Academy.

[225]  The AOG should support the fund-raising if and only if the graduates support it

[226]  When I receive AOG literature in the mail I often don't even open because there's a high probability it's someone looking for money.

[227]  I have no issue with the current arrangement, however, was unaware of the transfer!

[228]  As an administrator in a university, I see a clear delineation between "advancement" which includes all kinds of support activities, and "fund raising." It is important that alums not feel that the AOG is only interested in their money.

[229]  I don't have a problem with AOG running the general development fund, its the class funds that get confusing. I give to AOG for my class fund but i'm not sure everyone realises the differences. I also know that there are other specific funds set up in AOG but don't believe i've ever saeen them listed so might get contributions to a specific fund if advertised

[230]  The concept of one org. centralizing the fund raising is valid. However, as a goat, sometimes I'm not sure if the request is from my class,AOG,West Point, athletic dept. I'm sure that it is explained, but you know about that 2% that doesn't get the word. Sometimes I ask myself, "didn't I just send in something?"

[231]  On the WPF committee, I have long held that you can't have two organizations...you need one with one boss.

[232]  The AOG is the value proposition which encourages graduates to contribute to the West Point Fund. Quality AOG performance and communication causes me to contribute and know what my contributions are being used for.

[233]  Based on AOG mission statement above, "futhering ideals and promoting welfare," I'd need to know what the charter of the WPF is before I could make a choice.

[234]  Agree with the AOG doing the fund raising, provided the AOG does not get involved in projects beyond their capabilities.

[235]  Do not separate but instead deemphasize fund raising. Leave it primarily to the classes.

[236]  With the exception of class gifts, I believe fund raising should be a government function, i.e. separate from AOG, as Congress is charged with raising and maintaining the Army. I have always thought AOG was a private organization. If I am wrong in this, the above comments do not apply.

[237]  fund raising should be an overall effort by all parties concerned. it is the utilization of the funds that then becomes the issue; and the originator of the fund raising if the utilization of the funds have not previouslly been decided. when raising funds; if there is a stated goal for the funds; no problems. if there is not a stated goal, then the allocation decision goes to the originator of the collection of funds.

[238]  I think that fundraising should be a big part of the Superintendent's job. In other words, I'm not sure that the Superintendent's Fund should have evolved into an AOG function with a new name. Maybe this was necessary by some new law, and/or maybe the Supe still does a lot of fundraising...but it is his job to maximize funds available to the Academy, tax-dollars, contributions, and otherwise. Having grads perform this function is very unusual for a university, and is asking those who do the giving also to organize the giving...there's an incentive problem there.

[239]  Either keep the WPF and AOG separated or provide for the mission/vision of each in a clearly defined mission vision statement. My recommendations is to keep them separate as they have clear distinctly different missions. The AOG to support its members and the WPF to fund raise for suitable projects for USMA as they are defined and prioritized by the Superintendent USMA.

[240]  There are complex legal issues involved. The school is publicly funded, Yet every year it requires significant funding from private sources. My main concern is that we set aside some geese to lay golden eggs every year instead of just eating them.

[241]  Look at other colleges and universities' organizational models. In most schools Alumni Affairs/Relations is separate from fundraising. Of course the two should still be well integrated.

[242]  Many grads don't support the current fund raising program either because they do not understand why it's necessary or that they don't believe it is necessary.

[243]  The AOG should NOT be placed in a position of funding programs which should be the responsibility of the U.S. Government.

[244]  I'd like a clear, written distinction passed out occassionally--mailed with contribution requests or on a half page in the Assembly--that distinguishes among what the following categories of monies can and do buy: 1. appropriated funds, 2. West Point fund, 3. class funds, 4. other.

[245]  An association of graduates should not be so focused on money

[246]  They should be separated only if there is a perceived potential or actual conflict of interest. If there is none, then leave the two functions under the same AOG management umbrella.

[247]  My answer tends to be NO, given that the AOG continue to stress the distinction and that appropriate emphasis continue to be focused on the communication/information needs of graduates from an alumni perspective. DO NOT allow fund raising to become the primary emphasis. If that distinction and balance are maintained, I do not see a need for separating the WP Fund from AOG.

[248]  The West Point Fund was devised in the 1960's to solicit and accept funds for the Superintendent. In the 1970's the AOG stepped in, and combined AOG fund raising with USMA efforts, under AOG management. This has now led to Government control of both West Point Fund functions and management of how the AOG may allocate its own resources. The AOG is not part of the Government. Written agreements on "USMA & AOG Fundraising & Related Activities" provide that the AOG solicit and accept funds for USMA, as well as for the "approved" acitivities of the AOG. Approval for all use of AOG rsources requires USMA staff agreement. Further, unspecified gifts conributed to theAOG may be split between the government and the AOG. The AOG should not require any approval from USMA for expenditure of AOG funds. Private and government money should not be mixed. Funding and operations of the AOG in support of Graduates should be independent of the government. The West Point Fund should not solicit funds for the AOG.

[249]  Fund raising activities suggests to outsiders, graduates not at West Point, that AOG is an arm of the West Point administration.

[250]  In my mind, there has not been much in the way of explaining the separation of Supe and AOG. I was not even aware that there had been such a separation.

[251]  I am confused by all the funds (there are Class Funds too, where do they fit?) - can a diagram be drawn that explains it.

[252]  Donating to different areas of interest is not easily done

[253]  AOG seems to focus more on fund raising than on other aspects of an "association of graduates".

[254]  Sometines fund raising mailings are unclear as to who is rewquesting funds and where/how they will be spent.

[255]  I don't know the objectives of the funds. If there is a need for two funds, OK, but I don't understand the distinction. I currently give to a "Class of '83" fund, which I believe is a West Point Fund. My preference would be to give to one unified fund, where the proceeds are distributed according to an elected board who represent the interests of AOG and members of the West Point Fund.

[256]  I believe that it works ok..if it needs to be changed I'd like to know why.

[257]  Fund raising has reduced the AOG from a political force to a bake-sale organization. Raise funds and leverage them, use them to get the government and the academy to respond and listen to the grads.

[258]  All above comments apply. I deeply question many of the expenditures I have seen as a cadet and since, and I am highly skeptical. I would prefer the AOG, with a very valid mission that I appreciate AND use, be separated from activities that I feel are questionable.

[259]  There should be a clear separation between government (USMA) and private (AOG) functions and activities. In my experience AOG and USMA have always handled that pretty well.

[260]  My perception of the AOG is that it is primarily a fund raising organization and I don't feel that should be it's purpose.

[261]  The movement of the fund raising to the AOG seems to detract from the idea that the AOG is an organization is an alumni association and now exists solely to raise funds. However, overall I think the AOG is doing an excellent job and far exceeds the services and benefits provided by other universities.

[262]  would like to know the roles and functions of the director for academy advancement.

[263]  Fund-raising now is the dominant focus of AOG, at the expense of all other activities.

[264]  I believe that the AOG, and not the Superintendent nor active duty personnel at WP, should be soley responsible for going to the graduates and the multiple sources they might develop. Those functions that the Superintendent declares to be essential and beyond the means of the appropriated funds available should then be prioritized by the Board of the AOG and private funding sought. Graduates of many fine universities are inculcated with the need to support their alma maters right after graduation. Then they are expected to increase their contributions as their fortunes improve. Usmay graduates never had a heritage of this sort - "Uncle" took care of everything.First Classmen might be brought to know those facilities, activities and opportunities they have been accepting that were not from appropriations but from their predecessors in the Long Grey Line. Then as they progress in life they might take it for granted that their support of WP is not only welcomed, but also expected.

[265]  Does the AOG have its own fund in addition to the WPF? Are the goals of the AOG for the WPF the same as the goals of USMA? Does the management of the WPF interfere with the work of the AOG?

[266]  Yes, absolutely. You must separate the two. I am reluctant to fund a pot of money that will end up who knows where.

[267]  Really not to sure about this. Is AOG an organization to provide services to graduates and others or a fund raising organization? My perception is that AOG only wants me to make more contributions to USMA. In this age of mass mailings I frankly view a piece of mail from AOG as another organization looking for donations.

[268]  I have not followed either of these activities closely enough to give a decent opinion.

[269]  Probably should be separated but need feedback about how this should/could be done.

[270]  I don't have enough information to decide. However, I do believe there should be approved programs against which AOG funding activities take place and to which funding is applied. At the present time, it seems that the goal is to ever increase contributions without a clear definition of where the funding is to be applied.

[271]  See 17.

[272]  The answer to this question depends largely on how you define the purpose, mission, goals, and objectives of the AOG. Reckon this question is being asked on a higher plain [or is it spelled plane?], i.e., should the White House and its principal occupant be directly involved in fund raising by the Democratic National Committee?

[273]  I believe that the AOG and fund-raising are complimentary.

[274]  I think AOG should continue with the WPF as it has. However, I feel it shoulkd better define it and distinguish it in the solicitations so it is clearer where the money is going and what it will be used for.

[275]  As a retired employee from Texaco Inc. I utlize the Texaco Matching Gift Program. My annual contribution to The Army "A" Club is not eligible for matching gift under the Texaco Program. I was advised by Carl Ullrich that USMA was troubled with Texaco's position in this situation and had discussed it withthem on several occasions to no avail. Obviously West Point contends that the funds realized from contributions to the "A" Club are not used to support athletic clubs etc., but are used to supplement insufficient federal funding to maintain a quality athletic program competitive with civilian institutions. This being the case I suggest that this matter again be reviewed with Texaco and if Texaco remains adamant that a different approach be taken by the Academy in order to qualify these funds for matching gift eligibility. I personally accept no benefits from my contribution to the "A" Club.

[276]  Concerning fund raising in general ... I think purposes for appropriated and nonappropriated fund raising need to be clearly laid out. All graduates need to understand the importance of fund raising and senior leaders need to understand the burden fund raising places on active duty graduates in terms of finances etc. While I support fund raising whole heartedly, it is very difficult with Army pay, wife at home, mortgage payment etc. This is a difficult issue, but a very important one.

[277]  But I will tell you that it seems to me that a disproportionate share of the AOG effort/funds is dedicated to fund raising.

[278]  Would help to hear some of the pros and cons of the alternatives. If not a function of USMA or AOG, what new entity would be required to oversee fund-raising? What are the problems inherent in AOG performing the task? (Apparently there are some, or else the question wouldn't be raised.)

[279]  I would think there would be a greater potential for funds from other doners(nonWP) or even appropriated funds if The West Point Fund was administered separately.

[280]  I am inclined to a separation but have too little info to make a distinction. I dont care to receive further info.

[281]  I think fund raising from alumi is a major component of AOG's reason for existence.

[282]  YES. Separate them. Otherwise AOG will not have a voice in how its financial contributions are used. We are not USMA; it needs to listen to us, and sometimes money is the only way.

[283]  The AOG can manage the fund raising activities but a better sistinction is need for understanding what the fund is used for.

[284]  The real issue is how much money will the AOG try to raise. If we're talking a few million/year, a combined organization is indicated. If, however, you are going for hundreds of millions/year,I urge separation, even out-sourcing. Big fund-raising entails huge new requirements -- and major risks.

[285]  My inclination would be to separate development (fund-raising) activities from the many activities mentioned in the AOG Goals, above. I do not have enough info on the issue to decide, now.

[286]  Ambiguous

[287]  As long as funds donated to AOG and designated as "Superintendent's Fund" will get there, fine, let AOG handle them.

[288]  I didn't even know there was a separation, and am often confused by the reasons for any monetary appeals in the first place.

[289]  Due to our financial situation since departure from the army, we have not contributed to USMA (AOG). Therefore, I have never tried to distinguish between the different fund raising events.

[290]  AOG does not have to agree with or endorse everything proposed by either Dept. of Army or the Supt.,USMA

[291]  You do not want to fall into the trap of limiting fundraising activities to a list of graduates. This demands a broader awareness and innovative reasons to contribute which draw national support.

[292]  AOG should continue its West Point Fund role, but that role should be sufficiently distinct from its other role as a support to graduates, that the 2 do not become intertwined. Otherwise, the fund raising aspect will overshadow all others and it will appear that everything AOG does is associated with raising money.

[293]  it's appropriate for the AOG to do both. Just make it clear what is fundraising and what is not.

[294]  AOG, should, like AUSA, be able to lobby for issues the Academy cannot. RA Commissions is an example. As I understand, current limitations place our tax free status at risk. Ok, I accept that, but "re-build" the box so we can tackle the hard issues.

[295]  I'm concerned that AOG activities and fund-raising will be focused too heavily on athletic uses, since inter-collegiate athletics is the most visible manifestation of the Academy to the nation at large. I believe that funds and fund raising should focus heavily on leader development and academic excellence as well as athletic endeavors.

[296]  While I wish that all facilities/activities for cadets at USMA were well funded federally, I accept that is not going to happen. Accordingly we need a strong fund raising activity.

[297]  The Superintendent should not be having to spend his time raising money. He has an Academy to run.

[298]  Present to Congress a reasoned explanation of the deleterious effect of denying a regular commission to each graduate, with backup testimony from prospective cadets/midshipmen/candidates, USMA/USNA/USAFA and ROTC cadets and officer candidates, those now in these programs, and recent graduates.

[299]  Being non-specific allows too much freedom.

[300]  I think the Supe has too many things to do to raise funds. However, the purpose of all these funds is not very clear. And where, besides Graduates, AOG can go to solicit funds is unclear. Question also whether the former Supe's fund was more effective than AOG in raising funds, or less effective and "Why?" about each.

[301]  All I get from the AOG are requests for money, cruises and catalogs. If you want to raise money do it, and I hate to say this, as others do separate from what is done for the graduates.

[302]  AOG is more concerned with raising money than its membership.

[303]  I really do not know much about this.

[304]  It's part of a whole "checks and balances" problem. The association's mission is too wide ranging. If it has both the power to select by itself the activities that are to receive support and also the power of the purse, things can spin off in directions that are not necessarily popularly based. There's no accountability. It's good for an organization such as this to have to justify itself and its activities.

[305]  AOG should direct the WPF, but there needs to be some clear & distinct accounting and separation of the other various fund-raising activities. Do not want one big "superfund" that AOG decides unilaterally to split among various causes or initiatives.

[306]  I think my answer would be "Yes", if I had more information.

[307]  I do not like the fact that AOG "skims" money off of the top of financial gifts (15%) and then "sits" on the remainder for a year, collecting interest, before depositing the remaining gift money (without interest) in the account of the designated beneficiary at West Point, e.g. a cadet club. I know that AOG needs funds to hire, train, retain, etc. quality employees, but this still irks me. I wish AOG could be separated from the West Point Fund, but do not currently have any ideas on how to fund the AOG organization apart from "skimming" from the West Point Fund. I want a quality AOG. Quality is never free. My concern is how the AOG is going to maintain a high-quality (effective and efficient) organizational staff without it becoming a "fat," expensive bureaucracy.

[308]  Make more clear the distinction of who is doing what fund raising and for what purposes.

[309]  Understanding the staffing problems facing most of the Army and corporate America, I am quite sure AOG could not completely separate from the West Point Fund; however, a clear and distinct line should be drawn between the expected functions of AOG and the "fund-raising sector" of AOG by taking such steps as locating fund raising in completely separate areas (if not already done), by considering the fund-raising office a separate entity with separate hiring practices and no cross-staffing.

[310]  I get hit up with so many charitable requests from West Point-related activities (class, athletics, different funds, etc.) that I don't know which is which and I can't contribute to all -- so I often contribute to none. Maybe you should try something like CFC---one request a year where we could contribute to a basket of funds or specify our funds for just one activity. Any West Point activity wanting to solicit funds would have to play.

[311]  I wish I were in a financial situation to be generous, but, I am not. I am embaressed to see some of the donatons to the Class Fund, which I can't even approach. But, I certainly suport those that can.

[312]  If you hire a commercial fund raising outfit I will cease giving alltogether.

[313]  I always thought the two were synonymous

[314]  The West Point Fund should be an AOG function, but clearer distinction of its use and controls so as to not confuse it with other AOG activities.

[315]  One fund should be designated for sports and one for physical plant upkeep.

[316]  AOG should handle it. However, the West Point Fund should be clearly distinguished from other AOG fund raising activities.

[317]  Not sure, but I certainly chafe at the amount of blatant fund raising going on, and the attempts to channel bona fide gifts for academy priorities. Concentrate on informing us, then we'll make our own decisions.

[318]  As far as I'm concerned, everything is as it should be.

[319]  There seems to be too many solicitations for funding; they should be consoldiated and made easier to understand in terms of objectives, sources & uses of funds

[320]  Honestly, right now I'm not as focused or "in tune" with AOG as probably you all would like. I'd like to be but right now find myself focusing on establishing a career and providing stability for my family. I may be ingorant and AOG can help me in my goals but I don't think it does and therefore is low on the priority list.

[321]  Just look at the laws regarding political lobbying

[322]  There are several funds and it is difficult at times to keep them all separate.

[323]  See comments above! Too confusing and too numerous to be as successful as desired.

[324]  Yes, I sometimes have trouble distinguishing who's raising money and for what.

[325]  Noted the Goals were not specific about this fund raising responsibility.

[326]  Who controls expenditures? The Supe, or the AOG Board of Trustees?

[327]  To remove any possible perception that could be created as to the objectives of the fund raising and what organization was in charge. Do not need any Buddist temple controversies here.

[328]  To my knowledge --at least in 1965 - WP Fund was seaparte from USMA, for obvious legal reasons. maybe earlier it was different

[329]  AOG should not be separated from this function, but it does seem to be the main reason for AOG's existence. I guess I see too much emphasis on the fund raising from AOG.

[330]  AOG can continue to fund raise but within the org., some greater delineation from its other functions might be good for the latter (some don't like fund raising and therefore throw the "baby out with the bathwater".

[331]  I feel that all fund raising activities should be comdined under one organization.

[332]  I say yes but the separartion might hurt the fund raising efforts. More study needs to be done before a decision is made.

[333]  I have a problem with USMA fund raising (AAA in particular) when I receive unsolicited AAA information in the form of a clossy 3/8 inch thick color book mailed by priority mail at a cost of over $4. I can't even imagine what it cost to print that book. Fortunately they have only done it once... but it really impressed me as a GROSS waste of money!!!! The news letter that is now going out by e-mail on athletic activities is a much more cost effective means of communications!!!! Sorry this doesn't really have anything to do with AOG but since you were asking about find raising....... thought I'd mention it.

[334]  Fund raising by the Academy/AOG is quite confusing. I'm never really sure who is requesting funds. The distinction between the funds should be made clear in every request.

[335]  This has been my point. I think fund raising will suffer if separated from AOG, but that's OK with me.

[336]  Makes sense to combine resources, but be careful about balance. If the majority of communication with graduates relates to fund raising, then AOG will perceived to be only a fund-raising action. Many graduates will avoid AOG communication because of solicitation emphasis. Need clear distinction between the AOG and West Point Fund activity

[337]  It gets confusing when one gets funding requests from the West Point Fund, AAA, the class gift and whatever else.

[338]  As an active duty graduate with family, I tend to resent all of the solicitations I receive from WP, normally because I can not afford to contribute. When I can contribute, I would like more say in where the money goes. Example: '88 Class gift, which I do contribute to, is for club sports instead of the generic Army Athletics.

[339]  same as above. AOG should be more aggressive from the beginning. Not for funds initially but to educate grads and soon-to-be grads.

[340]  Does each fund target the same population or since it has been combined under the AOG do you only target graduates?? If the later, the program should not be combined.

[341]  Since new graduates are added to the rolls every year, explanatory notes should be provided in the Assembly. Also, continue to provide information in AOG mailings.

[342]  I think fund raising is an appropriate function for AOG. This is a common function of other alumni associations.

[343]  I do NOT view the AOG as a fund rasing organization. This should be a completely separate task performed by an independent organization.

[344]  Most graduates don't make much of a distinction between AOG and West Point. One in the same.

[345]  I would be more apt to contribute to a Fund in which I had some personal say in the outcome of those dollars. I would like to see AOG have a more active role in the day to day cadet activity.

[346]  I think fundraising is appropriately within the purview of AOG activities, and see no need to separate that effort. Admittedly, however, I might be persuaded otherwise with more information.

[347]  AOG should be concerned about its members and their continuing professional development; West Point fund with supporting the USMA mission.

[348]  I feel graduates like myself that work in the Charitable giving area should be called upon to assist in providing information concerning such things as Charitable Remainder Trusts and the like.

[349]  The AOG should be THE fund raising activity for USMA - the Supe can not do it. (But he must support as a part of functions.)

[350]  Does not have to be totally seperate but should be a seperate identifiable wing of the AOG. Fund raising can become an all consuming mission if not seperated.

[351]  The last thing you would want is for AOG to be so closely linked to fund raising that mail received by members at their homes gets pitched into the nearest waste basket before being opened because the assumption made is "it's another request for money".

[352]  separate organization whose sole mission is fund-raising would be more efficient

[353]  I think there is a serious question of what is a suitable use of funds raised. The projects seem to be a mix of augmentation, capital expansion, and mission support. One example might be the purchase of new exercise equipment for installation in the gym. Should this be funded through appropriated funds as a mission essential item or as a beneficiary of AOG fund-raising activities? If Congress doesn't think exercise equipment is worth funding, should the AOG? I think a clearer distinction between what is an appropriate use of public funds and AOG funds is needed.

[354]  No. I have an MBA from the University of Michigan, and these functions are logically combined. This makes sense, and I see no conflict of interest. AOG is simply an arm for USMA in this regard.

[355]  Many of us have been fairly successful in business ventures following Graduation and have never really been approached for donations. I get more requests from Stanford (which I have never attended) than USMA.

[356]  AOG should be separate from the West Point Fund. Fund-raising should be a USMA function. It was probably transferred a few years back to save the money to pay the salaries to maintain the function at USMA.

[357]  I believe tha major source of funds for the academy come from graduates. As such, the fund raising should be centralized in the AOG.

[358]  Fund Raising and Alumni Support are NOTmutually exclusive activities in the business of institutional advancement. That is the purpose of the AOG and, as such, the two should continue to be integrated.

[359]  I don't like the emphasis on money raising. Sounds as though West Point wants to become another Ivy League college even though it's funds are appropriated by Congress. I think we're sewing the seeds of our own distruction if we have to raise money to keep competitive.

[360]  I see nothing wrong with the way fund raising is accomplished now. I did not review alumni correspondence from two other universities of which I am a graduate, but I am under the impression that fund raising is accomplished by their alumni associations.

[361]  I believe that a clear seperation needs to exist between government funds and private donations.

[362]  See previous response

[363]  The two should be separate if the fund raising activity will interfere with the primary objective of enhancing the prestige of the USMA. If 401(c)3 status is jepordized by trying to influence the Army, the Administration, or Congress, then separate. The AOG should not be limited in its ability to do what is the best for USMA. If all the AOG is going to do is take care of itself and old grads, then there is no need to separate.

[364]  The distinction is not the problem; the appearance of primacy of fund-raising is what is causing trouble.

[365]  I believe that the appropriated fund activities of USMA should be handled by USMA, not by the AOG. The AOG, as the name says, should deal in alumni matters, which MAY include providing supplementary funding assistance to USMA. But the primary responsibility for funding cadets and operation of the academy should rest with USMA.

[366]  At most educational institutions such as Pomona College, where I worked in Planned Giving from 1984-97, and at Cal Poly State Univ, where I am presently employed as Director of Planned Giving and Endowments, the Alumni Assoc is an organization under the control of the Vice President for Development or for Advancement. This is so because the Alumni Assoc supports both external relations AND fundraising. At USMA, the AOG has developed separate from development/advancement. However, I would suggest that since fundraising will be a permanent and prominent mission in the future of USMA, it is time to bring fundraising and AOG under the control of one person. My inclination would be that person should NOT be the current Executive Director of AOG; he should be left in place to run AOG. I would look at the functions under AOG, such as public affairs/information with a view to setting those up as separate entities reporting to the leader of this new organization. I would also create a position of Director or Executive Director of Development, to oversee all actual fundraising operations.

[367]  See my comments on 17.

[368]  Typically, fund raising is a function of the alumni organization. We really just need to get better organized and become more efficient.

[369]  In general, the only time I hear from AOG is to ask for money for the academy. I know the Assembly is the primary communication vehicle, and it does not ask for money (thank you). The fund raising aspect is necessary, but gets very annoying.

[370]  I think that fund raising is a legitimate way to enhance the future well being of USMA and perhaps to influence USMA administrations toward maintaining the historic ideals.

[371]  USMA is a government organization controlled by the U.S. Army; and thusly the whims of the Federal Government; and thusly the politicians! AOG should not be controlled by anyone other than the Graduates of USMA! I have no say in what the Federal Government does with my taxes; but I will be damned if I will stand by and let them also control my contributiions to AOG. I believe the mathematical statement is: QED!

[372]  I think most alumni organizations are expected to raise funds for their school. I'm at a medical school and the alumni affairs office has a high emphasis on fundraising. AOG is consistent with this.

[373]  I find the different fund raising activities to be confusing from the point of view of who is in control, what am I buying for whom, what is deductable, and isn't?

[374]  It is my understanding that the AOG takes some money from the class donations to WP for administration etc. I think this is wrong!!!

[375]  Regardless of how the distinction of fund raising activities, there should be some categorization of how those funds are distributed: ie: academic (possibly what area); atheletic; infrastructure; class; etc.

[376]  The survey from Question 18 on is garbled!

[377]  See my comments re question no. 16 above

[378]  Association means bringing together for mutual benefit. Since fundraising is outwardly unidirectional, it should not be the primary focus. Graduates are beat about the head and shoulders to give, and especially when now our class is asked to provide $500,000 or better. Not to mention, most graduates have had other schooling and they get hit from those directions as well.

[379]  The AOG office should be heavily involved in fund raising for the West Point Fund, but I am unclear about the legalities. Maybe we need to look at changing the law to fit the situation. Congress should maintain its support, but we graduates should have the right to support the academic side of the house, too. I would like to be a part of a study that broaches the subject with the law makers. There are some fuzzy areas here that need clarification. We certainly do not want to give them an out to not support USMA at all.

[380]  I do not have enough information on how the funds were/are operated.

[381]  There should be a clear distinction of how much of someones contributions go to directly to support the AOG and how much goes to supporting USMA. AOG must not let the Federal government and the Army off the hook for adequately funding USMA

[382]  AOG means a money collection agency to me. That is all I associate with them. Because all I get are requests for money.

[383]  AOG should be an organization representing and supporting graduates and the ideals of the Academy, not a fiscal tool of the current Academy administration. I am comfortable supporting an organization that supports the graduates, but not an organization that promotes the current agenda of the academy (an agenda I am not familiar with now).

[384]  I am extremely confused (and sometimes wonder if this is intentional) at the multiple fund raising initiatives being executed by various W.P. agencies. There needs to be almost an account report that simply identifies each of an individual's W.P. fund raising initiatives an individual is involved in and the status of your contributions in each on one consolidated report.

[385]  keep out of fund raising to self serving for AOG admin

[386]  Look, West Point is West Point. To draw fine lines between this fund and that activity may be necessary from a legal perspective, but it is very confusing to some of us who don't live and breath WP on a daily basis. I would be very convenient if all the missions and goals of AOG and TWPF were one and the population who anxiously frets about which fund/activity received which donated amount could cease work in FRET 101.

[387]  IF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE AOG IS TO RAISE FUNDS TO SUPPORT THOSE UNDERFUNDED APPROPRIATED AREAS, THEN THE AOG BEST HAVE FULL CONTROL OF RAISING THEN ALLOCATING FUNDS WHEN IN ACCORD WITH SUPE'S PRIORITIES

[388]  see my thought in bloc 17

[389]  yes if it doesn't involve the creation of more bureaucracy

[390]  AOG should serve the grads- fund raising may conflict

[391]  Organizations should be allowed to contribute to specific corps functions through the AOG.

[392]  The graduates, through the AOG, must provide the check/balance to keep the fund raising in line. If we separate these, the graduates stand a risk of losing control of fund raising and, more important, fund expenditure and overhead.

[393]  I think there should be a coordinated effort for all fund raising done at the academy. It makes no difference to me who carries out the fund raising effort. It does seem, however, that the fund raising effort is well done at this point. I don't see the need to make changes.

[394]  Every college alumni association has the obligation to raise funds. The more that AOG can separate the Supe from this function the better - - he has enough to do to lobby Congress for funding and to run the institution.

[395]  As long as fund-raising activities are distinctly pointed out as such with the solicitation, I feel the AOG is probably in the best position to do the fund raising.

[396]  I support AOG management of development activities for the West Point Fund. Discussiions relating to the Board of Trustees recent meeting did raise some concern, but having read the report of that meeting, I am satisfied. I do not understand what is meant by separating AOG from the West Point Fund. I do hope that AOG development costs for raising additional funds will be kept to a minimum.

[397]  Fund raising often takes preference over other services of an alumni association when both are under the same leadership.

[398]  While I believe it should remain under the auspices of the AOG, it should have a distinct identity separate from the majority of the AOG functions.

[399]  The AOG could better serve Alumni and the Academy if it's efforts were focused on them.

[400]  Again, I'd like to see what other alumni associations are doing. Is their fund raising function (ie. their "West Point Fund") separate from their other alumni assoiciation functions?

[401]  I have begun to hate the AOG since all it has become AOG is a panhandling organization, hitting me up for a dime at every corner, so now I do not even open all of my USMA mail, since I get tired of being bugged about sending money with every item of AOG correspondence,. including that from my own classmates.

[402]  The West Point Fund directly contributes to the purpose of the AOG.

[403]  I can't keep track of who at USMA/AOG is asking me for money and for what reason.

[404]  I have had trouble obtaining a company match for funds I contributed since they were to an "alumni" asociation, which is strictly prohibited by the company. Perhaps the old Supe's fund would allow this.

[405]  At this time I do not distinguish the two. The AOG is not my organization. The AOG is a fund raising organization. Funds are raise through direct contributions, some product sales, and Assembly sales.

[406]  I think the West Point Fund is in the right hands. Who better to run it than the people who should be providing the most money?

[407]  Seems like a core function of any alumni group. If there are advantages to separating the functions, spell them out to us.

[408]  I am not clear on the difference between the two.

[409]  I believe that direct solicitation of cadetsare families for contributions to the Academy raises the issue of potential favoratism for cadets whose families that are contributors. I agree that fund raising is more properly located at the AOG.

[410]  Fund raising is now perceived as the principal purpose of the AOG to the detriment of all other programs. If we could harness the energy,enthusiasm and political connections of the alumni, we should be able to reestablish an appropriate share of the federal budget to meet our education and mission goals.

[411]  That is a tough question. The problem, as I pounted out in the meeting in July, 1997, is that there is over solicitations at the same time. Since then you seem to be doing a better job.

[412]  Although a necessary function with today's budget, I hate virtually everything I see from AOG, in some shape form or fashion asking for money. Money is as tight on the home front with family, mortgage, school, etc as it is for the military. I would, perhaps, be more receptive to the AOG if they weren't always asking for money through donaitons, gifts, purchases etc. Additionally, there seems to be a blurring of what monies are required for AOG operation versus USMA operation funds.

[413]  leaning towards making them separate (first choice)

[414]  They should not be separated, but people need more information on how it is organized. Also, more coordination between the various fund raising activities emminating from West Point.

[415]  It's never been entirely clear to me just why USMA needs any funds privately donated as opposed to what we taxpayers fund. I occassionally make (small) contributions to my civilian colleges (graduate schools) that aren't taxpayer funded. What do the private contributions go to fund why/how are they needed? I pay enough in taxes as it is (don't we all?)

[416]  There is a perception that the WPF provides funding for areas that should be government funded. Address this misconception.

[417]  USMA NEEDS CONTRIBUTED REVENUE. AOG SHOULD REPRESENT USMA...THEREFORE THE AOG IS AS APPROPRIATE AS THE ACADEMY TO BE THE FOCAL POINT/ADMINISTRATOR OF THE "FUND".

[418]  There is a conflict of interest the way it is set up now. USMA needs some sort of fund-receiving organization (to be legal), but AOG should not have the mission for both under one command.

[419]  Need to reduce overhead and duplication....keep the west point fund and AOG linked

[420]  Yes, but I'm not sure AOG & WPFund should be separate - I don't know enough about the organizational structure to comment on separate vs. together. But I think AOG needs to establish a clear focus on fund raising.

[421]  Seems that recently AOG's primary emphasis has been fund raising, vs graduate information services. I am not comfortable with that shift.

[422]  Bottom line issue -- does AOG exist to run West Point Fund? My feeling is maybe the AOG serves USMA more than it does the graduates. Quantify the percentage and amount of labor, money, and resources AOG expends in running the West Point Fund. If it is more than say, 33%, maybe it should be separated. Also, what are the cost savings of combining similar functions?

[423]  needs to be some separation between funding for West Point/USMA and West Point/AOG

[424]  During most AOG activities there are opportunities for fund raising, just as all the Development staff are also involved in Alumni support activities.

[425]  I did not believe this a few years ago, but now am concerned that AOG is alienating a number of graduates who have concluded that AOG is only a fund-raising activity. Perhaps a clear division of labor would be an improvement. (Perhaps!)

[426]  See above.Most strongly agree that total separation is called for.

[427]  I receive so many letters requesting money that I tend to forget the other services AOG provides and start viewing the AOG as purely a fund raising effort.

[428]  Whoever does the fund raising needs to make donors feel appreciated. I send more money to West Point than to my graduate school (Dartmouth) but when I call Dartmouth, they know me by name. They go out of their way to make me feel like a member of a family. They make it easy for me to get tickets for events. They ask about my family. Contrast that with West Point. When I call no one knows me from any other graduate. I am delighted to support West Point financially, but it appears to make no difference how much I give to the institution. I do not feel appreciated. I'm not looking for "fat cat" treatment. It would simply be nice to be acknowledged and it would be very nice to get some small tangible benefit like better parking when I visit, for example. I suspect that others feel the same. AOG needs to take a look at how the Ivy League colleges handle fund raising and how they treat donors.

[429]  We need to separate the government funding of West Point and the AOG funding. AOG should not supplement government spending but provide monies that cannot be included in the government funding budget request.

[430]  All of the above. If there is a marked benefit in a clearer distinction because I do not have enough information, then yes. If no marked benefit, no.

[431]  I do feel that the AOG should be primarily focused on providing services to graduates and that fund-raising for the institution's general fund should be somewhat separated. But as long as the AOG doesn't become consumed with making money, the current situation is alright

[432]  USMA should not be involved in raising funds except for those that it receives from appropriations. The AOG should be responsible, as it has become, for raising additional funds to support those areas that are unfunded through government appropriations and that both USMA and the AOG deem necessary for the development of the cadets.

[433]  It really depends on the desired goals and purposes of the respective fund raising activities So long as they are clearly defined and avoid overlap there should not be any problems

[434]  I don't think the AOG should be raising money for a tax supported institution. It is OK for classes to raise money.

[435]  Everything I've seen has been clearly labeled "West Point Fund"

[436]  The fund raising activity seems to be the top priority as opposed to the other purposes and functions of the AOG.I would like to see that toned down.

[437]  AOG should coordinate fund raising, but need not be separated from The West Point Fund. More importanly, the AOG should coordinate class efforts to contribute to teh West Point Fund. Lastly, it's not the fund raising that poses a problem, but rather who gets to decide how the funds raised are spent. If the AOG has control over that aspect of Fund Raising, then it should be separated (or at least share that power).

[438]  I hate getting mail from AOG--I know that all there will be in it is a request for money. I don't thorw it away without reading it, but I seriously consider it.

[439]  Supporting WP activities and supporting AOG activities may at times be separate functions with separate priorities. AOG members ought not to have to subjugate its priorities in pursuing its goals to those of the WP Fund if not coincident.

[440]  Supporting WP activities and supporting AOG activities may at times be separate functions with separate priorities. AOG members ought not to have to subjugate its priorities in pursuing its goals to those of the WP Fund if not coincident.

[441]  I would like to hear the advantages/disadvantages to both alternatives.

[442]  If we are going to do fund raising for USMA, AOG seems the logical organization to conduct that fund raising.

[443]  Fund raising should be centralized. People hate getting nickeled and dimed three to four times every year by different organizations associated with USMA.

[444]  As it is now it's confusing.

[445]  Hadn't considered it, but upon it being brought to my attention, it does seem to me a clear separation would be better. Not an important issue.

[446]  I think that the funds raised by AOG should be allocated to projects by AOG giving consideration to the recommendations of the Supe and others,but reserving the decisions to AOG. USMA would retain the right to refuse funds for projects it did not want.

[447]  I do not want the AOG to be seen as a fund raising organization. It has other important functions to handle. Once the grads see it as just wanting money, their interest will drop and the value of the AOG will fade.

[448]  This is one area which has some definite problems. First of all, the AOG exists to provide for its membership, not to raise money for USMA. This is a clear conflict of interest.

[449]  AOG can still be responsible for the fund-raising, however, it should definitely be a separate mission within the AOG from other AOG activities.

[450]  Different missions and different purposes should generate different fund-raising activities and different expenditures of the funds raised. AOG funds should be used for AOG purposes and West Point or USMA funds should be used for USMA purposes. They ought not be quite as interchangeable as it seems at present.

[451]  I believe there should be a separate foundation organized and charged with the responsibility for fund raising for all of USMA. This foundation would not be controlled by the Supe or the AOG.

[452]  I feel that we, the alum , should help just as do those of civilian schools. Let the "Supe" budget for and handle Govt, money and let AOG raise and control ours.

[453]  I feel that we, the alum , should help just as do those of civilian schools. Let the "Supe" budget for and handle Govt, money and let AOG raise and control ours.

[454]  I do think there should be a distinction in the activities, but I'm not sure of the exact nature of the current setup.

[455]  I know little of, and therefore am concerned about, the governance of the WPF.

[456]  Fund raising seems to becoming the primary mission of AOG. This may be necessary from what the Supe says, but the debate should go on. By taking an aggressive approach we may set precedents in the areas of non-appropriated funds versus appropriated funds that future generations of leadership may live to regret. It may even call into question the need for a military academy as we know it. We should continue to proceed very cautiously in this area

[457]  AOG should support the Supe's Fund, but the impression is now given that the AOG's main function is to raise money.

[458]  Can thereby focus more on the other 1997-1999 goals stated in the mission/purpose, as well as, the services it offers.

[459]  If there is ambiguity ( and there must be from the comments in the Assembly alone) then clearly communicate the differences and who controls what and why--this is a no brainer folks--easy to fix if you want to get it fixed--complicated if the old guard and foot draggers control the issue.

[460]

[461]  a. Development ("fund-raising") for USMA is a USMA funtion and should be done by USMA. Development is a difficult, demanding task, and should be done by experienced professionals. USMA has lost stature by transferring the critical organic function of development to AOG; AOG has lost stature by becoming a captive of USMA in accepting the development function. As a result, AOG is moving away from its major function of service to its membership, and since it cannot do the entire development function, USMA is missing a major element in its organization.

[462]  a. Development ("fund-raising") for USMA is a USMA funtion and should be done by USMA. Development is a difficult, demanding task, and should be done by experienced professionals. USMA has lost stature by transferring the critical organic function of development to AOG; AOG has lost stature by becoming a captive of USMA in accepting the development function. As a result, AOG is moving away from its major function of service to its membership, and since it cannot do the entire development function, USMA is missing a major element in its organization.

[463]  I believe USMA should be publicly funded-----period. AAA should finance USMA varsity athletics, supporting self-supporting sports first.

[464]  separation gives USMA two power bases AOG should be/would be broader and more flexible and powerful instead of a military retiree operation.

[465]  Seems like the only time I am contacted thru the mail, it is for contributions to the fund. The bulk of any collected funds should go to lobbying the congress to protect the Academy from further cuts and changes to graduates' RA status, not for more statues and walkways and grounds beautification. Let the taxpayers do that by funding the installation services at USMA.

[466]  The repeated emphasis upon fund raising is repulsive to me. I do not believe that fund-raising should be the dominant function of AOG, as it appears to be at present.

[467]  I am somewhat uneasy with the direction that funding for the Academy seems to be taking. The more it is shifted to the AOG the less it will be recognized as a national undertaking. Items essential for West Point's mission should not be funded thru the AOG, and what is considered "essential" seems to be getting blurred.

[468]  Inclined to answer no, but could use more information. Basically, however, I do not believe that the AOG should be involved in fund raising for activities that support USMA.

[469]  With the Fund in the AOG, solicitation of funds results in overkill in AOG publications. A separate Fund solicitation would remove the perception that the AOG only talks about money.

[470]  I am ambivalent about fund raising. USMA is not another college and if the nation doesn't want to fully support it, maybe they should try doing w/o it. On the other hand, i know the government, if money comes in from other sources, they'll cut back their contribution. Finally, I am suspicious of frills. It is important to win football games but if we can't recruit because we don't have an up to date weight training room, we don't need those kinds of officers.

[471]  I'm confused; I look at them as redundant efforts; I don't what the differences are.

[472]  What specifically are the funds requested or donated to be used for??????