[QUOTE=leadline;107509]USMMA-AAF is an Academy Affiliate: The Alumni Association and Foundation’s presence on board the Academy in space provided by the government is validated in a 1980 MARAD legal opinion. Further, we are recognized as the sole Alumni organization and the principal Academy fundraising organization in a 2004 agreement with the Academy.
The Government Accountability Office, in its 2009/2012 landmark and definitive analysis of the financial dealings, contracts and agreements of the Academy (whose recommendations are being closely monitored and enforced by Congress), unequivocally defined the AAF as an “affiliate” of the Academy; and found nothing improper with respect to the Foundation being provided space on board the Academy without cost, the so-called “preferential treatment” Admiral Helis refers to. We are, in fact, included on the Academy’s organizational chart drawn up by the GAO in its report. In addition, the GAO particularly recognizes the significant financial contribution of the AAF to the Academy.
Where this situation began: Our previous high expectations of a positive, mutually beneficial relationship with the new Superintendent were shattered as a result of a meeting and letter initiated by Admiral Helis on November 30, 2012 with our Board Chairman and our AAF President.
In response to a request prior to the meeting for an agenda and the reason for the planned participation of the Academy’s attorney, since the AAF had not planned on having legal representation, Admiral Helis wrote “We would like to discuss improving the relationship between the Academy and the USMMAAAF to ensure that we are working together to support the continued success of the Academy”.
Instead, Admiral Helis, accompanied by his attorney, presented a letter containing numerous provisions, all of which required that the AAF surrender legal rights existing under several agreements.
That the new Superintendent would take such an unprecedented step, misrepresenting the purpose of the meeting, allowing an attorney by his side, indicating no AAF attorney need be present, and presenting a document which by its very nature was attempting to negate existing legal agreements negotiated by previous leadership in good faith was very telling of the actions we have since seen that meeting from the Superintendent’s office.
Since that time, we have been working quietly and cautiously to avert the present situation.
Attempt to Rescind the 2004 Academy-AAF Agreement and an unsigned attachment: In his November 30th letter, Admiral Helis stated that he was rescinding the 2004 agreement (noted previously) which defines the role of the Foundation as the principal fundraising agency for the Academy and the sole alumni organization representing its graduates. The agreement also binds the Academy and the Foundation “to cooperate fully with one another for the benefit of the USMMA and its Midshipmen, and to assist each other in fulfilling their respective charitable purposes.”
As part of this rescission, Admiral Helis produced what appeared to be an earlier 2008 rescission letter from the then Superintendent, addressed to the then Foundation COO. However, this document was not only unsigned, it was dated before either of them became employed by the Academy and the AAF respectively.
The “Non-Lease”: The lease proffered by Admiral Helis was never signed and is becoming a moot point as eviction appears imminent. However, the context around its content is worth repeating. As fiduciaries for our donor’s money, we could not sign an agreement that gave Admiral Helis the right to terminate the lease unilaterally, without cause, giving only 10 days notice of eviction, at a rate of $140,000/mo. Based on Admiral Helis’ other actions described above, we are unfortunately left to conclude that, like the current April 30th eviction date, this usury rental rate was not an error. Because he would not negotiate off that position, the $140,000 rent/month did not change.
Further, Admiral Helis’ statement that “The Academy will not agree to a lease with the AAF that removes federal property from its control” adds confusion to this issue, as that is the exact nature of a lease, the transfer of control from owner to tenant. We are not a concessionaire or other organization of inconsequence to the school, we are an affiliate of the Academy and have been for over sixty years.
While the rent issue has less significance than the eviction issue, it is relevant in the context of what has transpired over the past several months and how the AAF has been treated by the Superintendent. The AAF asked for, and the Superintendent refused to provide, the rents charged other entities on the campus, for example, the Ships Store, etc. How can we evaluate the rent for Babson without knowing what rent other entities pay? While refusing to provide that information, what we do know is that the contract offered for Melville Hall (a larger, much nicer space than Babson) provided for an annual payment in lieu of rent of only approx. $16,000. We were being asked to pay, per the lease, $1.7 million and per the Superintendent’s then updated response, $140,000 per year. Either amount is so far above what is being asked for Melville Hall to be shocking and apparently meant to be punitive to the AAF.
Had the Superintendent negotiated in good faith, all of this could have been avoided.[/QUOTE]
Why are they focusing on “Admiral” Helis who is an obvious patsy for Matsuda who is an Obvious Patsy for LaHood?
If I was in charge of the alumni association I would marginalize and ignore Helis then aim the full arsenal of my guns at Matsuda!