Box 1, Folder 35 – HP Management
January 17, 1989, – Perspectives on HP, Annual HP General Managers’ Meeting, Pebble Beach, CA
1/17/89, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s remarks at the conclusion of this three day meeting
Packard says he has been “very impressed with the specific plans and programs that have been presented here….I have also been very encouraged by the enthusiasm and the optimism that have been expressed ….”
He adds, however, that he does have “a little concern that our company is developing some of the characteristics of a bureaucracy. I see quite a bit of evidence in our organization,” he says,” of topside people telling all of you how to do your job. Perhaps you do not need all the advice you are receiving….I hate to see these signs of bureaucracy developing in our company.
“Another characteristic of bureaucracy is that people begin to believe in their own propaganda. I see a little bit of that going on here, but all in all I am very encouraged about the progress.”
Moving into his main speech Packard says that he wants “to talk to you about a broad and an important subject. I will begin with some observations about what I think is going on in the world today. I want to point out how our company is eminently involved in these worldwide trends. To do this I will go back and outline very briefly what has happened during the 20th century.”
He reminds everyone that the 20th century has been dominated by two major wars – and the time since World War II dominated by the Cold War confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States. He says “there were times when we were very close to an all-out nuclear war, but fortunately reason prevailed.”
Packard feels that “the leaders of both the United States and the Soviet Union…clearly realize that any major nuclear exchange would destroy a large part of the industrial world of both sides and a large portion of the people and resources of the countries of the civilized world.” As a result he sees “virtually no probability” of worldwide nuclear war.
Packard does see major changes going on around the world – developing conservatism in China, Gorbachev trying to make changes in the Soviet Union; and he sees these changes, not as the result of leadership on the part of anyone, but part of “an underlying development that is extremely important.”
“What is happening on a worldwide basis,: he says, “is that communism has not been able to deliver what it promised to the people of those countries where it has been established, and it has not been a threat to the free enterprise market economy that it promised to be.
“People all around the world who have been living under communism are finally coming to realize this fact, and they want a change.” Packard sees two reasons why the change in China is coming about more rapidly than in the Soviet Union. “The first is that communism had not been in place in the People’s Republic of China for as long a period of time. Secondly, the Chinese people are basically, I think, more independent and entrepreneurial in their spirit.”
Packard points to many countries on the Western border of the Pacific Ocean –Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong – “which have made a commitment to a free-enterprise economy,” and says the message is clear.
“Now here is the United States, we have had President Reagan with a conservative philosophy that has made rather substantial changes during the past years and, in England, Margaret Thatcher. So in my humble opinion I think what we are seeing is a watershed change in the world – a change that is going to make the 21st century different and in many ways better than the 20th century.”
Packard says he doesn’t wish to imply that there will be no conflict in the world. “People have been fighting with each other from the beginning of recorded history and probably for a long time before that. Today we see in the Middle East the same people fighting with each other, and for essentially the same causes, who were fighting each other 2,000 years ago.
“I am sure that there will be continuing conflict and terrorism which will be difficult to deal with. I think that this simply says that human nature has not changed in any significant way, and it is not likely to change. But, I think that the major change that has come about is that we’re not likely to have another war of world dimensions, and this will then provide an environment of many more opportunities in the next century.
“Now I think it is very important to recognize that our company has had a major influence on these very important trends that I have outlined for you. In the first place, the very technology that we have been involved with has given everyone in the world a better understanding about what everyone else is doing, what they are thinking, what they hope for, and how they see their future.
“In addition, our company has clearly been a visible symbol of opportunity in a free-enterprise economy. You may or may not know that President Reagan cited the example of Hewlett-Packard Company before a group of students in Moscow. He emphasized that this could not have been done under communism. Certainly our example as a successful company, doing what we have been doing, has been a major factor in influencing the thinking of many people all over the world.
Packard looks upon these changes in world outlook as representing a “watershed change,” – one that “gives us a larger responsibility as a company. It goes beyond doing the things that we have talked about in this meeting to meet our short-term objectives, our quotas, and so forth. I think it really implies that our company has a responsibility to stand tall and play it straight as an outstanding leader in every way and in every society where we participate.”
“I think that we’re going to have a more extensive responsibility to not only act like a good citizen, but in every sense to be a real citizen, and to act like we are really a part of that country. I think we’re well structured to do this and I am sure that those of you who are involved in our international operations understand this responsibility. We all, of course, have to take advantage of the availability of low-cost labor if we’re going to be competitive with other international companies where we operate.
“But I think we must do more, as we’ve been trying to do in Brazil and Mexico and in many of the other countries where we operate. That is to say that we must try to make a contribution to the development of their economy in ways that we are able to do so. I think that’s going to be a very desirable policy to continue.”
Packard talks a bit about two areas that are not yet important markets for HP – China and the Soviet Union. He says he thinks we have a good start in China. It’s going to take a long time before China develops into an important market for us, but it clearly will be a very important market some day. I think our continuing presence there must be an essential part of our overall plan for the future.
“As you know, we were involved to some extent in the Soviet Union, and I think it is going to be desirable for us to get back there again, sooner or later. I don’t see any great urgency in doing this, because it is not clear yet how firmly the Gorbachev leadership is established and whether or not it is going to continue without a setback. As it becomes clearer, as I think it will, that these trends are for real and are going to be permanent, then it will be important for us to establish a presence in the Soviet Union because that is potentially a large market. We are going to have to enter that market cautiously and carefully and not expect it to be one of great value in a short period of time.
“In summary, I think we’re indeed facing a watershed change around the world, and I think this is a very optimistic situation for our company. I think we’re at the place, at the end of our first 50 years, that we clearly have a much larger and a much more important challenge and a much more important opportunity than Bill and I had at the beginning 50 years ago. Now it’s important for us to build on our strengths and I sense that you all recognize this from the presentations that you’ve made.
Packard switches form the world scene to share some observations on HP operations. “It is important to recognize that we don’t bat a thousand and we have some weaknesses that we need to continually address and shore up. I think a very good job has been done in the past 10 years to greatly strengthen our marketing capability and to get ahead of the power curve in computers and in data products capability. I think we’re now at the point where we might work toward a little better balance among technology, marketing and manufacturing. I sense that some of us felt that way from the reports that you have made. I think that’s a balance that should be maintained and preserved and emphasized in the future.
“It’s clear from the financial reports over the last 10 years that our operating profit has gone down. In 1979 it was 18%; it’s gone down to 11% ten years later in 1988. This is clearly an area where we have not done as well as we should have. I was very pleased to see that Dean Morton reported that the goal for the computer business next year was to increase the operating profit by 50%. That looked to me like a big challenge until I realized that to go from 1% to 1-1/2 % is a lot easier than to go from 10% to 15%. In any case, good luck. You’re going in the right direction.
“Now it seemed to me very clear in the reports that were presented that those in technology have had the best performance. Medical products, analytical products, electronic measuring products – they have dominant market positions because they have continued to maintain technological leadership. They have combined this with good marketing capability and good overall management capability.
“I think the Component activity deserves special mention because here clearly we have a very important lead in technology in the light-emitting diode field. I’d like to remind you that this capability is something we started in the mid 1960’s and a lot of people thought it would not come to anything. We insisted that it be continued, and I think that our position in light-emitting diodes is probably as strong as anyone in the country, perhaps as anyone in the world, simply because we did some basic research very early on. We continued that research and we are out in front because of our fundamental technology. We can now do some things first and some things better than anyone else.
“We had a good start in fiber optics, but I’ve come to realize that we’ve fallen behind in that area. I started a research foundation here in the Monterey Bay to explore the depths of the Monterey Canyons with unmanned, remotely operated vehicles, and we wanted to control these vehicles through light fibbers and to bring back the imaging information through light fibers. I’d hoped that we’d be able to find Hewlett-Packard products to do all of these things, and it turned out that we could not.
I think that this is an area which has immense potential – not only in those things that have been talked about, communications in general, communication among computers and localized situations, but there are some other areas of great potential. For example, in the future, aircraft design is going to make wide use of composite materials. One thing I’m sure that’s going to develop is that fiber-optics will be interwoven through those composite materials so that they will be able to monitor the strength and characteristics of those materials, detect any changes and provide a warning as to when important changes occur. Fiber optics have a tremendous potential in the measurement business. I think here is a field where we could well devote some more basic research and development.”
Packard comments on the Spectrum program and says it seems to have been a “great success and is going to be a very important pillar of strength in our growth for the future. Now in this field, as you all know very well, hard work and continuing strong effort in research and development will be needed in the computer field, both in hardware and software. What I’m suggesting is that we might look toward a little better balance than we’ve had in this past 10 years.”
In the area of personnel programs Packard says that he and Bill have “received an increasing number of letters from employees concerned about how they have been treated. A good many of these letters are the result of lack of good communications….
“There are still some cases where I think we should have given a little more attention to the situation of the individual employee. It seems to me that the one simple requirement of the HP way is just the Golden Rule. Every employee should do unto every other employee as he would have done unto him. I suggest you work on the Golden Rule principle wherever you deal with a personnel situation. Put yourself in the other fellows shoes and think about what should be done. I think that’s probably the best test of all and you ought to apply that test in whatever you’re doing.
“I think that there were some cases in these letters from employees that indicated we may have put a little too much effort on the bottom line. Looking at the fact that we had in excess of $800 million of profit after taxes last year, a few dollars more spent in preserving the HP way might have been a very good long-term investment for the company.
“In summary, I again want to say that I’m very well impressed with what I’ve heard at this meeting, and I want to congratulate you all on a job well done during these last 10 years. I want to encourage you to keep the investment in basic research and development up, keep the investment in preserving the HP Way, building teamwork, and in making a contribution in whatever we do. Increasing the bottom line with tax benefits, stock buybacks, or other financial shenanigan[s] really does no credit to the traditions of our company.
We built this company on the basis of making a contribution, and profit is the best measure of the contribution that we make. I think if we continue our dedication to those principles that have carried us through these first 50 years, we will be assured of our continuing success over the next 50 years. I’m sure I speak for Bill as well as myself, in saying we are very very proud of what you’re doing and we expect you to do an even better job in the future.”
1/17/89, Copy of earlier draft of Packard’s remarks with many handwritten additions and changes by Packard
1/15/89, Copy of typed program for the conference
1/15/89, HP memorandum from Tom Uhlman to all Attendees giving the program and also a sheet to use in evaluating each presenter.
Box 5, Folder 33A – General Speeches
January 6, 1989, Remarks at the David and Lucile Packard Center for the Future of Children, Location not given, probably Palo Alto, CA
1/6/89, Copy of typewritten speech
“Over the centuries in nearly every society in the world mothers and fathers have given the highest priority to the welfare of their children. They have often even considered the survival of their children ahead of their own survival. The treatment of children has however varied greatly over long periods of time in different countries. The way children have been dealt with in any society has been determined to a large extent by the characteristics of the society. For example, the regimentation of the people which is necessary for the survival of a socialist state requires the regimentation of children in their formative years.
“It is clear that children’s lives are strongly influenced by their early environments, the first six or seven years, and thus this period is of great importance to both the future of the individual child and the future of the society to which that child will spend his or her life.
“Although the population of the United States has always been diverse in its origins and its history is distinguished by assimilation of a series of migrations of different peoples, we are currently in a period of unprecedented social, ethnic and racial diversity. This situation has caused unique and critical problems for children in our society. The concept of equal opportunity regardless of race, color, or religion is the cornerstone of our national heritage, admired and envied by people all over the world. This concept, however, is not a reality for many children and their families.
“Over the past half century, Black and Native Americans in this country have become recognized as major exceptions in the establishment of equality of opportunity for all. Slavery in the South, a violation of the concept of equality, was abolished by the Civil War but has been an aftermath which is still with us today. By the middle of the twentieth century the proportion of Black people in the United States had become significant in respect to the total population and it had become obvious they did not yet have equality of opportunity. Events during the 1960s focused the attention of both the Federal Government and many responsible people in the private sector on this problem. Equal opportunity was mandated by law, measured and enforced by quotas in educational institutions and in employment. In spite of vast expenditures of money and human effort, the beneficial effect of many of these programs has been hard to document. Many individuals and groups have made impressive progress, but we are still far away from achieving the goal of equal opportunity for all citizens of the United States.
“Our Foundation has been trying to do its share in improving the opportunities for people in these minorities. We have provided support for special educational activities and other activities to help minority people at both the local and the national level. After a number of years of experience working in this field, we have come to the conclusion that we, along with many other people, have generally overlooked an opportunity that could be the most important of all in improving the participation of these minority people in the privileges and benefits of our free society. We believe it has now become quite clear that equality can not be mandated by law without endangering the freedom we want to preserve. Remedial education at the high school or college level has not worked as well as many had hoped and the granting of diplomas or degrees that are not earned is often a disservice to those we are trying to help.
“We have concluded that our Foundation might make a much more effective contribution to the solution of this important problem by doing what can be done to help children have a more equal opportunity during their early, most formative years. We are encouraged to notice that other people who have been working in this area have come to similar conclusions.
“The David and Lucile Packard Foundation is establishing this new Center for the Future of Children to deal with this problem in two major dimensions, Children’s Health, and Children’s Educational and Motivational Environment.
“Because of recent developments in biological science many childhood disabilities and diseases which in the past resulted in lifetime disabilities can now be successfully treated. The Lucile Salter Packard Childrens Hospital at Stanford will be a World Class facility for the treatment of childhood diseases. This new Center For The Future of Children will have a close working relationship with the Childrens Hospital at Stanford, and will endeavor to establish cooperation with other Childrens Hospitals in the country. The Center will have the responsibility to bring the latest and best information on the treatment of childhood disabilities and diseases to the attention of influential people in both the public and the private sector. The Center will also have the responsibility to advise our Foundation as well as other interested parties on research that should be funded in this field, and may initiate or coordinate multi-institutional studies.
“This new Center will also have the responsibility to do what can be done to improve the educational, and motivational environment for children during their early, formative years. This will involve investigating what is already being done, with special attention to those programs that have been successful, and the Center may also selectively encourage new initiatives. We will want the center to bring the latest and best information in this area to the attention of influential people in both the public and private sector, and to provide advice on research and Public Policy in this field.
“This new Center will have a very big and important job to do. It will require the better part of the first year to study the situation in detail and to devdelop a specific plan of action. The Foundation is allocating one billion dollars for the first year’s work and will increase the funding to five million dollars per year or more to implement the plans as they are developed.
“As one of the founders, and as the Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation, I expect this new Center for the Future of Children to become one of the Foundation’s most important long range programs. I am most pleased to announce that Dr. Richard Behrman has accepted the appointment as Executive Director of the Center. He has been an outstanding leader in this field and is as well qualified as anyone in the entire country to provide strong leadership for this new endeavor.
Box 5, Folder 33A – General Speeches
March 21, 1989, Presentation of Lifetime Achievement Award to The Honorable Eliot Richardson, The International Day for the Elimination of Racism, Palo Alto, CA
3/21/89, Copy of typewritten text of speech
After greeting members of the audience, Packard says, “I consider it a great honor, and a great pleasure to be with you tonight to present the Lifetime Achievement Award to Eliot Richardson.
Packard says he first met Richardson in January, 1969, at the beginning of the Nixon Administration. Packard was Undersecretary of Defense and Richardson was the Undersecretary of State. “We spent considerable time,” Packard says, “working together that year as members of the Undersecretaries Committee preparing position papers for the National Security Council. Henry Kissinger, President Nixon’s National Security Advisor, in effect directed the work of this group and there were some very important issues to consider. We were still engaged in Viet Nam and that had a high priority in our work. President Nixon wanted to reduce our expenditures on defense in order to spend more on domestic programs. Work on arms control had a high priority, problems of the Middle East were high on the agenda. All in all, Eliot and I and the rest of the Undersecretaries team had a great many important and interesting things to work on in 1969.
“I considered Eliot to be a very impressive and a very capable gentleman when I met him and worked with him back in 1969. I assure you my high regard for him has been strengthened by everything I have seen him do in the intervening twenty years.”
Packard lists the many positions Richardson has held since his graduation from Harvard in 1947 – starting with a position as Law Clerk for Judge Learned Hand in New York City, on to several positions with the State of Massachusetts, until he came to Washington in January 1969. Packard continues with Richardson’s resume telling how he left the State Department to become Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in June 1970, was appointed Secretary of Defense in January, 1973, and then Attorney General in May of 1973.
“You may recall,” Packard says, “that was in the midst of the Watergate scandal, and his performance as our Attorney General represented a commitment to the highest level of integrity at a time when integrity was in very short supply in our nation’s capitol.”
Packard says Richardson became Ambassador to the Court of St. James in early 1975, and from 1977 to 1980 was Special Representative of the President to the Law of the Sea Conference. “During the last few years,” he says, “Eliot has continued a wide range of activities. He is the Senior Resident Partner in the Washington office of Milbank, Tween, Hadley and McCoy. As you probably know, he is now the Chairman of the United Nations Association of the United States of America. He has been involved in a number of professional associations, both in his law profession and in important areas of public policy. He has received numerous awards and honorary degrees, far too many for me to enumerate tonight.
“As you can judge from what I have said, Eliot’s achievements have been outstanding in every sense of the word. What has particularly impressed me is that everything he has done in this very full lifetime of activity has been done with an absolute commitment to integrity. He has also had an unusual commitment to the welfare of this country and to the improvement of the quality of life for disadvantaged people everywhere. For example, in his work on the Law of the Sea he had an unusual interest in the welfare of the poor and developing nations of the world. Not the vested interests of the rich and powerful nations. I am sure his desire to improve the opportunities for people who need help wherever they may be was a strong motivation for him to accept the chairmanship of the United Nations Association.
“For these and many other reasons, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to present this award for a Lifetime of Achievement to the Honorable Eliot Richardson here in San Francisco on this International Day for the Elimination of Racism.”
Box 5, Folder 34 – General Speeches
April 30, 1989, Philanthropy in America, Greater Santa Cruz County Community Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA
4/30/89, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech
Packard congratulates the Greater Santa Cruz County Community Foundation members on the “outstanding job that has been done in the six years since the Foundation was established in 1983. By reaching your goal of a $3,000,000 endowment you now have a firm base which will assure that this Foundation will be a permanent asset in your community.
He tells of the origin of the words ‘charity’ and ‘philanthropy,’ saying they mean the same thing – ‘philanthropy’ coming from the Greek word that means ‘lover of mankind,’ and ‘charity’ coming from the Latin word meaning ‘love.’ So, “both mean brotherly love,” he says.
Packard looked in the encyclopedia he says and found that in the Renaissance merchants created foundations for educational and local charitable purposes. He says he learned “…that although a few charitable foundations [were] established in the United States in the 19th century, most notably the Smithsonian Institution in 1846, the 20th century has been a time of prolific growth of charitable foundations in the United States….”
Packard says churches were “…the main charitable institution in the early settlements in North America, establishing hospitals, schools and universities, as well as help for the poor.
Packard recalls the 1930s in his home town of Pueblo, Colorado. He says, “No one in our neighborhood was wealthy, but there were poor families with virtually no income. Yet I can recall of no one actually starving or without shelter or clothing. Those who were fortunate enough to have the means to support their own families shared it willingly and voluntarily with those who could not provide food, clothing and shelter for themselves. This personal experience left a lasting impression with me of the importance of personal involvement at the local level in charitable activity.”
When Packard came to California in 1930 he says he found “The major cities in California far ahead of my home town in charity as well as many other things….Community foundations were established early in California and have become very important in recent years. I am sure this Foundation will become a very important endeavor in your county in the years ahead”
Packard says that “Religion has had the highest priority over the centuries, and religion still receives the largest amount of charitable support today. The care of the ill, hospitals and medical activity to relieve suffering and to save people from dying has also, historically had a high priority and receives the next to the highest amount of charitable support today. This, as has been noted by others, indicates that above everything else people want to get to Heaven when they die, but also they want to put it off as long as possible. Now I suppose that is not a very charitable view of charity, but the fact is that a great deal of charity involves a significant amount of self interest, and I see nothing wrong with that as long as it does not provide a direct benefit to the giver.”
“Since the 1960’s there has been a tremendous increase in Federal outlays for a wide range of activities intended to improve the quality of life in our country. Direct benefit payments for individuals for the fiscal year 1989 are expected to take 43% of the federal budget, well over 400 billions of dollars. This compares with national defense at 27%, or just under 300 billions of dollars. These domestic payments include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, Civil Service retirement, veterans pensions, temporary employment assistance, Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, public housing, and child nutrition. In addition, there are dozens of other Federal programs in the realm of public charity; a National Endowment for the Arts and for the Humanities, on and on ad-infinitum. As one looks at the magnitude and breadth of this public charity program in the United States one should wonder what is left for private charity. Yet private charity has been increasing about as rapidly as public charity.”
Packard says there are several reasons why there continues to be an important role for private charity from individuals and corporations. “Probably the most important reason,” he says, “ is that these Federal programs are not doing what they are intended to do and this is quite obvious to people at the local level. Your Foundation funds programs in the arts, community services, education, help for seniors, help for youth, health and in other areas that receive substantial Federal money. The level of your support is not large but the good that you do is very substantial. You know from personal knowledge where the money will be most useful, and the involvement of people who care, your members, your staff and your donors is often as important as the money you provide.
“The second reason why people who are concerned want to become involved on a personal basis is because they are very troubled about the waste and mismanagement of the Federal programs. These are to a large extent ‘pork barrels’ for the members of the Congress. They are riddled with red-tape, and the funds are appropriated not in accordance with the real needs but all too often on the basis of the most effective lobbies. And as I am sure you know far too often this results in large sums of money being placed where it will in effect buy votes.”
Packard says he has seen some of these things from within the Federal Government, “and I have been involved with a number of charitable activities in the private sector. From my personal experience I feel very strongly that community foundations such as yours play a very important role in improving the quality of life in our country even though their finds are usually small in relation to federal grants.
“I have noted that your Foundation receives contributions from corporations. Charitable contributions by corporations in the United States is a recent, but very important development. Before 1950 it had not been clearly established that a business corporation had the authority to make a charitable gift. I can recall discussions among groups of corporate leaders in the 1940’s that questioned whether they had any responsibility beyond that to their shareholders. Many thought labor was merely a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market, and that charity had no place in corporate affairs. There was an important change in corporate thinking after World War II, and some of the enlightened leaders began to make charitable contributions to universities and other private institutions. Such contributions were challenged in a legal action; A. P. Smith Mfg.. Company vs. Barlow, that went to the Supreme Court. In the year 1953 the Supreme Court decided that ‘For profit corporations’ did have the authority to make charitable gifts when the gift would advance the general interests of the corporation and its shareholders. The tax laws were changed to allow the deductions of charitable contributions up to 5% of profit before taxes. During the following years , corporations developed a rationale for charitable contributions but very few made contributions up to the 5% limit. About 1% of profits before taxes was the average for a number of years. The general rationale was established on the theory that the success of a corporation was influenced by the social environment in which it operated and that theory is widely accepted today. The quality of education in both the local community and in the nation came to be considered important by corporate management, and this will become even more important as we move further into an economy based on knowledge rather than raw materials, energy supply and transportation. Corporate charity has now become legitimate for essentially everything that will improve the quality of life in the community, and is an important source of support for your Foundation.”
“There is another recent development that I want to bring to your attention. That is the cooperation between the public sector and the private sector in charitable activity. The Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts in Washington D. C., which is operated by a private foundation with substantial funding from the National Park Service is a good example. There are other examples, some here in the local area, of co-operative endeavors between the private sector and the public sector. In looking over the activities you are already supporting it appears that some of them are also supported by public agencies. I believe cooperative endeavors have much to commend them, and I encourage you to continue discussions with officials in the cities and county where you operate. I am sure that you can develop cooperation that will be mutually beneficial.”
Packard says he has been troubled by increasing hostility toward private charity in some agencies of our state government in the last few years. The State Board of Equalization proposed to apply a property tax on the Monterey Bay Aquarium because we have a bookstore and gift shop and a restaurant for our visitors that might be competitive with some of the private enterprises in the area. They have also denied a property tax exemption for the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute which is doing some very important and exciting research with remote, unmanned, underwater operating vehicles. This institute is chartered to explore the deep waters of the Monterey Bay with these ROVs. thousands of feet below the surface. This equipment is now operating every day, taking color video pictures nearly 2000 feet below the surface, and in a year or so they will be able to go down to 10,000 feet. The scientists of MBARI have already observed marine life at these depths that has never been observed before. I am convinced that with the technical leadership already established the Monterey Bay will become one of the worlds outstanding centers of ocean science in the years ahead. I am very proud of The Monterey Bay Aquarium and the associated research institute. It is very discouraging to have important state officials opposing what our family foundation has been doing in this area and if this attitude can not be corrected it will severely limit what we will want to do in the future.
“It seems to me it would be much better public policy for the State Government to encourage private charity of this kind. We are working to try to get these issues straightened out in Sacramento and some of the members of the State Legislature from this area have been helpful, but the issues are not yet resolved.
“This adverse attitude at the State level so far does not affect community foundations such as yours, but it does not bode well for the kind of cooperation I think should exist between the private sector and the public sector.
“I will conclude by simply saying to all of you who are involved in the Greater Santa Cruz Community Foundation, congratulations on a job well done. Keep up the good work!”
No other papers are in this folder
Box 5, Folder 35 – General Speeches
August 28, 1989, Welcoming Remarks to The Oceanography Society at their inaugural meeting, Monterey, CA
“Welcome to the Monterey Bay. I know I am speaking for all of the people in the Monterey Bay area who are interested in ocean science when I tell you how greatly honored and pleased we are to have the inaugural meeting of the Oceanographic Society here this week. This event has a rather special personal significance for me, because, over the past ten years or so I have become addicted to the vision that within the next few years the Monterey Bay will become one of the major world class centers for Ocean Science. I base this vision on my realization that the Oceans of the world are one of the major remaining frontiers of opportunity.
“One of my friends recently described a frontier in this way. He said ‘It’s that place in American mythology where things are wild and unknown, where mysteries and wonders await discovery.’ The oceans of the world certainly qualify as a remaining frontier in that romantic description. They qualify as an important frontier in a more pragmatic way, there is much we do not yet know about the oceans of our world, thus there is new scientific knowledge to be discovered; the oceans of the world contain major resources of economic value, the potential of which has by no means been fully realized, thus there are important economic benefits to be developed. In my humble opinion the oceans of the world are a more important frontier for research that will bring more tangible benefits to the world than space, or high energy physics, or other areas that have received a high level of public interest and therefore political support. It is about time someone gave ocean science more attention.
I am only a novice and a newcomer to this field, and I realize that speaking to this distinguished audience about the importance of ocean science is simply preaching to the choir, but even so I want to take a few minutes to tell you about the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, MBARI, because they are the reason for my interest and involvement in ocean science.
A little over ten years ago the members of our family foundation decided that we should develop some worthy programs of our own instead of just responding to the many requests to provide funds for worthy projects that were being presented to us for consideration. One of the first ideas we considered was the possibility of building an aquarium on the site of the old Hovden cannery next to the Hopkins Marine Station here on the Monterey Bay. Our first step was to ask SRI [Stanford Research Institute] for a feasibility study because I wanted to be sure such an aquarium would be of interest and value to the people who lived here or who visited this area. I decided that the only really viable measure of the value of an aquarium here would be whether the visitors would be willing to pay for the cost of operation through admission fees, gift shop and bookstore purchases and the use of the facilities for special events. In other words could we build an aquarium that would be self supporting over the long term.
“The SRI report was positive, an aquarium here would be of great interest to a large audience of residents and visitors, it could be self supporting, and it might cost $10 million. Armed with this advice we established the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation, selected a group of scientific advisors, hired a firm as architects ands went to work. We did not establish a firm budget, but of course we had the $10 million SRI estimate in mind. This soon became a family project including my wife, Lucile, two daughters, Nancy and Julie, and a son in law Robin Burnett. There were several other people who had a major influence in our decision to go ahead, Steve Webster, who is now the director of the educational program at the aquarium and Chuck Baxter who is now on the scientific staff at MBARI. We were very fortunate that Dave Powell agreed to join with us as we began work on o1ur plans because he helped in the design of the water system, the display tanks, and all of the details necessary to provide the best possible environment for the specimens we planned to display.
“We established some important guidelines at the beginning. We decided
the aquarium should concentrate on the natural history of the Monterey bay, it should be educational as well as enjoyable, and it should have a large participation from the local community.
“We knew practically nothing about aquariums, but we visited nearly all of the aquariums in the United States and several in other parts of the world, including the orient. I soon realized that we had the unique opportunity to design and build one of the best aquariums inn the world but to do that everything must be done in the best way possible. I concluded that we should do as much of the work as possible ourselves. For example we set up a shop across the way in sand city to make fiberglass reinforced tanks, artificial rocks, and anything else we might want in fiberglass plastic. We could have contracted outside for this work but I thought we might want to do some things that had not been done before. The life size grey whale and her calf, the two life size killer whale models and our exhibit of plastic dolphin models would have been difficult to obtain from outside sources. I also bought equipment to make fiberglass reinforced cement panels. In looking at other aquariums it was obvious there were serious corrosion problems in using dry wall and other common construction materials around the exhibit tanks, and fiberglass reinforced cement appeared to be an ideal material. It was corrosion proof, fireproof, and should last forever. There were not many outside sources for this work.
“As we proceeded with the design we chose what we thought would be the best material for the construction and the best designs for the artificial habitats to house and display the specimens.
“This of course played havoc with the $10 million SRI estimate, the cost ended up at over four times that figure. As you might expect I have been chided by the comment that this was a larger cost over-run than I ever encountered at the Pentagon.
“This concentration on quality, I am pleased to report has really paid off. The aquarium will have been operation for five years this October. It looks just as good as the day it was opened, after nine billion visitors. It has not only paid its way but has built up a surplus adequate to finance a major expansion which is in the early stages of design
“In the course of planning and building the aquarium we realized that we should have some associated research. The most obvious was that which would help to improve the operation of the aquarium. We [could] have done some useful research at the Aquarium but not of major importance. Because of our research on sea otters the Aquarium is the only place that has been successful in raising stranded sea otter pups. Just last week we sent two from the oil spill area in Alaska to their new home at the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia. Although the research we have done at the Aquarium has contributed to its successful operation, we began to realize three or four years ago that the Monterey Bay could become a real world class center for Ocean Science. We decided this should not be a mission of the aquarium foundation but that a separate foundation should be established to do Ocean Science on an extensive and long term basis.
“That is the genesis of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. We wanted the aquarium to be closely associated because it would provide an excellent window for the general public to learn more about this exciting frontier. And this close association should make it possible to have exhibits at the aquarium which would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else.
“As we began the establishment of MBARI we realized it would be desirable to have good relationships with other organizations in the country that are involved in this field. We thought it was particularly important to work closely with those organizations here around the Monterey Bay. We have tried to do both. This meeting here this week is most encouraging for it is what we hoped would happen sooner or later.
“There were three areas of developing technology that I thought would make research in the deep waters of the oceans much more effective in the future. One was the progress that was being made in unmanned remote operating vehicles, ROVs. The second was the progress being made in instrumentation for chemical analysis. It is now possible to do chemical analysis with accuracy and sensitivity in the deep waters without having to bring samples to the surface. The third is the progress that is being made in computer science and communication. Deep water research involves immense amounts of data. I have the impression that much more time is being spent in collecting data than in looking at it and analyzing it. We believe that situation can be greatly improved.
“In establishing MBARI I gave a good deal of consideration to the management issues. I have been involved with the problems of Federally funded research for a number of years, and as I suspect most of you know it has become very inefficient. There are exceptions, the ONR has done a much better job over the years than others. I decided that our family foundation should provide the operating funds so the scientists and engineers at MBARI would not have to waste any of their time applying for grants and making excessive reports. We thought three million dollars a year would be adequate to get started, and in fact both Dr. Barber and Dr. Lee, our two key people agreed to join us at that budget level. After we got started we decided that three million dollars was not enough to do what we wanted to do and we have increased that level to five million dollars.
“By providing this funding without strings, except a bit of personal supervision by me, we established the foundation, had a nationwide search for talent, brought an outstanding group of scientists and engineers together, designed and acquired the first ROV and mother ship and had it operational, all in just over one year. We could not complete our facilities at Moss Landing as quickly because it has taken over a year to get the necessary permits. Those facilities will be completed this fall, about two and a half years from the time we started.
“As I am sure you all know progress in scientific research is highly dependent on the instrumentation and equipment available to the scientists doing the research. To deal with this problem more effectively we have established a management structure in which the scientists and engineers are working in parallel with each other, in personal contact on a daily basis. This arrangement greatly facilitates communication, eliminates reams of paper work and as I had hoped is working extremely well.
“I hope you have concluded from my remarks that I am very proud of what MBARI has done in a relatively short time. I hasten to add that I know we do not have all of the answers by any means as how to best explore this frontier of the deep oceans. I am sure we will benefit from the discussions over the next three days, for the wisdom and experience of you who are here from across the country far exceeds anything we have done so far. I hope the meeting starting here today will mark the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship among all of the organizations and people from all across the country who are challenged by the exciting frontier of the deep oceans.”
No other papers are in this folder
Box 5, Folder 36 – General Speeches
September 11, 1989, 1989 Interex HP Users Conference, San Francisco, CA
This speech was presented at a conference of HP computer customers. Packard spoke on September 11, with a welcoming address.
9/11/89, Copy of typewritten address by Packard
Packard thanks all “…for the great contribution you are making in partnership with us in this exciting era of technological progress.”
He says that he and Bill Hewlett realized very early on the importance of a close personal relationship with customers. He recalls that when they were still working in the garage in early 1939, “A manufacturers representative named Norman B. Neely called on them. He had heard about the audio oscillator, which was the only product we had at that time, and he said he could help us get to know the customers he dealt with, particularly in the Los Angeles area.”
They engaged Neely as their first sales representative and with his help “Bill and I became personally acquainted with the key people in nearly every organization doing work in audio frequency in the Los Angeles area.
Having decided they wanted to make a contribution with their products, not simply duplicate what other companies were doing, Packard says “…the only way we could do this was to find out what our customers needed so we could develop additional instruments that would help them do their job better.
“As we expanded our operations over the first two years, we signed up other sales representatives in the Midwest and on the East Coast, and with their help we became personally acquainted with many customers.
“It was this close personal association with our customers which began fifty years ago that enabled us to develop a successful family of instruments for audio frequency work of instruments for audio frequency work during the first few years. Throughout our first twenty years or so we broadened our product line to include nearly every type of general purpose electronic instrument.”
Packard says he “can not recall a single instrument that we developed and put into production during our first fifteen or twenty years without consulting closely with customers or potential customers. That is why nearly every new electronic instrument we developed and produced was successful.
“We also built a strong base of technology. This was essential to be able to create products ahead of the competition. Fortunately we realized that products with the best technology we could muster would be doomed to failure in the market if they did not help our customers do their job better.
Packard describes the market when they started as “much smaller and simpler. When Norm Neely called on us in 1939,” he says, “we had three employees, Bill Hewlett, a young man named Harvey Zeiber, and me. Norm had about ten. We were in business for ten years before we had over two hundred employees.
“As our company grew and expanded into new fields, it became more difficult to maintain the close relationship with our customers. As I look back there was a period, roughly between 1965 and 1975, when we were expanding very rapidly, entering the computer business, expanding our line of medical and analytical instrumentation, and marketing components. We were also rapidly expanding our international business.”
Packard says during this period their marketing activity became very complex and they began to recognize that they were not doing as well as they should be in their marketing activity.
These problems have been corrected, Packard feels, “and our marketing capability and our relationship with our customers are now back on the kind of a sound foundation that we had in our early years, and which is so necessary to assure our continuing success over the next fifty years.
Packard notes that “INTEREX has had a key role in helping HP establish a sound foundation for the future. It was fifteen years ago that you began to help us in this important endeavor….All of us in HP thank you.
“It was also about fifteen years ago that John Young and his outstanding team of associates at the head of our company began to address this problem of re-establishing a strong marketing capability which required the strengthening of our relationship with our customers. Ten years ago John Young became our Chief Executive Officer and Bill and I are very pleased with what John Young and his team have done to get our marketing activity back on the track.
Packard says he is proud of what HP has been able to do. “We have established and maintained a corporate culture that has brought financial success by endeavoring to provide real and meaningful benefits to our shareholders, our employees, our suppliers, the communities where we operate, and most important of all to our customers.
“We now have not only the opportunity, but the solemn obligation, to make the next fifty years even more successful than the first fifty years. To do this, we have to keep our marketing capability and the relationship with our customers strong. We need to develop and produce new products that make a real contribution, so that our customers can do their work better. We have to maintain a superior research and development program, supported by a manufacturing capability, that will enable us to manufacture our products with the highest quality and the lowest cost. We have everything in place to make the next fifty years even more successful than the past.
“We need your continuing enthusiastic involvement, and I hope you have an interesting and an enjoyable meeting discussing these issues at this 1989 INTEREX HP Users Conference.”
9/11/89, Copy of typewritten earlier draft of Packard’s comments
7/31/89, Letter to Packard’s secretary, Margaret Paull, from Suzanne Bellamy of HP television department, saying that they will be sending the meeting live to the Apollo Users Conference in New Orleans and to the Cupertino and Fort Collins HP sites. She invites Packard to a rehearsal. Summaries of the messages each of the key speakers is to put across are attached.
Undated, Copy of printed flyer announcing the conference
Undated, Copy of a letter to all Conference Attendees giving information on arrangements
8/24/89, Letter to Packard from Bart Coddington of HP attaching the program of events
9/12/89, HP Newsgram from HP Public Relations describing activities at the conference
Box 5, Folder 37 – General Speeches
September 13, 1989, James H. Doolittle Award, Hudson Institute, Washington D. C.
Packard was selected to be the inaugural recipient of the James H. Doolittle Award for Sustained Contribution to the National Security of the United States, from the Hudson Institute The award was presented at a luncheon during the Institute’s National Policy Day.
9/13/89, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech
Packard says he feels “greatly honored to receive this award in recognition of the great accomplishments of General James H. Doolittle. I also feel very humble in doing so, because I do not think there is anything I have been able to do in my lifetime that is in the same class as even one of General Doolittle’s many great accomplishments.
“I realize this award is for sustained contributions to the National Security of the United States. Service in our military establishment is where the men and women in our country make the important contributions to our National Security….General Doolittle’s entire professional career was a sustained contribution to our National Security, one of the most important of this entire century.
Packard describes Doolittle as an “outstanding military leader, and when not in the military “he seemed to be almost always involved in some activity that would contribute to our National Security.”
“General James Doolittle clearly has always been a brave man endowed with a venturesome spirit. His rigorous mind, taught him to learn as much as possible, and to be well prepared to deal with any contingency that might be encountered.
Saying that he has admired Jimmy Doolittle for many years Packard feels prompted to recount some of his accomplishments: his first cross-country flight in 1922, first successful blind landing, bombing raid over Tokyo in 1942, commanding role in World War II.
“After recalling his many accomplishments I sincerely believe that James Harold Doolittle was as well qualified as any man who lived in this century to conquer the mysteries of aviation, that great frontier which he chose to enter seventy two years ago. I also sincerely believe that people over the entire world should feel in debt to him for the great contribution he has made to all of us during his long and productive career.
“I want to compliment all of you in the Hudson Institute for creating the Doolittle Award, and express my sincere appreciation to you for my being chosen as the first recipient. After recalling his many accomplishments, I now realize what a great honor it is to be associated with General Jimmy Doolittle in this way. Thank you very much.”
9/13/89, Copy of typewritten sheet listing program for the award luncheon
9/13/89, Copy of printed program for the entire National Policy Day.
9/13/89, Photo copy of biography of General Doolittle
5/30/89. Letter to Packard from Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. of the Hudson Institute, telling him he had been selected as the first recipient of the Gen. James Doolittle Award
7/28/89, 7/28/89, Letter to Packard from Mitchell Daniels, Jr. sending a copy of the program for the day
8/16/89, Letter to Packard from Mitchell Daniels, Jr. sending a program for the luncheon and award presentation
8/29/89, Letter to Packard’s secretary, Margaret Paull, giving “some of our thinking here at Hudson Institute in creating the Doolittle Award….
Box 5, Folder 37A – General Speeches
October 24, 1989, YMCA Enlisted Personnel Military Awards Dinner, Monterey, CA
10/24/89, Photocopy of Packard’s speech, handwritten by himself on 47 notebook size pages.
In this speech Packard includes some retrospective cmments on the work done by the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense management. See speech dated March 26, 1986 for complete list of speeches covering work of the commission.
Packard begins by saying how pleased he is to be present and to honor ‘…the men and women who serve our country in our Armed Forces. The Monterey area has a number of imporatant military activities, the largest of which is Fort Ord, and these people are an imporatant part of your community. In addition to their military responsibilities many contribute to community affairs.
“I think it is altogether fitting for this dinner to be sponsored by the YMCA for there has been a long veneficial relationship of enlisted men and women and the YMCA.
“The citizens of our country have had a very high regard for the Army, the Navy and the Marines from the very beginning. It was the military capability of our early armed forces which gave us our freedom – and the strength, the ability of our armed forces, undergirded by the dedication of our men and women in Uniform.
“The trauma of the Viet Nam War has eroded the confidence of many people in the country in the military forces. What we should remember, however, is that it was the civilians in the Federal Government, the White House, leaders of the Congress, and two Presidents, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who got us involved. The men and women who served in Viet Nam were performing their duty, often taking action beyond the call of duty.
“It was the draft dodgers and all the other young men and women who refused to sereve their country who were the traitors. But, unfortunately, the media often gave them positive support, clearly far more than they deserved.
“As I am sure you know there has been a great deal of criticism of the department of defense and our entire military establishment that seems to be increasing over the last two decades. This critical attitude, expressed by the press, is in turn reflected in the congress. This has resulted in a tremendous increase in the number of regulations imp[osed by the Congress on the Department of Defense. This excessive legislation has had a very deleterious effeft on the efficiency of our entire military establishment.
“Several years ago I had the opportunity to be the Chairman of a Presidential Commission chartered to make recommendations that might improve the performance of our military establishment. The Commission made a number of recommendations which, if properly implementated, could save from $75 to $50 billions of dollars a year. The White House, both President and President Bush, strongly supported the recommendations of the Commission. The Congress was generally supportive but we could not get them to reduce the legislation relative to conflict of interest. One of the problems is that the defense establishment is so large, including the defense industry, that someone is going to do something wrong every day, and there is nothing one can do about it.
“As we worked on this problem I often wondered why members of both houses refused to support a broad program of self discipline by the DOD and the industry.
“I think the reason why the Congress found this to be so difficult is that many of the members – not all – and present company excepted – these members of the Congress think everyone outside the Congress are as crooked as they are.
“President Reagan supported his Secretary of Defense, Cap Weinberger, in a major build up of US military strength during his eight years. It was not done efficiently – billions of dollars were wasted – but this major build up had two important benefits for our country. It was a great boost for the morale of the men andd women in uniform. It gave President Reagan, and President Bush, real strength in dealing with the …Soviets.
“I have mentioned the vast amount of bad publicity our military establishment has received by the press. Our commission decided to find out what the attitude of the American people was in respect to the Armed Forces. We hired a firm to do an opinion survey and the results were very intereesting. On a scale of 1-10, people were asked how they rated various professions. Ministers and doctors were high on the scale, 8 or 9 – but so were military officers. Businessmen did not rate very high, a 5 or 6. Members of Congress were near the bottom of the scale, a 2 or 3. Lawyers weren’t much better.
“So I want to tell each and every one of you who are here tonight – without the slighest doubt the American people are proud of you. Keep on standing tall, doing your duty to the best of your ability.”
Packard then says he wants to spend the remaining time providing some observations about what he thinks is going on in the world. “What is now underway on a world wide basis,” he says. “will make the 21st Century much different – and probably much better than the 20th Century. The affairs of the world up the the middle of the 20th Century – World War II – have been characterized by large wars tetween groups of the major nations of the world. These wars have cost millions of lives over the years, and they have also wasted major economic resources. This vast waste has been decried by world statesmen, but they have been unsuccessful in doing anything constructive. The main result of most major wars is that they have produced victors for the moment, and set up a process of chosing sides in preparation for the next war to correct the distortions of the last.
“World War II had a quite different outcome. It ended with the United States and the Soviet Union having undisputed leadership of the free world and of the Communist world. With both nations having nuclear weapons, the strength of both the US and the USSR gave each nation unchallenged military dominence over any possible combination of other nations. This resulted in the Cold War which began at the end of World War II.
“Fortunately, the dominent nuclear strength of each country has been the deterrent that has prevented World War III up to the present day. There has been conflicts, some like Korea where the Soviet sponsors predicted what the US would do. This is a classic case of the importance of military strength in determining actions among nations; or Viet Nam, which in retrospect, was a serious mistake. And the Middle East where thr same antagonists have been fighting over the same issues for too many years.
“The early stages of the Cold War involved tests of military strength and determination. It was also characterized by two basic doctrines of the Soviet leadership:
- That Communism is a superior social and economic system
- That it was possible to win a nuclear war
Over the last ten or fifteen yearsthere has been a major change in Soviet doctrine.The Communist system has not delivered what it promised to its people, and it has not been competitive with thefree enterprise economy. I might add, there has been preserved a surprisingly strong commitment to personal freedom in these societies.
“This change in the attitude of the communist leaders, not only in the Soviet Union, but also in China and other countries, is the direct result of the amazing advances in communications and travel over the last few decades. People everywhere in the world can observe what is happening in other parts of the world. People can travel to virtually anywhere in the world in one day.
“This change in attitude of the Communist leadership all over the world is not the result of dominant personal leadership such as Gorbachov has implied. These undeniable forces are making it necessary for the leaders to admit the sad facts and do something about it.
“The other profound change is that the leadership of the USSR and the US have finally realized that an all out nuclear war is not only unwinnable, but also un thinkable. In the Soviet Union this change has come about because of a reduction in the influence of the military establishment on national policy. I think the failure of their large nuclear power plant had a profound effect on this change in attitude about nuclear war.
“What all of this means is there is a very high probability that the hostility between the US and the USSR which has characterized the Cold War is coming to an end. The 21st Century could be charactereized by a coopereative relationship between the US and the USSR and some reduction in world wide military forces.
“This watershed change which I believe is real is also fraught with danger. Major changes in Communist leadership must be established and supported by the bureaucracy.”
10/24/89, Copy of cover of program for the dinner
8/16/89, Copy of a letter to Packard from Dr. Charles A. Sweet Jr. inviting him to speak at this dinner award ceremony
9/25/89, Copy of a letter to Packard expressing his pleasure that Packard has agree to atten the dinner.
10/24/89, Copy of Packard’s hotel bill for the night in Monterey. He has written “Personal” across it.