1975 – Packard Speeches

Box 1, Folder 32 – HP Management

 

March 17, 1975, Managing Hewlett-Packard for the Future

 

HP initiated a new training program called ‘HP Executive Seminar’ a full seven day program. Packard kicked off the first day with this talk.

 

3/17/75, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s remarks

 

Packard welcomes the new ‘students’ to the first Executive Seminar and says he would like to tell them why the program was established and what they hope it will accomplish. He also says he has an ulterior motive: “If I tell you what I hope you will get out of this program it may have some effect on what you try to get out of it.

 

Packard emphasizes that it is his job, and the job of each one of them to see that HP continues to provide a wide range of opportunities for advancement to all people regardless of race, religion or sex.

 

“The real motivating reason for this program,” he says, “was the realization at the end of fiscal 1973 that the company was heading for some serious problems in the financial area and this difficulty was the result of our failure to manage some of the affairs of the company the way they should have been managed.”

 

He acknowledges that the company experienced very rapid growth in 1972 and 1973, due in large part to an expansive world economy, and the introduction of a large number of outstanding new products.

 

“In this environment of high demand for our products and a sellers market for material and labor, we failed in at least three areas to do the right kind of a job in managing our affairs.

 

“We allowed our inventories to grow more rapidly than necessary.

 

“We were lax in collecting accounts receivable on the sale of our products at a time when demand was high and when payment discipline could easily be enforced without any impact on volume.

 

“We neglected to keep profitability up at the very time when it should have been at its highest level. Price controls made it difficult to improve profitability on older products, but to a large degree the problem of profitability was our fault because we failed to price new products properly. This was because of a failure on the part of some of our managers to recognize that it is very seldom safe to price a new product on the basis of anticipated high volume production costs before the high volume production costs have in fact been achieved.

 

“By failing to recognize this very important management principle, we built into our pricing on some important new products an assured loss – and it was difficult to correct the situation under price controls.”

 

Packard says that they have had some other management problems in addition to the main three he mentioned so far, the first being that “at least one major product was put on the market before it was fully developed.” He adds that that situation caused him “some personal chagrin, after preaching for three years in Washington about the evils of putting a new weapon system into production before it has been developed to find that some of my proteges in the management ranks here at HP had made the same fatal mistakes.”

 

Packard says he also found that in “a number of cases management responsibility had not been clearly defined.” He says he “called on one marketing office after I returned from Washington in 1972 and asked who was in charge, and no one in the office knew who was in charge.”

 

“I would say that these management problems which became visible and serious at the end of 1973 were the result of two management attitudes which have caused similar problems in many companies.

 

“The first is the failure of management to recognize that it is just as easy to make a profit today as it will be tomorrow. Actions taken which result in reducing short term profit in the hope of increasing long term profit are very seldom successful. Such actions are almost always the result of wishful thinking and almost always fail to achieve an overall optimum performance.

 

“There are two kinds of management actions which can cause great trouble in this area. One, which I have alluded to, is [pricing] a new product on the basis of what one hopes the cost of production will be in the future. The only safe way is to price it on the basis of what you know the cost will be – and if in doubt, add a margin, don’t subtract it, and then reduce the price only if, in fact, the cost is reduced.”

 

It can be argued, Packard points out, that if the price is kept low volume will pick up and thus reduce costs. “If one is lucky,” he says, “action based on this line of reasoning can be very successful.” He adds however, that, “Management decisions should not be based on the hope for luck. We must seek in our management decisions those which will provide a high assurance against failure and I believe this can be done without reducing the opportunities for success.” He concludes that, as far as pricing policies go, “let’s play it safe…and price new products in accordance with known costs. We can always bring prices down as costs come down.”

 

“The second problem which became more serious in 1973 had to do with the balance between what is best for the division and what is best for the company.”

 

“…decisions as to product profitability long and short term for the division, Packard says, “are likely to also be best for the company. On the other hand, the management and allocation of assets, distribution of the R&D effort, and many management issues relating to marketing require surveillance on a company-wide basis.”

 

On the subject of inventories Packard allows, “That if the company had unlimited resources, inventories would be kept at a level so that the production losses due to shortages would be balanced in an optimum way against the cost of carrying the inventory.

 

“While it is not always possible to balance this equation with great precision, this is what the manufacturing manager tries to do. He can bend the balance in either direction. If he gets pressure from above, which he usually does, to improve his shipments, he will be naturally inclined to lean toward larger inventories, double ordering and other devices to assure

that no shortages will prevent him from getting his quota out the door by the end of the month.

 

“But resources are limited and beyond the cost effectiveness of larger inventories is the overall corporate question of available capital and the application of available capital to inventory requirements and other corporate needs, physical plant expansion, R&D expenditures and marketing expenditures as balanced against production expenditures.”

 

Managing accounts receivable pose a similar problem he says. Sales men may be able to get the business easier if they give generous terms of payment to the customer. Resources are limited and “..an understanding of the overall corporate situation should help managers in marketing make better decisions in their area of responsibility.”

 

“We want [management people] at HP to be exposed to what people in other companies are doing and to the best academic thinking on management. We do not believe the thinking of others should be accepted without the most careful consideration and without an actual testing in practice in our own company.

 

“I say this for one very important reason. The way this company has been managed in the past has been reasonably successful. For this reason we must he absolutely sure before we go off in some other direction that it will, in fact, result in improved performance.

 

“Perhaps the most important reason for this program is to encourage a better understanding of the traditional HP management philosophy. I do not propose the policies we have followed for over three decades should be continued forever without change, but I do hope we will be very careful when we do make a change, to be sure it will be for the better.”

 

Managers should know “what is going on in the outside world,” Packard says. He contrasts the area of government regulations in 1975 with what it was when he and Bill started the company in 1939. “We spent the first six months or so doing business in a residential area in Palo Alto. The government forms and reports could all be handled by my wife, working in her spare time. That would not be possible today.

 

“Today,” he says, “there is hardly any action that can be taken by a manager which is not prescribed in some way by governmental regulations. It is essential for every manager to understand these restrictions on what can be done.” Some of these regulations can involve matters of personal liability, and it is “essential to avoid problems which could become serious, both for the company and for the individual managers.”

 

Laws are changing all the time Packard points out and there is “an opportunity for people at the management level in business and industry to have some influence on how these regulatory matters may develop in the future.

 

“I hope there will be some discussion of this issue during the week. What can we do to influence in a constructive way new legislation that has an impact on business and industry?”

 

Packard says he would like to outline some of the management policies which have been “in some degree, responsible for our success in the past and which I believe will serve us well in the future.”

 

The statement of corporate objectives provides, he says, “the foundation for our management policies and philosophy. I believe these objectives have served their purpose well in the past and will continue to do so in the future. They have been changed very little over the years – some changes in wording and in emphasis, but no basic change in substance.”

 

“I want to discuss these objectives and make some specific points today which I hope will encourage discussion during the week. What is important is not how Bill and I see these objectives, but how you see them and whether you and all other management people in the company see them in essentially the same way.”

 

Packard takes the major objectives and talks about them one by one. The first being Profit.

 

“Profit”

 

The first objective is profit. “Profits can be used in two different ways to finance growth,” Packard says. “The first is on a pay as you go basis – resources to build the company come from a direct reinvestment of profits. The second way is to use profits to attract investment, either through equity investment or debt which must be financed with future profits.

 

“In some industries, those which require very large capital investments, the pay as you go approach is not possible. There is also a school of thought that the capital needs should be obtained by leveraging profits and equity financing with large amounts of debt financing.”

 

Packard flatly states that “Whatever the arguments, it is not HP policy to leverage our profits with long term debt and we want every manager at every level to know this and to act accordingly. This basic and sound approach we have used for the past thirty-five years will continue to work just as well in the future as it has in the past and I can see no possible circumstance that would justify a change.”

 

“Even though profit must come ahead of everything else, it under no circumstance can be in place of our other objectives as a company, for our other responsibilities as managers. The achievement of all of our other objectives is dependent on meeting our profit objective. At the same time, management attention given to our other objectives will help us meet our profit objective.

 

“Profit is not very well understood by many people. I am sure including some of our employees. It is important for each of you in dealing with our people and with the public to make the point that profit is the seed corn that keeps the economy going. Here at HP, profit is less than 10 cents of every sales dollar and that is all we need to keep our company strong and our jobs secure. For all of industry, profit is less than 10 cents and very few companies require profits in excess of 10 cents in every dollar to be sound and successful. Most people believe profits are much higher and we need to do everything we can to dispel that belief.”

 

“Customers”

 

“It is …very important to foster the right employee attitude. Everyone in the organization must be firmly indoctrinated with the idea that he or she are, in fact, working for the customer.

 

Every employee must realize that if the customer is not satisfied with our products there will be no job. In other words, it is the responsibility of every manager to keep all of the people in his organization properly motivated to do the best possible job for our customers.”

 

“Personnel Affairs”

 

‘Management is getting things done through people,’ Packard quotes another speaker on management. “…dealing with personnel problems,” Packard says, “is the prime responsibility every manager at every level. When the company was much smaller we did not have a personnel department because I wanted to make sure every manager in the company dealt with his own personnel problems. I thought, and still do, that taking care of his or her people was the most important part of every management job.

 

“We have a strong personnel department today. It has several important responsibilities. One is to make sure the best personnel policies and practices are maintained in every part of the company. Another is to provide and administer a number of services for managers at all levels. In no case is the personnel department expected to handle the manager’s personnel problems—he or she must accept and handle the personnel responsibility to be a good manager.”

 

“I believe we have done a fairly good job in maintaining our company philosophy in respect to our employees. Even so, Bill and I receive a few complaints about some of our managers’ actions in relation to our people that indicate a lack of understanding about what we expect. I hope you will include some discussion this week on how a manager should work with his or her people. This is such an important aspect of management that it almost transcends everything else. It is the key to productivity, to leadership and to the continuing progress and success of our company.”

 

 

“Dealing With the Public”

 

Packard brings up the corporate objective dealing with public relations which is to “manage our affairs so that we are good corporate citizens in the communities where we operate. Division managers, where an HP division is large in relation to the size of the community, have the greatest responsibility in this area of management activity. Our people have done well in recognizing and accepting this responsibility, but they have often been thrown into a situation and left to sink or swim. Because we have a number of managers who have done well in this important area we should be able to use this experience to help prepare people before they are given an assignment where dealing with the public suddenly becomes a new facit (sic) of their job. I would encourage the establishment of a course to cover this subject. It should be given by HP managers who have been through the mill, and I am sure it will be helpful to those who may be asked to assume higher levels of management responsibility in the future.”

 

Packard says that people used to feel that American business and industry were good. “Today much less than a majority of the people in America belief this to he true. It is this public attitude which has brought about many new laws and governmental regulations which affect the management actions of our company today.

 

“These laws and regulations have made the job of every manager more complex and more difficult than it was two or three decades ago. This situation will probably become worse in the future, given the punitive attitude toward business and industry in the ranks of government from the local to the federal level.” And Packard makes some suggestions as to what may be done about this situation.

 

“The first requirement this situation places on every manager at every level is that he or she must know what the law requires and strive as hard as possible to avoid any illegal act. Failure to know the law is never a defense in court and it can never be an excuse for any HP manager. We plan a series of courses on business law to make sure everyone in a management assignment knows his legal responsibilities and we will expect every manager in the company to complete this education covering legal responsibilities of management as a condition of advancement.”

 

“In Conclusion”

 

Packard concludes with saying that “…while management skill is essential to handle important areas of responsibility in the company, it is also important that every manager have a good grasp of the substance of what he is responsible to manage. Every manager must ‘know the territory’ as the salesman says. No manager in my view can do a good job at the division level if he does not know all about his products, all about his customers, all about his competitors. I do not agree with those who say a good manager can manage anything. I believe, especially in a field of high technology such as ours, every manager must really know the business he is managing. I emphasize this because I want no misunderstanding – management skill is not enough – every manager, if he is any good, must also ‘know the territory.’

 

“I hope to meet with you for a discussion the last day of the program next week. I will be particularly interested in hearing your assessment of this week’s course and having your recommendations on how we can make the program better for the future.”

 

3/18/75, Copy of a letter from PR  Director, Dave Kirby, to his staff sending them a copy of the above talk

Box 4, Folder 1 – General Speeches, includes correspondence relating to speeches

 

Jan. 20, 1975 Financial Management Conference, Washington D. C.

 

1/20/75, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with some handwritten additions by Packard

 

Packard says that he believes it is a good thing that they are devoting the conference to a discussion of the federal budget process, “hopefully focusing on the all-important question – can the Congressional budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 be implemented in a way that the federal government will have better control of its spending?” And he adds that he is not certain it can be, saying, “I welcome the opportunity to explore this issue with you.

 

“I also will try to point out some other areas where I believe you can be helpful to the Congress and to the various departments and agencies in the executive branch in which you serve.”

 

Although Packard has some reservations about how the new budget procedures may work in practice, he says, “At least now there is a mechanism that can be made to work – if there are enough people in the Congress who want to make it work, and who are in agreement on what they really want this federal budgeting procedure to do.”

 

Packard sees “…three things which are expected to be improved by this legislation. The first is to make federal spending more effective as a fiscal tool to influence the economy of the country in a positive, constructive way. Fiscal policy is widely acknowledged as a way to accelerate or decelerate economic growth and to help control inflation.”

 

“The second expectation is to provide a better mechanism for the Congress to assess the issues and establish priorities of both the programs in the President’s budget and those programs which may be initiated by the Congress.” He sees a problem here “because the most accurate information and the most objective analysis will not always assure the same order of priorities, nor agreement on the issues….I have the impression, and maybe I am wrong, that there are quite a few people around this town who are quite able to use any fact and any analysis to support whatever they have already decided as the right thing to do.

 

“But I should hasten to add, although it does not always appear to be so, there is a fairly high level of responsibility in the Congress on issues that are really important, and better information and analysis certainly should help to produce better legislation and better federal budgets.

 

“The third objective is to establish a more realistic time table so that, hopefully, the appropriations can all be approved, kept within the fiscal policy constraints that are established, and enacted before the beginning of the fiscal year. On this point we will have to just wait and see.”

 

Returning to a discussion of fiscal policy issues which Congress will be addressing, Packard says, “…there will be a very difficult problem with riming, as we can see from what has happened in this current economic crisis. In the spring of 1974, the economy was going strong, although with an unacceptably high rate of inflation. Responsible fiscal policy under the situation that prevailed earlier in the year would certainly have called for a budget surplus for the 1975 fiscal year, beginning in July.”

 

Packard says this situation prevailed “…until about October of 1974, when a considerable number of economists and others began to express doubts that inflation was the main problem in our economy.

 

“Today, just three months later, I judge the consensus of the experts has turned about 179 degrees and most would now support a budget deficit….This situation is a good example of why there is a real problem for the Congress in deciding what kind of fiscal medicine the economy is going to need six months or a year ahead, even if one assumes the Congress can decide on the right medicine for the current state of the economy. This recent downturn in the economy has been more rapid and more severe than most changes in the past but the Congress will have a most difficult time without a better crystal ball.

 

Packard sees “a number of specific and unusual events that, together, generated this troublesome combination of inflation and depression we are plagued with today. The first event was the devaluation of the dollar against the currencies of our major international trading partners, and decoupling the world monetary system from gold that occurred in the summer of 1971.”

 

“…a case can be made,” Packard feels, “that the 1971 dollar devaluation was the result of a long period of bad federal fiscal policy – many years of deficits, heavy spending overseas to help restore our allies and Japan after World War II, and the fact that the United States has carried too large a share of the cost of national security for Europe and Japan for too long.

 

“Let’s face it,” he says, “…even before 1971, the real value of the dollar had, in fact, deteriorated in respect to many other currencies and sooner or later a devaluation had to occur.”

 

“The impact of this 1971 devaluation was compounded by federal fiscal policy in 1972 in a way that had very little to do with the congressional budget process. Federal spending was simply accelerated to improve the economy in the election year in ways I am sure I do not have to explain to this audience.

 

“Then in the fall of 1973 came the Yom Kippur War, the oil embargo and a four-fold increase in the cost of international oil. This was a highly inflationary incident. It was completely independent of domestic fiscal or monetary policy and, as you all well know, caused a substantial increase in the cost of energy derived from oil, and materials and products made from oil.”

 

“To compound the problem, the federal government undertook a number of actions over the last several years which were done for worthy purposes, supported by both the Congress and the administration, and yet only added to the inflation already triggered by the series of unusual events I have described.

“Federal requirements placed on actions by business and industry in such areas as air and water quality, occupational safety, and automobile safety, are no doubt inspired by lofty ideals and are also needed in some form, and at least to some degree. At the same time, these federal  regulations imposed on business and industry have added real and substantial costs to the production of goods and services, and have been the major factor in causing this concurrent inflation and recession.

 

“There is no doubt in my mind that the serious depression of the automobile industry is the main reason that what was a modest downturn in the economy has turned into the worst recession since the 1930s. “…our economy is so dependent on the automobile industry that we can not have national prosperity without a healthy state of prosperity in automobiles.

 

“Our Congress, in its great wisdom on environmental pollution and safety on the highway, has brought the economy of the United States to its knees by bringing the automobile industry to its knees. There is simply no other way to explain the economic dilemma of the United States today. There are other factors to be sure, but the Congress of the United States has the sole responsibility for legislating features which the public does not want, and legislating costs which the public will not pay on 1975 model cars. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason – and the only reason – we have depression and inflation at the same time.”

 

“Furthermore, as I understand it, there is still legislation on the books to require by 1978 an air bag safety device that will require about $100 million of R&D and tooling for each automobile company, and more stringent emission standards that will require each automobile manufacturer to spend on the order of $300 million. You and I and everyone else who buys a car in the future, will have to pay these costs which will add hundreds of dollars more to the price of automobiles.

 

“Frankly, I almost think the Congress is wasting its time devising a fiscal policy to control inflation through budgetary control legislation. No conceivable fiscal policy can bring automobile prices down as much as other federal actions are driving costs and prices up.”

 

Packard says he does not want “a 1975 model automobile designed by the Congress, and would not buy one, even if the government gave me a tax rebate to cover the full price. I would rather use my 1972 model for a few more years, and I know I have a great deal of company around the country.”

 

Packard suggests that members of his audience could be of help by applying the concept of  “…cost effectiveness to some of the things Congress has been asking business and industry to do – and this just might be a more useful place to apply the fine analytical procedures you people are capable of providing, than on the budget issues through this new legislation.

“Another place where you can help is to reach agreement among yourselves, that where federal requirements should be placed on the private sector – and I will admit there are some places they should be – they will, at least, be consistent among all the agencies. The only way we are going to stop inflation is to improve productivity, to produce more and better products and services for every dollar we spend on wages and salaries. The only way the government will get more for the taxpayers’ dollars it spends, is to take those actions which will help the private sector become more productive. It is manifestly absurd to ask business to keep one set of books for the IRS, one set for the SEC and one for the GAO. I can assure you, whatever such requirements may accomplish, they will not help bring inflation down, nor help get the economy moving again, nor get a better value for the taxpayer’s dollar.

 

“There are many matters to be dealt with by the federal government that are as important as fiscal policy, as exercised by the congress through these new budget procedures. But fiscal policy is one of the tools that can be useful, and I would like to talk a little more about some other aspects of fiscal policy which should be kept in mind.”

 

“The longer term effect of federal fiscal policy must be kept in mind. A 1% deficit over a period of 10 or 20 years could be a considerably different problem than a one-time 1% deficit – or a 1% deficit when called for and a 1% surplus when called for, which would tend to average out over a reasonable period of time. I know it is too much to expect for the political process to come out with anything that rational, but it should be held out for consideration – at least, that one option is to have a surplus often enough to balance out the deficits over a period of several years.

 

“And so, in summary, I would like to repeat that I believe this new legislation will at least provide a mechanism for the Congress to work with the President and implement a responsible fiscal policy. That has not been possible before – at least, it has not been done. We have talked about federal fiscal and monetary policy as being the two most important tools to deal with the health of the economy. It would be a very constructive step if we could finally tailor a mutually supporting fiscal and monetary policy instead of having to rely so heavily on monetary policy alone – or monetary actions working against fiscal actions, as we have seen many times.

 

“There are some practical problems with this legislation – timing will certainly be one, as well as what in addition to how much should be in the fiscal package. There will be severe political problems – but then, what else is new?

 

“I hope, but I am not sure that what is new, is at least a comprehension that the federal budget is an important fiscal tool which, if used properly can help keep our economy strong and keep inflation down – sound federal fiscal policy can contribute to the welfare of this great country of ours. But, I want to emphasize there are many other actions taken by the federal government that affect the economy, as we have seen in our present plight. And so I hope, as you people work with your respective sponsors on the budget process, you will also work with your respective sponsors on some of these other matters I have mentioned today.

 

“The future welfare of this country requires more responsible economic policy by the Congress and by the President than we have seen in recent years. I know you people here today can have a large role in helping to bring this about. I hope you will make this your first priority.

 

“Thank you for asking me to be with you.”

 

1/20/75, Copy of printed conference announcement

1/20/75, Copy of conference program

1/20/75, Copy of typewritten program agenda

1/20/75, Copy of printed booklet containing copies of addresses made at conference

1/20/75, HP press release covering speech made by Packard

7/29/74, Letter to Packard from Elmer B. Staats, Controller General of the United States, asking if Packard would be willing to participate in their forthcoming conference

8/7/74, Copy of a letter from Packard to Elmer B. Staats, agreeing to participate in the conference

1/2/75, Letter to Packard from Elmer B. Staats giving details on the conference schedule

1/9/75, Letter to Packard from Elmer Staats giving more details on the conference

1/13/75, Copy of letter from Packard to Staats saying he will be at the conference and hopes to “provide a little stimulation for the Financial Management people”

1/20/75, Letter to Packard from Thomas P. Pike Vice-Chairman Fluor Corporation saying it was a great speech

1/21/75. Letter to Packard from Walter Annenberg, Oregon State Senate, complimenting Packard on his speech

1/21/75, Letter to Packard from Robert L. Peters, Jr., Paul Stafford Associates Ltd., complimenting him on his speech

1/22/75, Internal HP memo from Walt Dyke to Packard saying he had sent copies of newspaper clipping of Packard’s speech to several Oregon legislators

1/23/75, Letter to Packard from Donald C. Kull, Joint Financial Management, thanking Packard for participating in their conference

1/24/75, Copy of a letter to W. P. Dyke, GM HP McMinnville, from  Oregon State Legislator, Anthony Meeker, saying Packard’s remarks are accurate

1/24/75, Letter to Packard from Stanley B. Hackett, Hackett Bros., Inc., complimenting him on the speech

1/28/75, Letter to Packard from Barbara L. Brodeur, of Greenwich, Conn., ,complimenting Packard on his speech

1/29/75, Letter to Packard from Howard Morgens, Chairman of the Executive Committee, Proctor & Gamble Co. complimenting Packard on speech

1/29/75, Identical letters transmitting unsolicited copies of Packard’s speech to the following people:

Senator William Proxmire

Senator Edmund Muskie

Melvin Laird

Carol Crawford in Senator Packwood’s office

Senator Harry F, Byrd, Jr.

Senator Alan Cranston

Rep. Paul N. McCloskey

 

1/30/75, Letter to Packard from Henry Ford II, Chairman of the Board, Ford Motor Company, saying he appreciated Packard’s comments

2/5/75, Letter to Packard from Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr., saying he agrees with Packard

2/4/75, Letter to Packard from Peter Morrison, son of an HP employee, congratulating him on his speech

2/7/75, Letter to Packard from Senator Edmund S. Muskie saying he is hopeful that “the new budget process will make a constructive contribution in helping Congress formulate an effective recovery program

2/20/75, Letter to Packard from T. A. Murphy Chairman, General Motors Co., agreeing with Packard’s comments

2/6/75, Letter to Packard from Walter Annenberg, quoting and article in TV Guide which quotes Packard

2/24/75, Copy of a letter to Walter Annenberg form Packard thanking him for his letter and sending a copy of another speech he made along the same lines

3/3/75, Letter to Packard from Walter Annenberg, thanking him for his letter of 2/24/75

3/21/75, Letter to Packard from Tait Trussell, American Forest Institute, asking for a copy of his speech

4/22/75, Letter to Packard from Senator Alan Cranston thanking him for sending him a copy of his speech

 

Newspaper Clippings covering Packard’s speech

1/20/75, Clipped editorial from unnamed paper – favorable

1/21/75, Clipping from Palo Alto Times

/21/75, Note on business card from Ivy Lee, Jr. sending clipping from Daily Commercial News

1/22/75, Letter to Packard from Joseph D. Matarazzo, sending clipping from Oregon Journal

1/22/75, Letter to Packard from Stanton G. Hale sending clipping from Examiner [SF?]

1/27/75,  Copy of article from Electronic News, sent by a H. Peter Meisinger

2/6/75, Clipping from Wall Street Journal – favorable article

2/11/75, Copy of page from the Congressional Record with verbatim text of speech

2/13/75, Note from Doug Chance sending editorial clipping from The Press – Democrat favorable

2/17/75, Page from Business Week magazine with article by Arnold L. Windman, which doesn’t mention Packard but writes in similar vein as Packard’s speech

 

 

Box 4, Folder 2 – General Speeches

 

Feb. 18, 1975 Energy – The Present and the Future, Accepting The Washington Award, Chicago, IL

 

2/18/75, 1975 – Typewritten copy of the text of Packard’s speech, all capitals and double spaced, with hand printed additions by Packard.

2/18/75, Another typewritten copy of Packard’s speech, this one single spaced and incorporating his hand printed additions

 

Packard says he is “going to talk about some of our energy and environmental problems and suggest some ways engineers might make a more effective contribution to the solution of these present and future problems, for the benefit of our society.”

 

Looking back in history Packard finds that “Engineers have had a distinguished record from the early days of recorded history in applying scientific knowledge and technology to the problems and needs of society….”

 

He gives some specific examples: “Archimedes in the third century B.C. applied engineering principles to defend Syracuse against the Romans and among his engineering accomplishments were catapults and other ‘engines of war’ for the defense of his city. ”Other examples he mentions are the pyramids of Egypt or Yucatan, the buildings, roads and viaducts of the Romans, the machines of the industrial revolution — “…the conclusion is inescapable,” he says, “– engineers have made great contributions to matters of importance to the people of their times over the many centuries.”

 

“As engineers have approached the job of applying technology for the benefit of their society, they have always had to take into account matters other than technology. Cost and the availability of materials and energy, for example, have always been the concern of engineers.”

 

“Most engineering work, however, requires a carefully considered trade-off between performance and cost. As technology becomes more complex and more risky, cost becomes an even more important issue because the cost of an engineering project often can increase much more rapidly than the value of incremental performance benefits which may result from additional expenditures.

 

“As projects become larger and of more interest to more people in the government or in the society at large who do not understand engineering problems, the engineer has frequently been constrained by conditions which make it difficult for him to do his job well – particularly in achieving an optimum balance between performance and cost, and also in terms of other considerations such as conservation of energy and materials.”

 

Packard says he had to deal with these kinds of trade-off problems when he was in the Pentagon involved with weapons systems. “These problems almost always boiled down to the situation that the opportunity to make practical trade-offs between performance and cost, and other important factors, had been taken away from the design engineer.

 

“It was common to find projects where performance requirements were defined in detail before the engineering work had been done, and there was no provision to modify them if the cost of achievement became excessive. Furthermore, the detail performance requirements were often rigidly prescribed with no provision to adjust one against the other, should the design engineering work subsequently indicate this might be desirable.”

 

He gives an example of the C-5A program. “When the design required to meet performance specification turned out to be very costly, there was no course provided under the contract but to meet the specification regardless of the cost.”

 

“To compound the problem, some of the performance specifications were not really necessary and sometimes inconsistent with each other, so that the engineering design to meet them not only increased the cost, but reduced the life and reliability of the aircraft.”

 

Packard moves on to an explanation of  “…the principles which we tried to apply to establish better engineering management procedures for developing new military weapons, so that, hopefully, the C-5A case would not be repeated in the future.”

 

Packard says the first principle is a simple one: “Developing a new weapons system is first and foremost an engineering problem, and an engineer should be put in charge.” He gives the example of Admiral Rickover who provided engineering management of the nuclear submarine.

 

“The second principle applied,” he says, “was to structure contracts so that engineers had the responsibility and authority to make these important trade-offs among performance requirements and cost and other considerations.. If this principle could be applied to the energy problem, especially where environmental considerations are involved – there would be much better solutions, both in regard to energy and the environment, as well as in regard to cost and performance of energy related equipment, whether it be automobiles or power plants.”

 

Packard states the third principle as “Establish procedures so it would be demonstrated that the engineering job had been completed before a commitment was made to full scale production of the new device.

 

“This third principle served in part to provide protection from an innate weakness of engineers, (to this audience I might say the only weakness) which is to be overly optimistic about how long a job will take and how much it will cost. This principle required , in general, the development and successful testing of a prototype model to demonstrate that the engineering was well done and complete.”

 

“…this third principle I have mentioned has been popularly called, ‘Fly before you buy.’ This phrase over-simplifies the principle, but at least expresses its main thrust.”

 

“Most engineering projects in the past have had to deal primarily with technology and economics. With growing concern about conserving energy and natural resources and protecting the environment, new dimensions have been added to many engineering projects.

 

“The matters relating to resource conservation and the environment are not very well quantified at best, and in any case, involve a third and fourth potential region of trade-off with performance and cost in many engineering projects today.

 

“I believe we have so far failed to provide a satisfactory mechanism for logical and practical trade-offs where energy and environmental considerations are involved. Arbitrary standards for air and water quality have been established, often by legislation. These fixed and arbitrary environmental standards have resulted in unnecessary costs imposed on our economy, and unnecessary constraints on product performance. In these attempts to achieve legitimate environmental goals, actions have been taken which will not only increase costs and decrease performance, but will probably not serve to achieve the environmental goals that can be achieved.”

 

To illustrate, Packard takes the example of the 1975 model automobile. “In 1970 standards were established for reducing the emission levels of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides from automobiles. A reasonable attempt was made to establish acceptable levels of each of these chemicals by evidence relating to effects on human health and also plant life. I believe the attempt was sincere and conscientious, but I do not believe there is yet enough data to determine with any precision what acceptable levels of these emissions should be. Among other things, emission levels which might cause air pollution harmful to health in an area of heavy traffic, like Los Angeles, must be lower than they would need to be in the countryside with very little traffic.

 

“With  little more rationale than – the lower, the better – the standards were set to achieve a level about 1/10 of the 1970 automobile emission level by the 1980s. The levels to be required in 1975 were not as low as those to be required in 1978, thus rightly giving the industry time to do the necessary engineering and tooling for production.

 

“Now we have the 1975 model automobiles on the market which meet the emission standards set for this year. These cars embody a combination of measures to reduce the undesired emissions. Some of these measures involve leaner fuel mixtures, better ignition and faster response of the automatic choking devices during warm up. Other measures involve catalytic devices and other means to take the chemicals out of the exhaust before it goes out to the atmosphere.

 

“These fixes make the 1975 model cars harder to start, make them use more fuel, make them more difficult to repair, and make them cost more. What is most troublesome – there is some evidence that these fixes used on 1975 cars to control undesired emissions are likely to deteriorate rapidly with use. Under some conditions it is possible that the devices added to the automobiles may even produce more harmful gases than the ones they are supposed to eliminate.

 

“There are several alternate solutions to this problem that appear to me to be much better than the ones now being used. Two, at least, involve designs to improve the combustion efficiency in the engine cylinder so the level of unwanted exhaust gases is reduced in the first place, and the need for further cleaning the exhaust gases is much less.

 

“I believe that there is a better solution to the automobile emission problem – a better engineering solution involving a better balance between performance, cost, energy conservation and environmental considerations, than the solution used on the 1975 cars. It is also evident to me that if more flexibility in the environmental standards is not permitted, there is very little possibility that a better engineering solution will even be pursued by the industry.

 

“We will have, as I said a few weeks ago, automobiles designed by Congress, rather than automobiles designed by engineers. If we stay on this course, it can cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, and probably will not even achieve what we can all agree should be done in improving the environment.”

 

“Packard says “A more difficult problem is involved when considerations of energy conservation and material conservation are concerned, but here too, I firmly believe good engineering management working in a free market environment will achieve the best outcome in the long run.

 

“When environmental considerations, air and water pollution, are involved in an engineering project there are other factors which do have to be considered. There is not necessarily a simple cost benefit relationship that can be quantified, and a free market may not force consideration of environmental issues over the short term.

 

The society at large is demanding better performance from business and industry in the environmental area, and because the private sector has failed to meet the environmental aspirations of the times, the government has found it necessary to step in.

 

“I believe we need to continually remind ourselves that when business and industry anticipate such problems, and take initiative on their own, there will be a better outcome than when the government has to step in.

 

“Without any doubt the automobile industry should have started many years ago to do something more about fuel efficiency and environmental emissions, and even now the more initiative the industry can take to stay ahead of governmental regulations, the better off we will all be.

 

“But the government is now involved and will continue to be involved, and the problem is now what can be done to assure the best outcome in these important matters with industry working with the government.

 

“I wish there were some way when the government is involved to simply put more engineers in charge, give them the authority to make the trade-off decisions to achieve an optimum balance among the concurrent objectives of energy conservation, environmental quality, performance, and reasonable cost. And then, I would see this challenge added – make sure the plan the engineers devise will fly before the public is asked to buy. That simple step would provide all the protection the public would need.”

 

Packard says we live in a political world, and he suggests there “…should be more engineering influence on all of these issues of energy and the environment, and performance and cost. I believe engineers will have to become more involved on the political scene.

 

“Engineers will have to speak out more effectively when they have legitimate concern about what is being done in Washington. Engineers can exert considerable influence as individuals. Engineers should talk to their senators and representatives when they believe their engineering knowledge about a problem being considered might be helpful in achieving a better legislative outcome. The men in government will welcome recommendations of engineers, for legislators are trying to find the right answers, and all too often are influenced by people who do not really understand the problem, or who have a personal axe to grind.”

 

He encourages the engineers present to work with their “…professional societies to take a more active part in helping the government find a better answer to these important issues relating to energy, present and future.”

 

“There are many other groups of people, professional and otherwise, who are working very hard to influence the course of public policy. I know of no other group of men and women, professional or otherwise, who know as much about energy as engineers. If you roll up your sleeves and get actively involved in some of the present problems relating to energy and the environment, you can and will have a very important influence on the quality of life in America and the prosperity of our country in the future.

 

“It has been a privilege for me to be with you tonight, and a great honor to receive the Washington Award. Thank you.”

 

 

2/18/75, Copy of typewritten Program Schedule

12/10/74, Letter to Packard from K. E. Gerler of the Washington Award Commission, saying Packard had been selected to receive the Washington Award for 1975

12/19/75, Letter to Packard from K. E. Gerler, saying he is pleased Packard has agreed to accept the Washington Award and giving details of the evening

1/6/75, Letter to Packard from John D. deButts, Chairman of the Board, AT&T, and recipient of the 1974 Washington Award, saying he was delighted to hear that Packard had been selected to receive the Washington Award, and saying he would not be able to attend the dinner

2/19/74, Copy of speech made by John deButts on occasion of receiving the 1974 Washington Award, and a copy of the program for that evening

1/75, Copy of a press release from The Washington Award announcing the forthcoming award to Packard

2/7/75, Letter to Packard from William R. Gerler enclosing information about the program

2/7/75, Copy of a letter of Invitation to a Private Reception at the Washington Award Dinner on Feb. 18, 1975

2/7/75, Letter to Packard from R. H. Tanner Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers inclosing an editorial printed in TV News agreeing with Packard’s comments on government regulation of the automobile industry

2/24/75, Copy of letter from Packard to R. H. Tanner thanking him for his  letter and enclosing a copy of his speech

2/24/75, Letter to Packard from  Rep.Barry M. Goldwater, Jr. thanking him for meeting with him recently and asking if it is alright to refer to points made by Packard in his speech from time to time

2/75, Copy of the printed newsletter, Scanfax, accounting the forthcoming presentation of the Washing Award to Packard

2/75, Copy of the newsletter, Midwest Engineer, announcing the forthcoming presentation of the Washington Award to Packard

2/75, Copy of the newsletter, ASCE News, with article announcing  the forthcoming presentation of the Washington Award to Packard

3/3/75, Copy of a letter to Goldwater from Packard giving his permission to use any of Packard’s comments, with or without attribution

3/3/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to K. E. Gerler thanking him for assistance provided during the trip to Chicago and sending a copy of the speech

3/3/75, Copy of a letter to John deButts from Packard sending him a copy of his speech

3/3/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Rep. Russell E. Train sending a copy of his speech about the automobile situation and adding “I am convinced we are on the wrong track with this whole problem, and I hope you will be able to do something about it.”

5/1/75, Copy of a letter to Packard from Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, taking issue with Packard’s comments

3/3/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Thomas O. Paine General Electric Company, sending him a copy of his speech

3/7/75, Letter to Packard from Thomas O. Paine, of GE, thanking him for sending him a copy of his speech, and enclosing a copy of testimony he had given to the Joint committee on Atomic Energy of 2/5/74

3/20/75, Letter to Packard from Walker L. Cisler, Chairman of the Board, The Detroit Edison Company, congratulating him on receiving the Washington Award

Box 4, Folder 3 – General Speeches

 

March 17, 1975, Managing Hewlett-Packard for the Future

 

This speech moved to HP Management Speeches, Box 1, Folder 32

 

 

Box 4, Folder 4 – General Speeches

 

March 18, 1975,  WEMA Capitol Caucus, Washington D. C.

The audience here is made up of electronic industry people as well as members of Congress.

 

3/18/75, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech

Packard tells the audience that he has a special interest in the WEMA organization because he was one of the two people who founded it. He says that it was called WCEMA at first, for the West Coast Electronic Manufacturers Association, and Les Hoffman of the Hoffman Electronics company, joined him in starting the association. Packard continues with the start-up story: “We started the organization because we felt that our industry on the West Coast was not receiving its fair share of the defense electronics business. A good many of the contracts were going to firms in the Midwest and the East, and we felt that some of the procurement people didn’t know we existed. We thought this new organization might be able to help in this respect.

 

“I don’t know that WCEMA achieved this objective with any success. As I recall, the business we were able to get was dependent largely on the individual efforts of our individual companies. But the organization did serve one very useful purpose. It brought a good many of the people in the industry in 1944 together, got them acquainted, and, in a sense, provided a catalyst for what has happened since.

 

“The association in the year that it was founded had 25 members, and the total annual business of those 25 members added up to 435 million, so these companies were doing a little less than a million and a half dollars each on the average. I would remind you however that those dollars were worth about three or four of today’s dollars. We now have over 700 members, representing approximately 600,000 employees who work generally in the states which you people represent. The total annual volume of business is in the neighborhood of $15 billion.”

 

“Much more important than their size, however, is the fact that the organizations represented here today are at the forefront of the electronics industry in respect to the entire world—in terms of technology, in terms of enlightened management-leadership, and also in terms of contributions these companies have made to the general welfare of the communities in which we operate. So I hope that you will pardon my pride when I talk about some of the things that we’ve done over the last thirty years. I do not believe there is any group of electronics companies anywhere in the world—not in Japan, not in Europe, certainly not in the soviet Union, and not even on the East Coast—that has turned in the kind of performance over these last thirty years as has the Western electronics industry which is represented here today.”

 

Stressing the industry’s involvement in world trade, Packard says he would like to describe HP’s activities in the international market  “because this will give you some idea of the importance of international trade to our electronics industry. I would also suggest that the same considerations apply in many other industries.”

 

According to Packard, the devaluation of the dollar has benefitted [sic] HP and the electronics industry. “One interesting thing that we have experienced is that we can now manufacture products in the United States, ship them to Germany, pay the duty and deliver them in Germany cheaper than we can manufacture them in Germany. And so this devaluation is giving us a rather significant advantage in these international markets. ”Packard makes the point that “…a great deal of our international business supports and generates jobs here at home.”

 

Non-tariff restraints are a problem in some overseas markets, and Packard says: “I am quite sure that we could sell more abroad and in turn add more jobs here at home if we could get rid of some of these non-tariff trade barriers.

 

“Our industry, as you might suspect from what I have said, strongly supported the trade bill, and we will do everything we can to help Secretary Dent in his negotiations in Geneva. The outcome of these negotiations, particularly in respect to some of these matters having to do with non-tariff restraints, can have a significant impact on our industry, and will indeed influence a number of jobs here in the U.S. which are the result of foreign trade.”

 

Saying that many WEMA companies do business with the Soviet Union, other Eastern Europe countries as well as the Peoples Republic of China, Packard says that “…many people in our industries were disappointed by the Jackson Amendment on the trade bill. I knew Senator Jackson very well when I was here in Washington. I thought very highly of him and still do. However, I do not think that he made the right judgement in adding this amendment to the trade bill. It certainly turned out that the Soviet behavior in regard to allowing Jewish emigration has not been influenced in the slightest degree by this amendment and I am sure that could have been predicted. There is no question, however, that the amendment on the trade bill has caused a reduction in our trade with the Soviet Union. We’ve seen this in the case of our own company, where we’ve had  a rather sharp reduction in our business. So I hope that you people in the Congress will see fit in the near future to find some way to take the Jackson amendment off of the trade bill because it is counter-productive. I do not think it achieves in any way the worthy purposes the good Senator had hoped to achieve.”

 

Making another point with respect to trade with the Soviet Union, Packard says, “I believe more trade and the resulting communication and personal relationships that will come about from this trade will be helpful in general to the spirit of détente. But I do not believe that either trade or détente will, in any meaningful way, eliminate the fundamental ideological conflict that exists between our two countries. I think then that we must look at this trade in the sense that we can trade with the Soviet Union, as well as the People’s Republic of China, and other Communist countries, in ways that will be mutually beneficial. But we must be careful, particularly in areas of high technology, to remember that there are national security aspects involved here and we have to keep these under careful consideration as we move ahead.”

 

Regarding Most Favored Nation status, Packard says “I do not see any reason whatsoever why we should not give the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China the Most favored Nation treatment in respect to our trade, with the exception of those issues regarding our national security. I cannot see, however, why we should give them any special concessions or terms of credit. I think it is basically wrong to ask the American taxpayer to subsidize the credit that we extend to the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of China. I see no reason why they should get better terms of credit than our own industry at home, or the industries in the developed countries of Europe or Japan or other parts of the world.”

 

“So, in regard to foreign trade, the message I want to leave with you today is that foreign trade has been very important to our industry, and it will continue to be so. Foreign trade supports thousands of jobs in those states which you represent here in Washington. Some non-tariff barriers have been troublesome in that they have limited our trade, and these barriers should be eliminated to the extent they can be. We should continue to look upon foreign trade as an important and growing opportunity for our electronics industry, not only on the West Coast but throughout the entire country.”

 

Packard notes that the debate about whether or not the Soviet Union is ahead of the U.S. in technology heats up whenever R&D budgets for the Defense Department are being debated in Congress. And he says his audience may be interested in HP’s experience  in this area to give some insight into the status of technology between the two countries.

 

“Our company signed a technical exchange agreement with the Soviet Union about a year and a half ago. Since that time we have had a number of discussions with representatives of the soviet Union to try to find areas where we might be able to exchange technology on a mutually beneficial basis. We have been able to identify a number of areas in our company from which the Soviet Union would like very much to have us give them technology. So far we have been unable to find any areas of technology in the Soviet Union that would be of any benefit whatever to our company. I can assure you, we’re certainly not interested in making any one-way deals with these fellows in this matter. We may find some other ways that will provide a balance of trade for our technology, and we are continuing to pursue this matter. But I think this is a clear indication that, in the electronics industry at least, there are hardly any instances anybody has been able to find where they are ahead of us, and there are a great many technological areas where we have a very substantial lead over them.”

 

Packard adds that he doesn’t “want any of you to …not support Secretary Schlesinger’s R&D budget request this year, because it seems to me that the only safe course for our country is to continue to maintain this important technological lead we have. It is very important in terms of our national security, and it is also very important in terms of maintaining the world wide competitive advantage of our industry. I really think even more federal money to support research and development might be better medicine for our economy right at this particular time than some of these “make-work” programs that are being considered. And the easiest way to do this is to support those requests that are in the President’s budget for research and development, not only in the field of defense, but in other fields such as energy as well.”

 

Packard says he would like to cite some examples to show how the electronics industry has benefited from the “fall-out” that has come from government supported research and development.

 

“If you go back” he says, “to about the time that WEMA was founded, or more specifically to World War II, there were three very important vacuum tube developments that came out of government-supported  research and development: the klystron tube, the magnetron tube, and the travelling wave tube. These tubes were essential to the development of radar, which was necessary during our war effort, and later the travelling wave tube became an essential ingredient in the communications necessary to mount our space effort. Those devices have made possible the tremendously capable communications systems we have throughout the world today. Some of the peaceful uses of space that we are now beginning to see come into service are possible because of the very high-level communications capability that can be build with these devices. You can even relate this technology to more commonplace things like the microwave ovens some of you may have at home, which are possible again because these tubes were developed.

 

“Another area is computer technology. In the early days it was, to a large degree, Defense Department research programs and some air defense programs that nurtured the rapid development of large scale computers. They also produced a foundation for the tremendously important computer industry in the United States today. Here again, I think without any question the reason that the United States is so far ahead of everyone else in this field goes back to the important research and development activities that were supported by military funds during this period of time.”

 

At Hewlett-Packard Company, Packard sees a “great number of things that we have been able to do in developing commercial instrumentation for applications in electronics, for applications in medicine, for data products jobs in all the areas of business and industry because of the past high level of defense R&D. We’ve had this experience first hand, and I can assure you that there have been some very real benefits in terms of what you might call fallouts from this government-supported activity.”

 

However, Packard says there have been a few “disturbing” things in this area in recent years – one being the Mansfield Amendment. “I was very troubled about [this amendment] at the time that I was here in Washington, and had I known a little more about how government operated at the time I might have been more effective in preventing it from being adopted. It is a very counter-productive amendment because it stipulates that independent research and development (I R&D) should not be directed at potential commercial applications, but rather must be limited to potential military applications. If the Mansfield amendment could be eliminated it would help to nurture some of these fallouts and make the research and development dollars that the government spends go further. I would hope that some of you people might pay a little attention to that and perhaps we might get the amendment changed at some time.

 

“There is another amendment that relates to computers and I guess that is called the Brook Amendment. That amendment has made it so difficult that our company has almost given up trying to sell computers to the government. It just isn’t possible under these regulations.

 

“These are some areas where, it seems to me, we are seeing a much more vindictive attitude in governmental actions which relate to industry. It is particularly troublesome to see this come about because, as I look back over these past thirty years, we’ve had a good working relationship. The government has been tough to do business with, but I think they’ve gotten the value for the money they’ve spent and the fallouts have resulted in the tremendously impressive growth of the industry which is represented here today.”

 

Packard says he is “disappointed to see the increasing intrusion of the government into a great many of the affairs of business and industry. I suspect that you will have a chance, if you have not already been able to do so, to talk about some of these things. In saying this, I recognize very well that the private sector has not always done its job as well as it should, and I would also agree that there are probably some areas where the government must become involved if we are going to move ahead in some of the important issues that society wants taken care of.”

 

“In concluding my remarks, I would just like to say a word or two about some of the experiences I had when I was here working in the area of defense procurement. I think there may be a lesson here which could be profitably applied to some of these other matters the government is concerned about in relation to their dealings with industry.

 

“As many of you know, when I came to the Pentagon in 1969 we had a lot of problems with new weapons systems in the procurement area. As I got into these problems I found that everyone was in on the act. We had a lot of assistant secretaries and every one of them had a large staff. There were a number of committees in Congress and everybody was trying to figure out ways to put on more constraints, in terms of what they thought were ways to solve this job. We had procedures galore in this matter. As far as I could see, the only result was that the paper industry was enjoying a great period of prosperity. There were some cases where the weight of paper being produced by these procedures was about half of the weight of the equipment being produced and that seemed to be a rather unreasonable circumstance. In fact, as I looked into this situation, it turned out that very few of the people in the department had very much first-hand procurement experience. This was, of course, true of most people in the Congress and their staffs. As we studied this problem and searched for ways to find a better approach, I came to the conclusion that the best way to handle it was to get all these people out of the act, to give the responsibility to people in industry who had demonstrated a capability and know-how, to tell them what performance we wanted from the new product and then leave them alone until they got the job done. [Typical HP approach – management by objective.]

 

“This, of course, you will recognize as the essential ingredients of the prototype program. It has been characterized sometimes as a fly-before-you-buy program but that’s not the important aspect of it—the important aspect is that we were able to give a team in industry an assignment and let this team go ahead and get the job done without all of these Mickey-Mouse rules and regulations that had been required in previous procedures.

 

“In my opinion, at least, this approach has worked very well. We have, as a result of this approach, obtained two excellent lightweight fighter aircraft which could be tested in actual flight and we have been able to do this for about $100 million as far as I can determine. Under the old procedures, that first $100 million would have bought very little more than paper. I firmly believe it will be better for both government and industry to eliminate supervision in detail whenever possible. I am convinced that we will not only save a tremendous amount of money but the government will get better products and services through this process.”

 

“I think further that it also would be very helpful if we could find some way to reduce the vindictive atmosphere that is continuing to build up between the government and industry. I think we can do many of these jobs that need to be done much more effectively if we can somehow find a way to do them in a spirit of more cooperation and less of an adversary attitude. I don’t think this climate is serving the people of our country very well. I would hope that this meeting which has been sponsored by WEMA and has been attended by a good many people from government, will serve in some way to engender a little better mutual understanding of the problems we each have and I hope it will help find some ways to work together more effectively in the future. I am convinced that with the tremendously large and important and complex problems facing our country, we must find ways for the public and the private sector to work more effectively together, and I would encourage all of you to work toward that goal.”

 

4/8/75, Copy of the Congressional Record containing the text of Packard’s speech

3/18/75, Copy of the printed announcement and program for the WEMA sponsored Executive’s Capitol Caucus

3/18/75, List of Congressional Luncheon Guests

12/10/74, Internal HP memo from Jack Beckett to Dave Packard telling him of the scheduled WEMA  Capitol Caucus

1/3/75, Letter to Packard from Earl Wantland of WEMA, inviting him to speak at the WEMA Caucus

1/20/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Earl Wantland saying he will be unable to attend the Caucus on March 19

2/14/75, Letter to Packard from Earl Wantland saying the Caucus has been rescheduled to March 18

2/14/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Earl Wantland saying he will be able to come to the Caucus on March 18, and asking for any suggestions he may have on topics for his speech

3/11/75, Letter to Packard from Earl Wantland giving some suggestions for topics for Packard’s speech

3/26/75, Letter to Margaret Paull from Walter Mathews of WEMA enclosing two copies of a transcription of Packard’s speech and asking for any changes Packard would like to make

4/1/75, Letter to Packard from Senator Paul Fannin thanking Packard for his comments on the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. Sen. Fannin gives his reasons for voting against the Act.

4/1/75, Letter to Packard from Senator Vance Hartke thanking him for his telegram with comments

4/1/75, Letter to Packard from William D. Happ thanking him for his stand regarding computer procurement as reported in the Electronic News

4/2/75, Letter to Packard from Leonard F. Herzog, Ph.D., President Nuclide Corp. thanking for his comments as quoted in Electronic News

4/2/75, Letter to Packard from Glen J. Anderson, President. W. A. Brown Components, Inc., thanking him for his comments at the WEMA Caucus

4/3/75, Letter to Packard from Earl Wantland thanking him for speaking at their Caucus. He says he was sorry that the Congressional attendance was “diluted” by a roll call, but they will see that the full text is published in the Congressional Record

4/7/75, Letter to Packard from Al Miller who identifies himself as a stockholder. He says that while Packard’s views as expressed at the WEMA Caucus on difficulties with dealing with the government have  “some validity,” other manufacturers have been able to sell computers to the government. Mr. Miller says “A portion of the blame for H-P’s failure in this marketplace should be shouldered by your corporation.”

4/7/75, Copy of an article in the Northern California Electronic News covering Packard’s speech

 

 

Box 4, Folder 5 – General Speeches

 

April 8-9, 1975, Colloquium on Answers to Inflation and Recession: Economic Policies for a Modern Society. Packard acted as the general Chairman.

 

4/8/74, Text of Packard’s speech with many handwritten additions by Packard

 

Referring to the recently passed tax measure, Packard says “on the subject of fiscal policy there is not much left to discuss except whether the FY 1976 deficit will be $60 billion or $100 billion.”

 

“There is one very good thing about having this meeting now,” he says. “Those of us who are not professionals in the field will be more comfortable in expressing our views on what we think are the answers to inflation and recession. That is because, present company excepted, the professions have not been very good recently at agreeing on the answers.

 

“You will recall the main concern early last fall was double digit inflation. I heard a projection last October of nine million cars for the 1975 model. By the end of November the developing recession became the main issue and the country was suffering from inflation and recession at the same time. The professionals not only were unable to agree on the answers, they could not even agree on what was the question.”

 

Saying that double digit inflation has largely corrected itself – although not yet low enough – Packard sees “…the concern now [as] how to avoid double digit unemployment. It seems to me,” he says, “that there is a very great danger of overreacting—in my view, that is what the Congress has already done with the tax bill which was passed last month. Extreme care needs to be taken to avoid actions aimed at bringing the recession under control which may make inflation worse, and vice versa.”

 

“One of the great difficulties with the issues we are here to discuss, the issues of inflation and recession, is whether they should be addressed in terms of alleviating the symptoms or curing the disease. Many, if not most, agree it would be best to do both, but there the agreement seems to stop.

 

“I remember in particular last year when inflation was the problem of concern. I read several articles by eminent economists who discussed the problem only in terms of what to do to alleviate the human suffering it caused and completely ignored the question of how to reduce or eliminate inflation in the future.”

 

Packard says it would “…certainly [be] desirable to help those people who are hurt most.” At the same time,” he says, “I would conclude that the worst of all possible results would be to take actions which would make a high rate of inflation a permanent feature of the economy.”

 

Packard feels that inflation “…is so damaging to the long term welfare of people, especially those at lower levels of income and those who have strived [sic] for a lifetime to achieve a measure of economic security through frugality and saving, that I believe the cure of inflation should have the highest of all priorities. The damage of inflation can be both devastating and permanent in eroding an individual’s material status. Recession, on the other hand, unless it becomes a permanent state of the economy is likely to have a more temporary effect in the economic pain it produces.”

 

“We have [at this conference] several papers on fiscal policy and closely related issues. I have expressed the opinion on several occasions in the recent past that the federal government has been unable to implement a responsible fiscal policy even if it were possible to agree on what a responsible fiscal policy might be. Legislation was passed last year to establish procedures with which the congress could consider, and hopefully agree upon, the proper fiscal policy in terms of total federal spending and establish the appropriate deficit or surplus.

 

Packard believes this legislation was a step in the right direction, but he says “…the behavior of the Congress this spring on these economic issues, to say the least, does not give much encouragement that this legislation can ever be made to work.

 

“The behavior of the Congress has not been at all encouraging to those of us who believe fiscal policy should be used as an instrument to optimize the economy in terms of high employment, high output of goods and services and a low rate of inflation. A good many people on the hill were thinking about something else this spring. Some were thinking about redistributing the wealth without trying to maximize the productivity of the economy at the same time.

 

“Many were thinking about their own pet projects and all were thinking about next year’s election.”

 

Packard says he feels past “…discussions of important economic problems have centered too much on fiscal and monetary policy.” He believes “…there are two other very important factors that have been at work in the economy. One is a series of unusual events that have occurred in recent years—unusual in the sense they have not happened before and are not likely to happen again in the near future at least. The other is a number of government mandated cost increases and other actions which reduce productivity and have had a substantial effect on both inflation and recession.

 

“The first unusual event I want to mention is the devaluation of the dollar in respect to many of the free world currencies, and decoupling the world monetary system from gold, in the summer of 1971.

 

“The dollar devaluation was a highly inflationary action for it increased the cost of a great many products and materials imported into the United States. It also reduced the cost of products and materials produced in the United States and sold in major foreign markets.

 

“Decoupling also caused a very large increase in the world’s money supply as dollars were bought in excessive amounts with other currencies. This dollar devaluation had both fiscal and monetary effects on the economy of the free world

 

“The devaluation was not an isolated, spontaneous event in one sense, for it was caused by a long period of bad fiscal policy in the United States. Our country had carried both the economic burden and the military burden of the free world for too long. The value of the dollar had in fact depreciated and devaluation had to come sometime soon.

 

“Some people suggested devaluation might cause a small increase in inflation – a percent or so. This was in fact a major event and had a large influence on the inflation which began to develop in 1972.

 

“The dollar devaluation was an unusual event in that it is not likely to be repeated unless we persist in following bad fiscal policy. On the other hand, it would take a most rigorous course of fiscal restraint to restore the damage that has been done and I would think that impossible. We have experienced an inflationary increase in costs and prices that cannot, as a practical matter, be reversed.

 

“A second unusual event was a serious shortfall in food production due to adverse weather worldwide. This caused sharp increases in U.S. farm prices. This is likely to happen again from time to time and it would be useful to carry some insurance against a repetition—but that is largely a matter of farm policy. I include it as a subject you may want to consider at some point in the meeting today and tomorrow.

 

“The four-fold increase in the price of international oil was another major, unusual event that had a very inflationary impact on the entire free world economy.” Packard says he thinks another four-fold increase in the price of oil is “hardly possible.”

 

“I believe the double digit inflation we experienced in 1974 became double digit inflation primarily because of these several unusual events. I do not believe either fiscal or monetary policy during this period was a major factor in the highly stepped up rate of inflation. Fiscal actions were taken to improve the economy for the 1972 election just as fiscal actions will be taken this year to improve the economy for the 1976 election year. These kinds of actions add fuel to inflation and will probably help the recession, but they are not major influences in comparison to these other factors I have mentioned.

 

“Government mandated price increases have also been a major factor in causing both inflation and recession during the past several years. Murray L. Weidenbaum has recently published a paper describing how a number of government-dictated requirements placed on business and industry have increased costs and reduced productivity. These include cost increases to meet environmental standards, which at least have a worthy purpose. They also include cost increases for reporting and just plain unnecessary paperwork.”

 

Packard describes the automotive industry as a “special problem.”  He says “Early last fall, federal requirements increased the cost of 1975  model automobiles by about 10% and mandated features that  the public did not want. That, in my view, is the main reason an inflationary economy at that time turned into a recession economy by November.”

 

“U.S. unemployment increased by 1,700,000 from November, 1973 to November, 1974. At least 40% of this increase was in the automobile and related industries – with some 600,000 men and women out of work. The number increased to well over 700,000 by February of this year. I do not see how we are going to get out of our recession without a recovery in this industry.

 

“And, if you add to the automobile problem those delays in the construction of new power plants and other major capital projects caused by increased regulation and involvement at all levels of government—local, state and federal—I believe we have without any question a recession mandated by government.

 

“I hope you will discuss this aspect of the problem today and tomorrow. I for one do not believe fiscal and monetary policy have much to do with the answers to inflation and recession in the present environment. I might be wrong, of course, but I hope you will talk about these matters in your meetings.

 

“In conclusion, I would like to suggest that the discussions at these meetings include, whenever possible, an exchange of views with the people in the audience. We have a number of outstanding participants and many excellent papers to be presented. The main purpose of my comments is to suggest we talk about some things other than fiscal and monetary policy, and to encourage an open discussion both in terms of the subjects to be considered and in terms of s much individual participation as possible.”

 

4/8-9/75, Printed copy of the program for the Colloquium.

4/8-9/75 Copy of typewritten list of preliminary acceptances

8/5/74, Letter to Packard from Albert T. Sommers of The Conference Board, thanking him for agreeing to participate in their conference

9/5/74,  Letter to Packard from Albert T. Sommers giving details on the conference

10/7/74, Letter to Packard from Alexander B. Trowbridge of The Conference Board, telling him that the conference has been rescheduled from November, 1974, to April, 1975

10/17/74, Letter to Packard from A. B. Trowbridge, expressing the hope that Packard will be able to participate in April, 1975

10/21/74, Copy of a letter from Packard to A. B. Trowbridge agreeing to participate in April, 1975

1/27/75, Letter to Packard from Stanley R. Reber of The Conference board,  enclosing a copy of the tentative agenda for the April conference, and asking for any suggestions

2/3/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Stanley Reber, suggesting the addition of one topic on the agenda: “the subject of government actions that impinge on our economy apart from conventional monetary and fiscal policy. He encloses a copy of a recent speech he made on the subject.

2/5/75, Letter to Packard from Stanley Reber thanking him for his suggestion and saying that they intend to address the subject in one of the sessions, as well as Packard including it in his remarks

2/10/75, Copy of a letter to Packard from A. B. Trowbridge, giving up to date information on the conference

2/14/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to A. B. Trowbridge, saying he has developed a conflict for the evening of April 8 as he has to be in New York to receive an award from the IEEE. He says he will be at the conference until about 4PM on the 8^th and return for the full day of April 9.

3/7/75, Letter to Packard from Albert T. Sommers, giving some changes in the program

3/13/73, Letter to Packard from John G. Worssam, of The Conference Board, enclosing an up to date list of attendees

3/21/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to John G. Worssam, giving his own schedule and saying he will send a copy of his remarks in advance of the conference

3/26/75, Letter to Packard from Albert T. Sommers, giving up to date information on conference activities

4/14/75, Letter to Packard from A. B. Trowbridge, thanking him for participating in the conference

4/15/75, Letter to Packard from Albert T. Sommers thanking him for his “very effective participation” in the conference

 

Background material:

12/8/74, Copy of a news clipping titled “Impact is Wide When Detroit goes Flat”

4/14/75, Page from Business Week magazine giving business statistics

2/75, Copy of typewritten sheet listing employment statistics in automobile industry

Undated copy of a speech by James Tobin, titled: “Monetary Policy, Inflation, and Unemployment

Copies of several charts indicating fiscal trends

 

 

Box 4, Folder 6 – General Speeches

 

May 1, 1975, Statement Before the Production and Stabilization  Subcommittee of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, U. S. House of Representatives, On Cost Accounting Standard No. 409 – Depreciation of Tangible Assets

 

5/1/75, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s Statement

 

Packard gives his views recommending some changes to Part 409 Cost Accounting Standard Depreciation of Tangible Capital Assets. He stresses the use of  “tried and  established commercial business practices, rather requiring companies who wish to do business with the government to adopt new and expensive procedures.

 

Packard sums up his views as follows:

 

“The application of proposed Part 409 would result in the government paying a lower share of the cost of our capital equipment than our commercial customers, and as I have already demonstrated, lower than the replacement cost of our capital equipment.

 

“What the Board is asking in the application of proposed Part 409 is that we contribute a share of our company’s capital for the privilege of doing business with the government. I think this is wrong.

 

“This is not a problem at all of social goals as some have implied; this is strictly a problem of good old fashioned ‘hard-nosed’ business practice.

 

”Furthermore, under the proposed Part 409 to accomplish this result, companies will be asked to go through a lengthy and costly procedure to recalculate the useful life of each piece of equipment if they want to continue to do business with the government. This is neither fair or good cost accounting, nor good business practice.

 

“This is not a very serious matter for our company, for  our negotiated defense prime contracts are less than 5% of our total business and, on the average, we have been unable even under the existing rules to make a profit on the total of this business. We can keep two sets of books as has been suggested, add some people to handle the proposed procedures and it will, as I have already indicated, result in a lower level of depreciation on negotiated defense contracts. We can either go along or simply take on no more negotiated contracts subject to cost accounting standards; I have not decided which, but neither our company nor the government will benefit, whichever course we decide to follow.

 

“I am most troubled, not because of the dilemma this causes our company, but because this is a step in the wrong direction as far as federal procurement is concerned. I believe the adoption of Part 409 in its present form will do much to discredit the accounting standards program which, if it is developed properly, should serve to improve the efficiency and lower the real cost of government procurement.

 

“I hope the Board will modify the proposed Part 409 standard to make it consistent with established industry practices before it is adopted. The following changes are called for:

 

 

1. “Abandon the concept of requiring everyone doing business with the government to redetermine the service lives of his capital equipment to establish new cost accounting periods. Allow the use of the procedures now in established practice under IRS rules to determined the lives of equipment for depreciation.
2. “Accept the use of accelerated depreciation; especially when it is used by a company in that part of its business which is of the same nature as the business it does for the government.
3. “Provide for some flexibility for dealing with cases where accelerated depreciation might result in an inordinate cost against a particular contract.
4. “Above all, do not require a whole new set of rules and procedures for dealing with this problem. That is what Part 409 seems to do.
5. “Make both the intent and the requirement of Part 409 clear and concise so that there need be no uncertainty on the part of industry or government as to how to proceed.

 

“Let me conclude by again saying I am in favor of establishing good cost accounting standards. They should not be established so they discourage competent and responsible companies from doing business with the government and penalizing them if they do.”

 

 

 

Box 4, Folder 7 – General Speeches

 

September 15, 1975, Remarks at Paris Conference and Luncheon

 

It is not clear who Packard’s audience is, probably government and business people. He mentions that he and Bill Hewlett have been in France to open HP’s new plant in Grenoble, and HP will have an exhibit at the “SICOB” exposition.

 

9//15/75, Copy of a draft of remarks made by Packard

 

Packard says he plans to divide his remarks into three areas: a brief overview of HP’s world wide operations, operations in France, and lastly, a review of the management philosophy that “has guided our company over the 36 years of its growth and development.”

 

“First, a look at HP worldwide.”  Packard explains that HP is a “large, diversified company with a broad array of products and services.” He says  the company currently manufacturers some 3000 products which are sold in 175 countries, has 30 manufacturing plants and employs more than 29,000 people.

 

Packard emphasizes that HP is not a conglomerate, “Nor do we have any desire to be [one]. We are in the business of electronic measurement and computation; this is the business we know best, the business in which we feel comfortable and in which we intend to continue to concentrate our efforts.”

 

Commenting on activities in France, Packard says Hewlett-Packard France was first established in January 1964. “In that year…our total sales in France amounted to 20 million francs. In 1974 they amounted to 190 million francs, nearly a ten-fold increase in ten years.”

 

“There are now about 400 people in the company and, in addition to its headquarters in Orsay, the company has sales and service offices in six cities throughout the country.”

 

Packard tells of the official opening a few days ago of the new plant in Grenoble, a plant with 200 employees. He says they were attracted to Grenoble  due to the availability of a skilled work force, first rate educational institutions, and the physical attractiveness of the area.

 

Packard moves on to describe some of the principal elements of HP management philosophy, He says HP is not a tightly-controlled, highly centralized organization. “Our basic operating unit,” he says, “is the division, and each division…is a highly autonomous unit that operates, in many ways, like a small company.” He mentions the research and development staff at Grenoble, saying their first task will be to develop data entry terminals for HP’s entire line of computers.

 

“Another fundamental element in our management philosophy is our concern for people – not as groups but as individuals. Hewlett-Packard has been built around the individual, the personal dignity of each, and the recognition of personal achievements….We have some basic goals and objectives that are well understood throughout the corporation, and we allow the individual great freedom of action in working within these objectives.

 

“One other element of our philosophy,” Packard says, “…has to do with our relationships with the communities in which we operate. Each individual has an obligation to the a good citizen of his community. Likewise, each corporation has an obligation to be a good citizen of its community….I can assure you, speaking for all of our people in France, that we will do our best to be an economic, intellectual and social asset to Grenoble and to your great nation as well.”

 

“In closing, may I express our deep appreciation for the interest and cooperation we have received in establishing our operations in France and becoming an integral part of the French community. Help has come from many organizations and individuals, including several in this room We are honored and grateful to be here, and we look forward to a long and happy relationship.”

 

 

Box 4, Folder 8 – General Speeches

 

December 9, 1975, Eighteenth Annual Awards Dinner, The National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame, New York, N.Y.

Packard was selected by the National Football Foundation to receive their Gold Medal Award at their 1975 annual awards banquet. Packard gave this speech upon receiving the award.

 

12/9/75, Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks with handwritten additions by him

 

Saying that he is honored to receive this award, Packard adds that he is pleased to be “among the company of so many men of considerable achievement and distinction.”

 

Packard says he wants to “express my gratitude for having had the good fortune to participate in the great game of football. That participation began on the sandlots of Pueblo, Colorado, in 1925, some fifty years ago, and continued through my senior year at Stanford. Every year of these nine years I was out on the football field in the fall, and although I was never able to come up to my aspirations, I am firmly convinced that football had a profound influence on the course of my life and what success I may have achieved in these intervening years.”

 

Packard says that, although he studied hard at school, he realizes that he “learned some of the most important lessons for success on the football field.

 

“One of these lessons is the importance of hard work. A young man can read about the virtues of hard work in the classroom, but it is on the football field were one really begins to appreciate what hard work can do. And the lesson is the same whether one is trying to make All-American, make the first team, or make the traveling squad. It takes ability, of course, but success is not possible in football without hard work.”

 

He says that another lesson is learning “the importance of knowledge. We think of the class room as the place where a young man acquires knowledge, and that is true. But knowledge is equally important on the football field. No football player – whether in high school, college, or the professional ranks – can play up to his ability unless he knows as much as possible about the game, about his own team and his opponent, and about what is expected of him.

 

“Football is a team game,” he says, “and so is the game of life. Teamwork means learning to work with the other fellow, to know that you can depend on him and that he can depend on you. It requires discipline and unselfishness. Here, again, a young man can read and talk about teamwork in the classroom. On the football field teamwork becomes an absolutely essential ingredient for success, just as team work is an essential ingredient for success in the game of life.

 

“And, playing football teaches you very quickly it is not who you are, but what you are that counts. It makes not the slightest difference whether you live across the tracks or in the mansion on the hill when you are out there on the football field.

 

Packard says it is apparent that “I consider my participation in football as having been an immensely valuable part of my education.” And he says that he feels certain  those in the audience who have participated in football would agree with him.

 

“I hope you will agree with me, too, when I say that football in America is more important in these troubled times than ever before, because it is an institution that preserves and transmits from generation to generation some of the strengths of individual character that have made our country the greatest country in the world.

 

“A dedication to hard work, a striving for knowledge, a commitment to teamwork, and a belief that success depends not on who you are, but what you are. These are the lessons of football, and these are the ingredients of personal character that have been the elements of the American dream.

 

“But, all of these virtues are under attack today. All too many people today believe the world owes them a living. They see little merit in hard work, or, for that matter, in any work at all.

 

“Going through school, for many young people, is not for the purpose of gaining knowledge. For all too many school is merely a place to mark time until someone hands them a diploma they don’t deserve or don’t really seek. For all too many, young and old, what’s in it for me has become the theme of the day, rather than what can I do to help my team win.

 

“And , in the minds of all too many people, influence rather than performance is thought to be the road to success.

 

“You and I know our country will not remain the greatest nation in the world if these troublesome trends continue. You and I know that the fundamental strengths of our American society – freedom, opportunity and self-realization – will surely crumble if we become wards of the state instead of master of our own destiny.

 

“It is entirely fitting and proper, then, that we honor the game of football tonight. It is a great game, one that is interwoven into the fabric of America. Football is a game that has done much to develop and preserve those qualities of mind and spirit and body that have been so important in keeping our nation free and strong through the turbulent decades of the twentieth century. And, fortunately football is continuing to develop year after year these important qualities of mind and spirit and body in thousands of young men across this great country of ours. I am confident that through continuous recommitment to the game – and our reaffirmation of its inherent virtues – this game of football will continue to help keep America free and strong through the remaining decades of this century and beyond.

 

“The National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame is doing an important service in holding these annual events to honor the game of football.

 

“Let me express my deep appreciation for this honor you have given me and for the privilege of participating in this great program.”

 

12/9/75, Several 3×5” cards with Packard’s notes on them which appear to be some ideas he was putting together for his remarks

12/9/75, Copy of the typewritten program for the dinner, and printed brochure with biographies of those being honored

6/11/75, Typewritten note [although not addressed, it is obvious it is to Packard from his secretary, Margaret Paull]. The note says a Mr. Draddy called to say they would like to present Packard with the Gold Medal Award, and would like to know if Packard is willing to accept it. A copy of the previous year’s award dinner publication is attached.

6/24/75, A copy of a handwritten letter from “Bones” Hamilton to James McDowell of the Football Foundation in which he congratulates them on their choice of Packard for the 1975 award. Mr. Hamilton says he knew Packard at Stanford and says he was very well liked there. On the back of this copy, which he sends to Packard, he has penned a note to Packard congratulating him and saying he will see him at the banquet.

7/2/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Bones Hamilton, in which he says “I want you to know I feel very humble about this because I think it should have come to one of you fellows, who really were good football players. Nevertheless, I will do my best to represent the wonderful fellows I had the honor of being associated with on the team at Stanford in 1933.”

6/26/75, Letter to Packard from Bob Grayson, a fellow Stanford football player,  offering his congratulations

7/2/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Grayson, also saying he thinks someone from the ranks of the “good” players would be more appropriate

7/2/75, Letter to Packard from James L. McDowell, Executive Director of the Football Foundation, congratulating Packard on being selected for the award. He says Packard will be joining “an illustrious group, including five president of the United States.” He adds that he expects Stanford will be well represented at the dinner.

7/3/75, Note to Margaret Paull from Dave Kirby saying photos and a bio have been sent

7/15/75, Copy of a note from Packard to Dave Kirby saying he doesn’t want to ask any of “our people” to go to the [football] affair unless they would like to do so. He suggest Kirby “discretely” ask around but he makes it clear he does not want “to push the issue.”

7/18/75, Letter to Packard from James McDowell, Jr. talking about dates for the award dinner

8/20/75, Copy of a letter from James McDowell to Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, saying Packard cannot make the planned date in October, but looks forward to seeing Father Hesburgh in New York in December

8/27/75, Copy of a letter from James McDowell to Robert Reynolds thanking him for a donation. He adds that he has learned that the Stanford Board of Trustees is meeting the same day as the award dinner and none will be able to attend. He says the Athletic Director will attend as will others. He also says they have over 1250 reservations to date.

10/30/75, Letter to Packard from James McDowell with some information about the award dinner

11/11/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to James McDowell saying he will have copies of his speech ready a week ahead of time and “will be delighted to keep it down to not more than ten minutes.”

11/3/75, Letter to Packard from O. C. Carmichael, Jr., offering his congratulations

11/5/75, Letter to Packard from J. E. Sterling of Stanford, offering his congratulations

11/26/75, Letter to Packard from James McDowell with event details

11/26/75, Copy of a letter to James McDowell from Margaret Paull sending a copy of Packard’s speech

Early Dec., 1975, Handwritten letter on The National Football Foundation stationary, to Packard from Chet LaRoche offering congratulations

12/10/75, Handwritten letter to Packard from Thomas H. Martzloff saying “All of us at Table 14 were mighty proud of you!”

12/11/75, Letter to Packard from T. Kong Lee, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Lincoln University, offering congratulations

12/11/75, Letter to Packard from James McDowell thanking Packard for participating in the evening.

6/20/75, Letter to Packard from Alfred G. Cinelli, President of the Northern California Chapter of the Football Foundation inviting Packard to their annual dinner in San Francisco, Dec. 29^th

6/27/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Alfred Cinelli saying he will mark the date on his calendar

9/19/75, Letter to Packard from Alfred Cinelli confirming the 12/29 date and enclosing a copy of last year’s program, and asking if he would say a few words

9/25/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to Alfred Cinelli saying he will be pleased to join them on the 29^th of December and to say a few words

12/11/75, Letter to Packard from Alfred C. Cinelli, reminding him of the Annual Awards Dinner on December 29 in San Francisco and saying he will see him there

12/30/75, Letter to Packard from A. G. Cinelli expressing appreciation for participation in their program

12/?/75, Handwritten note to Packard from Arthur R. Motley, Chairman of the Board of Parade magazine, saying “NICE!”

 

12/15/75, Letter to Packard from Joseph M. Pettit, President, Georgia Institute of Technology, congratulating him on the award, and also saying how pleased he is that Dave and Bill are making the new engineering building at Stanford, dedicated to Fred Terman, possible

12/15/75, Letter to Packard from Jerome H. Holland offering congratulations

12/12/75, Letter to Packard from Glenn A. Olds of Kent State University. He recalls meeting Packard at the Pentagon and offers his congratulations

12/17/75, Copy of a letter from Packard to President Olds of Kent State, thanking him for his note and adding that he [Packard] hopes  he would agree that the general climate has improved at most college campuses

12/17/75, Letter to Packard from George M. Mardikian offering congratulations

1/7/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to George Mardikian thanking him for his note

12/12/75,  Telegram from Bill and Bobbie Bigler congratulating Packard on the award

1/9/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to the Biglers thanking them for the telegram

1/12/76, Letter to Packard from John C. Warnecke asking for a copy of Packard’s remarks. He encloses a newspaper clipping covering the award event.

1/7/76, Letter to Packard from Thomas F. Gilbane congratulating Packard on the award

1/19/76, Copy of a letter from Packard to Thomas Gilbane thanking him for his letter

1/30/76, Note to Packard from Tiny Yewell congratulating him on the award

2/17/76, Letter to Packard from James L. McDowell of the Football Foundation enclosing several copies of their publication covering the event

12/?/75, Newspaper clipping, paper not named. It tells of the forthcoming award to Packard and gives some biographical data on his athletic career at Stanford.

The article [written by Art Rosenbaum] says: “Packard was 6 feet 5 inches….He was BIG, but he was also awkward. He had another problem; he was in pursuit of a Phi Beta Kappa key in engineering.

 

“Packard was a hurdler, long jumper and discus thrower on the track team. He was a forward on the basketball team and then coach John Bunn almost cried when Packard stepped out.

 

“He had talked his school program over with Coach Bunn [who told him he should concentrate on one sport]. Packard…chose football.

 

“His football career was spent (90 percent of it) on the bench. “I don’t regret it,” he said, it was enjoyable being a part of those great Rose Bowl teams.”

12/10/75, Clipping from the Palo Alto times covering the award event

12/10/75, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle covering the award event

 

12/29/75, Printed program for the 12/29/75 awards Dinner by the Northern California Chapter of the National Football Foundation

12/10/74, Copy of printed booklet showing the honorees at the Seventeenth Annual Awards Dinner of the Foundation

11/25/33, Copy of the printed program of the 1933 Cal-Stanford football game