Box 1, Folder 35B – HP Management

 

July 16, 1992, Message to HP People Everywhere Regarding the Change in HP’s Executive Leadership

 

7/16/92,  Copy of typewritten text of statement

 

“Yesterday you learned that there will be a change in the executive leadership of our company on November 1.

 

“The changes were recommended by the Succession Committee which was established by the Board two years ago to deal with some of the problems that were having an adverse influence on the performance of our Company, and to make recommendations for the future leadership of the Company. Both Bill and I have been working closely with the Succession Committee since it was established.

 

“John Young has also been working closely with the committee in developing its recommendations and he has done a superb job in implementing the recommendations it has made.

 

“As the committee began to address the question of future leadership we recognized very early in our work that Lew Platt and Dick Hackborn were the two leading candidates. Each had outstanding ability which was not competitive but complementary. We thus recommended that Lew be the President and CEO and that Dick remain as Vice President in charge of Computer Products, which has been the most competitive and most profitable activity of our company. Our recommendations imply that both Lew and Dick will be equally important for the future of the Company.

 

“We had to deal with the issue of when the change in leadership should be made. The leadership of John and Dean has brought the Company to a dominant position of strength in our industry and we could have delayed the change for several years. We had two outstanding people, Lew and Dick, extremely well qualified, enthusiastic about accepting the opportunity and responsibility for the success of Hewlett-Packard in the years ahead. We decided the best course would be to make the change at the end of this fiscal year. Lew and Dick will become members of the Board when they take office on November 1. John and Dean will retire from the Board on October 31.

 

“This action was taken with a unanimous vote of the Succession Committee and the unanimous approval of the Board.

 

“I will remain as Chairman of the Board. Although Bill Hewlett has resigned from the Board he has a strong desire to support and help the new leadership.

 

“I want to take this opportunity to thank all of my fellow employees throughout the world for the steady way you have upheld the company objectives we laid out so many years ago. Bill and I also appreciate the hundreds of letters and communications we have received from so many of you since we have been dealing with these issues. We hope we will continue to hear from you in the future.

 

“It is gratifying to know how many of you want to help us keep HP as one of the best companies in the world. I have no doubt whatever that with your help we can, and we will, do just that.”

Box 5, Folder 40A – General Speeches

 

February 10. 1992 – Programs of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, with emphasis on The Relationship of Population Control and Economic issues with Biodiversity, Palo Alto, CA. The forum of the speech is not given.

 

2/10/92, Copy of the text of this speech

 

Packard says the foundation has been “involved in environmental issues for over twenty years and many of these issues include biodiversity. Most of the environmental issues have been in California or other parts of the western United States and have involved the preservation of open space and endangered species, including marine species. Population pressures and related economic issues have almost always been involved but could generally be dealt with on a local basis.”

 

He says they became interested in the oceans of the world some twelve years ago and decided to build the Monterey Bay Aquarium as a first step. “The aquarium was designed to display the major marine habitats of the Monterey Bay. In doing this we have been extensively involved in the preservation of threatened or endangered species, sea otters and other marine mammals and several species of birds.

 

The resources of the oceans are so poorly managed that they produce only about half of the food they could produce under good management, and the pollution of the oceans is almost completely out of control. I am sure no one knows how many oceans species are threatened or endangered.”

 

Packard explains that the work in population control and environmental issues of the foundation has been expanded into Canada and Mexico, as well as other Central and South American countries. “From our experience so far,” he says, “we feel very strongly that the endangered species and related environmental problems can not be dealt with in any adequate way without taking into account the population pressures and the economic well being of the people who may be affected by the actions that are taken.”

 

Concluding that population and economic pressures are the main cause of environmental damage, Packard says he “does not see any hope that environmental damage can ever be stopped if the population and economic  pressures are not brought under control.

 

Packard tells of the foundation’s work in the preservation of certain species such as the Monarch Butterfly. “The presence  of this attractive insesct is enjoyed by thousands of people in Northern California and other parts of the United States and there do not appear to be any serious problems in protecting that part of their habitat in Mexico that is critical to their surivval.”

 

The foundation has also been active in helping protect the environment of the sea otter along the coast of Northern California. He notes, however, that “Because these creatures are so attractive to people, this program has more emotion than common sense. Thousands of dollars were spent to save a few sea otters from the Valdez oil spill, but there was no way to deal effectively with the thousands that were involved. Most of those that were saved from the effects of the oil were not returned to the ocean but were given to aquariums for their display.

 

“Frankly,” he says, “I do not think the preservation of individual species should always be the main object of … conservation endeavor[s]. I think the main objective should often be the establishment of a stable, self renewing biological environment. But that, of course, will assure the preservation of at least most of the species.”  He cites the example of the spotted owl in the forests of  the Northwestern United States which he says very few people have ever seen. “Despite the actions taken on behalf of the spotted owl the forests are not being managed on a long term self-renewing basis, and if they were it would provide an ample area for the preservation of these birds,” he states.

 

Talking about the long ocean frontage of Mexico Packard says this is another example where the preservation of specific endangered species in the ocean should not be the main objective. Instead he feels the oceans should be managed “so that they will be a stable, self renewing environment that will provide important resources for Mexico and the the rest of the world. In doing this the vast array of species that inhabit the oceans will be preserved.”

 

In some cases he feels “the preservation of a single species will be the catalyst for action. Catching dolphins in fishing nets…is a situation that must be corrected. This is an issue driven by emotion which can be corrected with a bit of common sense.”

 

Noting the forthcoming negotiations about the North American Common Market, Packard forsees “considerable opposition building up in the United States and some of the groups in opposition will certainly use environmental issues to support their opposition….I believe this distinguished group could be helpful to the President of Mexico by identifying issues that are likely to be troublesome and suggesting some actions that might be taken to reduce the influence of environmentalists in the United States who oppose the free trade treaty.”

 

 

Box 5, Folder 40B – General speeches

 

May 13, 1992 – Garden club of America, Cynthia Pratt Laughlin Medal, Baltimore, Maryland

 

May 13, 1992, Typewritten text of Packard’s acceptance speech

 

Packard was nominated for this award by the Carmel by the Sea Garden Club, and he expresses his appreciation to the Club President, Donna Dormody, for nominating him – “and to my friends who supported her nomination.”

 

Packard says when he first heard of his nomination for this award his first reaction was that there were certainly many other people than himself who were more deserving of such recognition. But then he recalled that he had, indeed, had a life long interest in gardening, first fostered by his mother. He says he began to help her plant a vegetable garden at their home in Pueblo, Colorado when he was about ten years old, adding that  “We planted a vegetable garden every spring, a practice I have followed in nearly every one of the seventy years since.”

 

In the 1920’s Packard, earned a little money in the summer by cutting the lawns of neighbors. Many other boys did likewise, but, he says, “Most of the boys would try to get the job done as quickly as possible, but from my mother’s guidance I was motivated to take a little more time and do the cutting and trimming as neatly as possible.” From this experience he learned  about the “better mouse trap theory.”

 

Packard graduated from Stanford in 1934 and took a job with the General Electric Company in Schenectady New York. He tells how he and Lucile Salter “a young lady I met at Stanford,” were married there in April of 1938, and how, in July, his interest in gardening “almost caused a divorce.…” He got up early one Saturday, his mind full of plans for a vegetable garden behind their house, and, as he tells it he “had the garden spaded and ready for planting when I went into the house to have a cup of coffee and found his wife in tears. In my zeal to get my garden planted I had completely forgotten that Saturday was her birthday!”

 

By 1950 “the Hewlett-Packard Company” he says, “was doing well and I began to extend my gardening interest into ranching. Bill Hewlett and I have major ranches in California and Idaho. We realized that the success of a cattle ranch is primarily dependent on the quality of the grasses and broad-leaf plants that provide the feed for the animals, and the trees and shrubs that protect the land from deterioration.”

 

Although “semi-retired” for the past 15 years or so, Packard says he has been “actively involved in restoring areas near the Monterey Bay to their original character. I have planted thousands of native trees and shrubs and established a nursery to produce grasses and plants that will survive long periods of drought that are becoming common in California.”

 

Packard closes by saying that “Gardening has been an important part of my life and it is a great honor to accept this award.”

 

5/13/92, Award Certificate for the Cynthia Pratt Laughlin Medal-1992. States that the medal is being awarded for “…outstanding achievement in environmental protection and the maintenance of the quality of life.” It says it was presented to David Packard “whose ongoing commitment to researching and fostering the growth of native plants and wildlife in California is encouraging long-term national efforts in the areas of conservation and the preservation of natural habitats.”

5/13/92, Summary for Candidates lists the Proposer, Seconders, and supporters.

5/13/92, Copy of a printed pamphlet describing the Garden Club of America

12/13/91, Copy of a letter to Packard from Mrs. Edward King Poor, III, National Chairman, Medal Award Committee, telling him he has been selected for the medal award.

1/22/92, Letter to Packard from Mrs. Edward King Poor III, saying she is “delighted” that he will be accepting the award, and giving details of the ceremony.

1/24/92, Letter to Packard from Donna Dean Dormody, President Carmel by the Sea Garden Club. She extends her congratulations on the award and says they are pleased that “a convervationist of your magnitude from this area has won such a prestigious award.”

2/21/92, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mrs. Edward King Poor, III sending a draft of his acceptance speech.

4/15/92, Copy of a letter to Packard from Mrs. Sellers J. Thomas, Jr., President of the Garden Club of America,  inviting him to a cocktail party on the evening of May 13, preceding the award dinner.

4/21/92, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mrs. Thomas accepting her invitation to the cocktail party.

May 12, 1992, Copy of Packard’s travel itinerary

 

 

Box 5, Folder 41 – General Speeches

 

October 5, 1992, Dataquest’s Semiconductor Industry Conference, Monterey, CA

 

10/5/92, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments

 

Packard says he wonders what he could say to this distinguished audience that would be interesting or helpful. “I know you are interested,” he says, “in the outcome of the election this fall. Although I have expressed my preference I do not think it will make much difference who wins. The United States economy is so thoroughly involved and so dependent on the worldwide economy that there is no strictly domestic action that will be constructive.”

 

So Packard says he will confine his remarks to two matters. “First, to tell you about how some of the management policies and practices of the Hewlett-Packard Company came about. Second, to make some observations about what I see as the future long range opportunities for this industry.

 

Before talking of the genesis of the HP Way, Packard says he would like to begin “with a bit of personal background.”

 

He tells of growing up in Pueblo Colorado and wanting to be an electrical engineer with General Electric Company. He built a radio station at home and continued his interest in radio when he came to Stanford. At Stanford he worked in the radio station which was near the radio laboratory of Professor Fred Terman, who would stop in once in a while.

 

Professor Terman arranged for Packard to attend his course which included visits to local industrial companies which were involved in radio – Heintz and Kaufman, Litton, Eitel, McCullough and Farnsworth.

 

Packard met Bill Hewlett and Ed Porter at Stanford. They became close friends, and in 1934, they decided to go into business for themselves after they graduated – thinking it would be difficult to get jobs during the current depression.

 

However, Packard was offered a job at General Electric in Schenecdtady, New York. Professor Terman encouraged Packard to accept the job to get some experience while Hewlett finished a year or two of graduate study.

 

Packard tells of his advisor at G.E. trying to interest him in power transmission and electric generators. These were not to his interest and he took a position in the refrigerator department. He worked in a shop making glass tubes about the size of gallon jugs. Many of the tubes were blowing up in the manufacturing process and he was given the job of finding out why. He says he worked with the factory people going through each step of the manufacturing process until they produced a batch with no failures.

 

“As I look back,” he says, “ my decision to work on that ignitron tube problem with the people in the factory had a profound influence on the management policies we developed for the Hewlett-Packard Company. That was the genesis of what has been called management by walking around. I learned that quality requires minute attention to every detail, that everyone in an organization wants to do a good job, that written instructions are seldom adequate and personal involvement is essential.”

 

Saying that personal involvement has been very important at all levels in  HP he gives a couple of examples. “In the middle of the 1970s our company was running low on cash and was planning to borrow $100 million. I realized that accounts receivable and inventories had got out of control, and I made a personal visit to nearly all of our operations to emphasize the importance of controlling these assets. It turned out that some of our procedures were at fault. These were corrected and by the end of the year instead of needing to borrow $100 million we had $100 million in the bank. Just a couple of years ago Bill and I began to receive complaints that the company was becoming to bureaucratic. We made some personal visits and learned that a division could not start a new product until it had been approved by six different committees at headquarters. These committee approvals were reduced to one, and our new product program is now far more productive.”

 

“…trying to provide long term security has been one of our policies,” Packard says. This began with concern about engineers. We had observed that in the aerospace industry in Southern California an outstanding team of engineers would be working for a firm that had an important contract.. When that contract was finished they were let go and had to find jobs at another firm which had a contract. Bill and I both thought this was a bad practice and we decided to concentrate our efforts on proprietary products so we could build a stable engineering team.

 

“Although our initial concern was about engineers, because of our close association with all of our employees in our early days, we extended this policy to include everyone.

 

“One of the important tenants of the HP Way was to finance our growth strictly from reinvesting our earnings.

 

He tells of working with his father who was a bankruptcy referee during the 1930s. He learned that a person or a business could survive if it had no long term debt. Often long term debt could not be refinanced during the depression and the person or business lost everything….We also felt it was desirable to have our employees own some share of the company. To do that we had an employee stock purchase plan  under which our employees could purchase stock at a 25% discount from the market.”

 

“From these examples of our early experience I think you can see that the HP Way was developed over a long period of time and was built on personal experiences of Bill and myself.

 

“Because of the success of the policies followed by the United States and the free world since the end of World War II, we now face an unprecedented dilemma. I do not think anyone can predict the short term outcome but there are two areas of basic research extending over the last twenty years or so that will have a profound influence on all industry based on high technology in the future. One is a new understanding about how life began on the earth, and this is related to how the universe began. The other is a new understanding about the structure of the atom.

 

Packard says the second area of basic research that will influence industry in the future is “The beginning of the universe.”

 

“The most widely accepted theory about the beginning of the universe is that it was created some six billion years ago by a ‘big bang’ whereby all of the mass was created in a fraction of a second from energy. Over the next two billion years this mass condensed into all of the galaxies of the universe. The earth was formed during this period and had cooled to its present configuration. Water had condensed and about 3.8 billion years ago life appeared in virus-like micro organisms that each contained a piece of DNA and RNA identical in structure to a piece of DNA and RNA that is found in every living thing today. They had no cellular membrane and mutations could occur rapidly. These micro organisms lived on hydrogen sulfide which they disassociated to obtain the hydrogen for the hydrocarbons in their structures. There was no oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere at that time. About a billion years later these micro organisms learned how to disassociate water into hydrogen which they needed, and oxygen was released to the atmosphere and built up to its present level of about 30%.

 

“About two billion hears ago cells developed and mutations required the mating of two cells and the production of offspring. From that beginning all plants and animals in the world have evolved. The virus-type micro organisms still exist in all living things and can mutate much more rapidly than cells. It is through their action that such things as immunity to antibiotics can build up rapidly.

 

“The structure of the atom.

 

All of the amazing technical progress in the twentieth century has been based on scientific knowledge that was in place before the end of the nineteenth century. The basic laws of electricity and magnetism, Newton’s laws of gravity, Maxwell’s equations, were all known before the turn of the century. The atom was thought to consist of a simple nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by various numbers of electrons. This image could explain the periodic table and all of the electronic development of the twentieth century, the Poulsen arc, the vacuum tube, and the transistor were all based on this simple image of the atom. Einstein’s theories and the relationship of mass and energy were developed during the first half of the century, but this did not change the basic concept of a simple structure of the atom.

 

“The high energy physics projects, the Stanford linear accelerator and all other accelerators were driven by the cold war. There was serious concern that the Soviets might discover some new nuclear phenomena that would give them a military advantage. From this high energy research we learned that the atom is not a simple structure, but consists of ten or so different particles with weak forces ands strong forces. It is far different from the simple structure it was thought to be.

 

“Under the theory of the simple structure we could deal with only those materials that occur in nature. With knowledge of the complex structure it is now possible to make materials that do not occur in nature. Glass that is ductile, not brittle for example. This new knowledge about the atom opens up a whole new era, particularly I think for the information industry. I saw recently a demonstration in which nerve cells had been made to grow in an inorganic structure. This new knowledge about the nature of the physical universe will give us a better understanding of how the brain works, an ability to understand and utilize to our advantage the physical world in which we live. This means that your LSI’s will utilize organic material in the future.

 

“From this perspective, I do not think what happens this year in the political arena will be of any importance whatever in the long term. With these new horizons in front of you the opportunity for progress in the twenty-first century is clearly going to be far greater than the opportunity we have had in the twentieth century.”

 

Box 1, Folder – Folder 35A

 

November 6, 1991, Review of Stock Repurchase Action, Statement to All HP Managers

 

11/6/91, Copy of typewritten text of remarks

It is not clear how this was communicated, but it is clear that Packard felt strongly about the subject, and wished that managers be made aware of his, and Hewlett’s, feelings on the subject.

 

“During the period from 1980 until 1988 both Bill Hewlett and I refrained from any involvement in the management of the Hewlett-Packard Company. We felt we had a good management team well oriented in the traditional management policies we had followed over the past 40 years. I was troubled by the statement that HP was to become a more customer driven company because I felt that we had given the requirements of our customers a high priority from the very beginning. Our overall performance had been very good with earnings growing from less than $1.00 in 1980 to over $3.50 at the end of 1988, and the stock price increasing from $15 to over $90, and we had $2 billion in cash.

 

“When it was proposed that we use that cash to buy back HP stock I had an intuitive feeling that we were doing the wrong thing but we had a strong finance committee and most of our directors had experience in such matters so I was hesitant to bring the issue to a head at that time. You may recall I did predict that this action would bring the stock price down to about half its current value, to the mid $20s within the following year. And that is actually what happened.

 

“Hind-sight is always more accurate than fore-sight and we should look at what actually happened. The book price of the stock was $15.49 as of 10/31/85. It increased to $17.29 in 1986, $29.57 in 1987, $22.70 in 1988, and it would have been $25.86 in 1989 without the repurchase of stock. The repurchase brought the book value down to $22.91 as of 10/31/89. The remaining shareholders thus each lost $2.95 in book value. There were 237,644,000 shares outstanding after the repurchase and so the total loss they suffered was $701,049,000!!!!

 

“To compound the felony HP’s employees lost $24 million dollars a year in cash profit sharing and this is not just a one year loss but a loss in every year that follows in an amount in proportion to the interest return on $2 billion. The U.S. employees also lost a similar amount in retirement funds.

 

“The only stock repurchase plan that would benefit the company would be when the stock could be purchased below the book value.

 

HIND-SIGHT CLEARLY TELLS US THAT THE STOCK REPURCHASE ACTION HAS BEEN A DISASTER FOR THE COMPANY AND IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE FOR THE DIRECTORS TO AUTHOURIZE ANY FURTHER REPURCHASE OF HP STOCK UNLESS IT CAN BE REPURCHASED BELOW THE BOOK VALUE.”

Box 5, Folder 39A – General Speeches

 

February 28, 1991, Speech at Colorado University, Colorado Springs, CO

Packard was Keynote speaker at Banquet in honor the school’s 25^th  Anniversary

 

2/28/91, Copy of typewritten text of speech

 

Packard reviews some HP history, particularly its close association with Stanford,  which became a very important factor in the growing company’s ability to attract and retain technical personnel. So, in 1950, when they decided to establish operations outside the Palo Alto area, proximity to a university was high on their list, along with a location that would provide an attractive living area for employees. Access to an airport was also important.

 

He says Colorado looked good to them and Boulder was their first choice – but they couldn’t find a satisfactory location. They decided on Loveland, where operations were started in leased facilities in 1959.

 

Operations in Loveland “turned out very well” and so in 1962 they decided to look for another site in Colorado. Again they looked for a site in Boulder, but  without success. They did, however, find two possibilities – one in Denver, and another in Colorado Springs. “The Colorado Springs site had one fault,” Packard says, “It was too far from the University of Colorado – and neither the Air Force Academy or Colorado College could provide the continuing educational needs of our technical people.”

 

Packard recalls leaving Colorado Springs one fine spring day to drive up to Denver and take another at the location there. “As I came over the ridge above the city,” he says, “all I could see was a thick layer of brown smog where the city should be. That settled the matter – Colorado Springs it would be.”

 

However, he says he was “still troubled about the lack of a university that we needed to help us keep our technical staff at the forefront of the rapidly expanding electronics field.” Saying he has always been an optimist in dealing with such problems, he felt sure they could some how get the University of Colorado to help. “A U.C. branch here would help in bringing more high technology companies to Colorado Springs….With the help of the University, the Legislature, and the Governor, the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs was opened to classes in September 1965.

 

Packard says he does not deserve very much of the credit for this U.C. facility in Colorado Springs. “Many other people in the Hewlett-Packard Company were involved, and many people in other high technology companies in Colorado Springs helped, and it would not have happened without the help of many people in the State government….I am very pleased to be with you tonight to join with all of you in thanking the Dean and all of the people at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs for their twenty five years of dedicated [help] to both Colorado springs and to the State of Colorado.”

 

Packard notes that we are all joined in “thanksgiving for the magnificent performance of our armed forces in the Desert Storm operation.” He comments that this victory was made possible in large part due to the most “sophisticated military equipment in the world, operated by the most capable and most dedicated military people in the world. This city, Colorado Springs with many high technology firms producing this equipment, and with the Airforce Academy training the military people to operate this equipment has every reason to take great pride in being an important part of the most successful military operation the world has ever seen.”

 

Packard takes a moment to change direction and offer some criticism directed at Colorado’s representatives in Congress. He adds that he feels he has the right to do so because Colorado is his home state. “I simply can not refrain,” he says, “from telling you that I am ashamed of some of the people you have sent to Washington. If our Armed Forces  had been developed along the lines they recommended we would likely be hanging our heads in shame tonight.”

 

He says he wants to conclude with some “guidelines which I think should be considered for C.U.C.S. in the years ahead. There has been considerable concern during the past few years about our ability to maintain our leadership in technology, particularly over the Japanese and other Asian countries and the counties of Europe as well….I think it’s time to get back to some of the fundamentals of this issue. The development, manufacturing and marketing of new products with the highest quality and lowest cost is a highly integrated procedure. High reliability and efficient manufacturability must be designed into the product in the original development. The performance to meet the needs of the customer must also be designed into the product in the original development. I hope you will give more emphasis to teaching your students that the design, the manufacturing, and the marketing has to be a fully integrated procedure especially for new high technology products.

 

“I do not share the concern that we will not be able to retain our technological leadership. Our government could be more helpful, the playing field is not always level, especially in respect to the Japanese. My main concern is that we are not doing our own job as well as we should. And I am sure we can, and I think we will, do better.

 

“Thank you for asking me to join in honoring the Colorado State University in Colorado Springs on this important Anniversary.”

 

2/28/91, Printed invitation to the Banquet

2/28/91, Copy of typewritten sheet, plus attachment, giving information about the University

2/4/91, Letter to Packard from Peiter A. Frick, Dean of the College of Engineering and Applied Science thanking him for agreeing to join them at their Anniversary, and giving some details about the evening.

2/27/91, Copy of a typewritten sheet listing Packard’s itinerary for the trip

Undated, Typewritten sheet listing dates HP’s facilities in Colorado were opened

 

 

Box 5, Folder 39B – General Speeches

 

April 25, 1991, Hearing on the Indirect Cost of University Research Before the Subcommittee on Science of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington D.C.

 

4/25/91, Typewritten text of  Packard’s statement

 

Packard says he is “…pleased to appear before you today at this hearing on the Indirect Costs of University Research.” He has some recommendations to make, he says, and states that if these are adopted “…they will enable universities to conduct substantially more research with the funds provided by the federal government than they are able to do today. My recommendations will include the Administrative Cost issue, Direct Cost matters, Buildings and Equipment, and some of the other issues covered in the White House Science Council Panel on the Health of the U. S. Colleges and Universities, which I co-chaired with Dr. Allan Bromley from May 1984 until February 1986….He says he realizes there will not be time to consider all of his recommendations in detail, “but I think it is very important for this committee to address the overall problem, not just the indirect cost problem.

 

“In my opinion,” Packard says, “there is no issue before the Congress that is more important than determining how America can maintain its position of world wide leadership in technology that has been achieved since World War II. The matters to be discussed at this hearing are an important part of this issue, but I want to begin with a brief summary of how the federal support of university research began and why it is so important.”

 

Packard tells how President Roosevelt, when it became evident that the United States might become involved in World War II,  appointed Dr. Vannevar Bush to head a new agency called the National Defense Research Committee, in June, 1940. The object of this Committee was to recruit and use America’s best scientific talent to win the war, and Dr. Bush began by recruiting six thousand of the country’s leading scientists, engineers and doctors. By the end of the war this committee, known as the Office of Scientific Research and Development, had thirty thousand scientists, engineers and doctors engaged in this endeavor to use science to win the war.

 

“Some of these scientists,” Packard says, “concentrated on the specific objective of making the atom bomb. Others concentrated on applying scientific research and product development to all other aspects of the war effort. They developed better radar and radar counter measures, the proximity fuse, better sonar equipment for our submarines, countermeasure equipment for submarine warfare, which confused the enemy about the location of our submarines, and a great many types of equipment and systems described as electronic warfare.”

 

Packard describes the work of this research and development project as “…the most important determinate in the allied victory over the enemy in Europe and in our success in retaking the islands in the western Pacific from Japan.”

 

“This unprecedented endeavor is described in detail in a book, Modern Arms and Free Men, written by Vannevar Bush in 1949, and every member of this committee should read this book if they have not done so.”

 

Because the project was so successful, Packard says Vannevar Bush felt something similar should be continued after the war, and he quotes Bush as follows: ‘On the wisdom with which we bring science to bear in the war against disease, in the creation of new industries, and in the strengthening of our armed forces depends in large measure our future as a nation.’

 

“Vannevar Bush’s advice was followed,” Packard says, “and the outcome has been exactly what he predicted. The United States is today the leader of the world in Technology, We have made great progress in the war against disease. We have created vast new industries, and our brilliant military victory, Desert Storm, was assured because our distinguished military leaders and our highly skilled, brave and dedicated men and women in uniform had the best weapons in the world.

 

Packard says it is essential that all involved in reviewing the present issue, members of this committee, of the entire Congress, and of the Administration, realize that “the subject we were asked to discuss with you today, Administrative Overhead, is only a small part of the major issue which is: How can this research and development endeavor, which has served our country so well since World War II, be continued with equal success in the years ahead.”

 

Packard makes three recommendations, not going into detail due to time limitations, but says he will be available for questions and discussion afterwards.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD: “Administrative overhead should be paid for by the federal government as a fixed percentage of direct research cost.” He suggests about 50% for private universities, less for state supported universities. Packard says this fixed allowance need not be audited, and he believes the elimination of this requirement would reduce the cost to both the schools and to the government. Packard also points out that it would eliminate “the current anguish about the legality and propriety of administrative overhead costs. Such overhead would include occupancy costs, light, heat, janitorial services and routine maintenance – but not the original cost of the buildings and of major equipment.”

 

COST OF BUILDINGS AND MAJOR EQUIPMENT: “The cost of buildings and major equipment paid for by university funds should be reimbursed in government contracts by a payment of the government’s fair share of interest at the average level of the current return on university endowments and by an allowance for depreciation. He includes some thoughts on how this should be determined.”

 

THE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECT COSTS: These are, Packard says, “…the salaries and the fringe benefits of the scientists, engineers and doctors who are doing the research, and costs of assistants, including graduate students, and the materials, etc. needed in their work. The direct costs should be precisely defined and be uniform for all contracts.” Packard believes too many reports and too much paper work is required of the people doing the work. He says “Some of the government contracts require the research people to make three reports every month, a financial report, a scientific report, and a report of their work for people who do not understand science….There is a large variation in the amount of reporting required among government agencies. The reporting should be reduced to a bare minimum, and uniformity among all government agencies should be required.”

 

For some additional recommendations Packard refers members of the Committee to the Packard-Bromley report of 1986. “For example,” he says, “most projects should be funded for at least three years; and there is no way to accurately measure the division of the research person’s time between teaching and research, and there is absolutely no reason to try to do so.”

 

Packard says the three key recommendations he has made here “must be implemented as an integrated unit. All federal agencies must be required to adopt them. If this is done there will be significant cost savings, and there will be more research from a lower level of  funding.

 

“It is the oversight responsibility of the Congress to determine whether the tax payer is receiving full value for the federal dollars spent on research at U. S. universities. The answer is a resounding No! And it is primarily the fault of the Congress!

 

“That completes a brief summary of my views on the subject. I will be pleased to respond to your questions and participate in the discussion.”

 

4/11/91, Copy of a letter to Packard from Rick Boucher, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science inviting him to appear before the committee to discuss the subject of the Indirect Costs of University Research. He attaches a summary statement of  the purpose of the hearing.

4/16/91, Copy of a letter to Packard from D. Allan Bromley who co-chaired a Panel on the Health of U.S. Colleges and Universities with Packard in 1984-1986. Dr. Bromley gives his thoughts on the matter under consideration, and encloses excerpts from various reports.

5/6/91, Copy of a letter from Packard to Chairman Boucher and Members of the Subcommittee. Packard comments on several issues which were discussed at the hearing which, he says, need clarification.

 

He says “There seemed to be general agreement that a fixed rate for administrative overhead would be desirable. There was a suggestion that it should contain a cost of living factor.” Packard points out that since the fixed rate would be based on the actual direct costs at the various universities involved the issue of cost of living would be automatically built in. So the fixed cost rate should not have a cost of living factor.

 

“There was also the suggestion that this fixed rate should be subject to negotiation by universities which considered it unfair. I would strongly oppose this position. One of the most important arguments for a fixed rate is to eliminate the extensive auditing and negotiating about administrative overhead costs and charges. This would save both the Federal government and the universities millions of dollars every year; dollars that are spent under the present system and are a total waste.”

 

Packard goes into considerable detail on how the matter of depreciation might be handled. “The problem,” he says, “comes from the fact that federal contracts provide for depreciation whereas most universities have no depreciation costs.”

 

“The depreciation allowances on government contracts are generally paid into the general funds of the university. As one Stanford study admitted ‘…these funds play an extremely important role as a source of income to the Operating Budget.’ I do not think Stanford’s situation is different from most universities. Furthermore, this has been done with the cooperation of the ONR as well as other funding agencies.

 

“This committee should not consider it fundamentally wrong for the Federal Government to underwrite some of the operating costs of our universities. That is a subject you must address. If you agree, the only issue is whether there is a better way for this to be done.

 

“If you agree, I would make this recommendation. All depreciation allowances which do not go into debt service should be allocated to a special building account and should not go to the general fund account. Allocations from this building fund account should be applied to new research buildings and equipment or major renovations of research facilities…..”

 

“Anything that can be done to deal with this problem in a realistic way will cost the Federal Government more money. If the Federal Government is not willing to provide more money to support this nation’s universities, there is only one possible outcome – American universities will have to retrench.

 

“This is the basic decision this committee has to address. Should the Federal Government provide more money to support our universities or not. I personally do not think retrenchment would necessarily be a disaster.

 

“I am quite sure that implementing the recommendations I have given you will allow the American taxpayer to receive more value for the federal dollars that are provided, and my recommendations are more important if the overall decision is not to increase the funding.

 

“A satisfactory solution will be difficult at best. It will be impossible if the pork barrel propensities of the members of the Congress cannot be brought into control.”

 

7/1/91, Letter to Packard from Roland W. Schmitt, President, Ressselaer University, discussing the issues addressed by the committee.

 

February, 1986, Copy of the bound report “Report of the White House Science Science Council Panel on the Health of U.S. Colleges and Universities. The Panel was chaired by David Packard and D. Allan Bromley

 

 

Newspaper clippings. These discuss various actions being taken by governmental agencies due to the perceived abuses by Stanford and other universities.

 

4/23/91, San Jose Mercury News

4/26/91, San Jose Mercury News

4/26/91, The Stanford Daily

 

 

Box 5, Folder 39C – General Speeches

 

May 13, 1991 – Remarks Before the Computer and Business Manufacturers Association

At their 75 Anniversary Event, Washington D.C.

 

5/13/91,  Copy of typed text of speech

 

 

Packard says he was asked by John Pickett, President of the Association to join them for dinner, and his only task would be to introduce Secretary Mosbacher – but he was told he could make a few remarks on his own if he wished. He proceeds to take advantage of this invitation, and his subject is the abuses in overhead charges from many research universities. He tells the story much as he did in the statement to the House Subcommittee described in the above speech dated April 25, 1991. Since the material is essentially the same it is not repeated again here.

 

 

Box 5, Folder 39D – General Speeches

 

May 20, 1991, The Health of U.S. Research Colleges and Universities, location not given

 

5/20/91, Copy of typewritten text of speech. This is again the same speech as given April 25, 1991 and is not repeated here.

 

 

Box 5, Folder 39E – General Speeches

 

June 27, 1991, Remarks at the Reception of the Marine Board at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, CA

 

6/27/91, Copy of typewritten outline of speech

 

Since the speech is typed in outline form, the description here is broadened a little to provide more continuity.

 

Packard says he is humble to be speaking to such a distinguished group.

 

He says his interest in marine science began about 14 years ago with the development of the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

 

“The oceans are the most important frontier and we do not know as much as we should about them. At the Aquarium we concluded that unmanned remotely operated deep sea vehicles were the most efficient way to explore the oceans.

 

“Space based systems are also important for ocean research as they can also be unmanned and remotely operated.

 

“Computers are also important tools but not enough is known about modeling large systems and we do not have adequate input data.

 

“Environmental issues are overcharged with emotion and risk

 

“MBARI [Marine Bay Aquarium Research Institute] was founded to apply the latest technology to measure and study marine technology. Monterey Bay is an ideal location to develop and apply technology and I think we have made a good start in the past three and a half years.

 

“I am most pleased that Peter Brewer has agreed to be our Executive Director. He has been here since the first of the year and he is off to a very good start.

 

“Now we will have a brief presentation of some of the work we are doing. Mike Lee was involved in the acquisition and outfitting of our ROV. Bruce Robison is doing research on the marine biology of the mid water stream. His work has been to about 1500 feet and he still will be working at deeper levels in the months ahead.

 

“After the presentation we can respond to some questions.”

 

 

Box 5, Folder 40 – General Speeches

 

August 1, 1991, Hearing on NASA’s Midlife Crisis: Context for Reform, before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Washington D.C.

 

8/1/91, Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks to the Subcommittee.

 

Packard says he is pleased to be able to present his views on how the recommendations of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management [which he chaired]– might apply to the management problems of NASA. See speech dated March 26, 1986 for complete list of speeches covering work of the Commission.

 

“The final report of the Commission was submitted to the President,” Packard says, “on June 30, 1986.” The recommendations which I believe might be useful to this Sub-Committee are covered in an Interim Report to the President, dated February 28, 1986, and in my foreword of the main report. [See Packard speech May 1, 1986 to American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics]”

 

“The most important recommendation of the entire report was that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (JCS) should be designated as the principal uniformed military advisor to the President, and that the position of a four-star Vice Chairman should be established as the sixth member of the JCS.  The responsibility of the Vice-Chairman is to provide a channel for commands to and reports from the Commanders-in-Chief of the Unified ands Specified Commands (CINCS) to the Chairmen of the JCS.

 

“This recommendation was put into law by the Goldwater-Nichols act of 1986. I consider this the most important action to improve defense management since World War II because it made it possible to manage the entire military establishment in a coherent way. This made it possible for the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the JCS and the commander of the forces in the field to bring all of our military strength, active and reserve personnel and equipment, from all four services, together in the most effective joint operation possible. The brilliant victory of Desert Storm would not have been possible without this important action.

 

“It is not clear to me how this lesson might be applied to the current management problems of NASA except to say that unless the divergent elements on NASA can be brought together in a strong uniform commitment to an appropriate goal, for every project undertaken by NASA, there can be no real improvement in the management of NASA. The APOLLO program had such a commitment, by any ordinary standard it was a mission impossible, but I can not recall anyone, even among those who knew the tremendous technical challenges, risks as we now call them, who had any doubts about our ability to land a man on the moon. That kind of a commitment must be established to support whatever projects NASA undertakes for the future. If this is not done NASA will simply go on from a Midlife Crisis to an Old Age Status as just another Federal Bureaucracy.”

 

Saying that there are other recommendation in the Defense Management Report that have relevance for NASA, Packard quotes form his foreword to the report: ‘The Commission’s recommendations are intended to help establish strong centralized policies that are both sound in themselves and rigidly adhered to throughout. In any large organization policies must be executed through discrete structures…..this requires that we cultivate resilient centers of management excellence dedicated to advancing (NASA’s) overall goals and objectives.’

 

Packard says he will respond to written questions submitted by the Sub-Committee:

 

The first question asks for a definition of ‘risk’ and asks how such risk could be allocated between public and private sectors.

 

Packard says he has had considerable trouble with ‘risk’ as used in government contracting. “I do not recall” he says, “thinking about risk until I came to the Department of Defense in 1969. I managed [at HP] the development of hundreds of new products at the frontier of technology and I can recall only a few that were not successful. Our management program had a tight coupling between development, manufacturing, and marketing and we made trade-off’s between cost, performance and time to market from the beginning to the end of the project. The cost of the new product development almost always ended up higher than the original estimate, and it usually took longer. We did not consider this a risk to the success of the program but rather a management problem.

 

“After a very short time at the Pentagon I realized the real problem was that the defense contractors and the defense buyers were simply playing games with each other. The defense contractors were making bids that were lower than what they knew the costs were likely to be. Both were playing games with the Congress to get a program approved by submitting cost proposals which they knew were too low at the time they were submitted. The ‘risk’ was that they might not be bailed out.”

 

Packard says he thinks the optimal solution would be “to hold the contractors strictly responsible for the technical integrity of the product, and in the end the government will have to pay the bill. The Hubble space Telescope is a good example. As I understand the situation, the contractor failed to do a rather simple test that would have identified the problem so that it could be corrected before launch. The contractor should have received a severe penalty for such a failure; even one that might have put him out of business.

 

“Our Defense Management Report does place a great deal of emphasis on contractor self-government. The Congress would not accept our recommendations on this issue. I did not then, and do not now, see this as eliminating government oversight. I think that infractions of self government by contractors should carry such heavy penalties that they would have to become self policing. This would be in my opinion the best way to allocate these responsibilities between the public and the private sectors.”

 

The next two questions submitted by the sub-committee  were ‘Please describe for the Subcommittee your findings on the long-range planning process employed by the Department of Defense, the President and the Congress and its effect on decisions reached in the budget process……’ And the next: ‘How do Congress and the Executive branch help and hinder Government managers.? ‘

 

Packard says “There has been too much micromanagement of defense programs by both the Congress and the office of the Secretary of Defense.

“We recommend more use of prototyping in defense programs. This gives the contractor complete freedom to make tradeoffs between cost and performance. While it is not practical to prototype very large programs, important parts of such programs can be prototyped.

 

“We recommend more use of commercial products in all defense projects. Because of the rapid progress of advanced technology in a number of fields, such as large scale integrated circuits, commercial products have much higher reliability and much lower cost than products developed to military specification. This also applies to components used in NASA projects.

 

“The use of commercial components was strongly opposed by the bureaucracy in DoD because it would eliminate the need for many people who have been involved in this work in the past.”

 

Next the Subcommittee had asked for comments on the changes that had been advocated by the Defense Management Commission  – were they fully implemented, if not why not, and how might their recommendations change to fit NASA’s situation where they buy limited quantities of items.

 

Packard responds saying that the most important recommendations were fully implemented through the Goldwater-Nichols legislation. As to the purchase of limited quantities, Packard says he doesn’t “…think the fact that NASA buys a limited number of items would change our recommendations. It makes the purchase of commercial items more important because the savings would be larger.”

 

Next, the Subcommittee wanted to know ‘…what elements of total quality management philosophy could be implemented within the limits of government management?’

 

“That is what my foreword to the report is all about. The centers of management excellence which I recommend could not be excellent unless they fully embodied total quality of  management.”

 

That was the end of Packard’s testimony.

 

Box 1, Folder 35 – HP Management

 

January 17, 1989, – Perspectives on HP, Annual HP General Managers’ Meeting, Pebble Beach, CA

 

1/17/89, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s remarks at the conclusion of this three day meeting

 

Packard says he has been “very impressed with the specific plans and programs that have been presented here….I have also been very encouraged by the enthusiasm and the optimism that have been expressed ….”

 

He adds, however, that he does have “a little concern that our company is developing some of the characteristics of a bureaucracy. I see quite a bit of evidence in our organization,” he says,” of topside people telling all of you how to do your job. Perhaps you do not need all the advice you are receiving….I hate to see these signs of bureaucracy developing in our company.

 

“Another characteristic of bureaucracy is that people begin to believe in their own propaganda. I see a little bit of that going on here, but all in all I am very encouraged about the progress.”

 

Moving into his main speech Packard says that he wants “to talk to you about a broad and an important subject. I will begin with some observations about what I think is going on in the world today. I want to point out how our company is eminently involved in these worldwide trends. To do this I will go back and outline very briefly what has happened during the 20^th century.”

 

He reminds everyone that the 20^th century has been dominated by two major wars – and the time since World War II dominated by the Cold War confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States. He says “there were times when we were very close to an all-out nuclear war, but fortunately reason prevailed.”

 

Packard feels that “the leaders of both the United States and the Soviet Union…clearly realize that any major nuclear exchange would destroy a large part of the industrial world of both sides and a large portion of the people and resources of the countries of the civilized world.” As a result he sees “virtually no probability” of worldwide nuclear war.

 

Packard does see major changes going on around the world – developing conservatism in China, Gorbachev trying to make changes in the Soviet Union; and he sees these changes, not as the result of leadership on the part of anyone, but part of  “an underlying development that is extremely important.”

 

“What is happening on a worldwide basis,: he says, “is that communism has not been able to deliver what it promised to the people of those countries where it has been established, and it has not been a threat to the free enterprise market economy that it promised to be.

 

“People all around the world who have been living under communism are finally coming to realize this fact, and they want a change.” Packard sees two reasons why the change in China is coming about more rapidly than in the Soviet Union. “The first is that communism had not been in place in the People’s Republic of China for as long a period of time. Secondly, the Chinese people are basically, I think, more independent and entrepreneurial in their spirit.”

 

Packard points to many countries on the Western border of the Pacific Ocean –Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong – “which have made a commitment to a free-enterprise economy,” and says the message is clear.

 

“Now here is the United States, we have had President Reagan with a conservative philosophy that has made rather substantial changes during the past years and, in England, Margaret Thatcher. So in my humble opinion I think what we are seeing is a watershed change in the world – a change that is going to make the 21^st century different and in many ways better than the 20^th century.”

 

Packard says he doesn’t wish to imply that there will be no conflict in the world. “People have been fighting with each other from the beginning of recorded history and probably for a long time before that. Today we see in the Middle East the same people fighting with each other, and for essentially the same causes, who were fighting each other 2,000 years ago.

 

“I am sure that there will be continuing conflict and terrorism which will be difficult to deal with. I think that this simply says that human nature has not changed in any significant way, and it is not likely to change. But, I think that the major change that has come about is that we’re not likely to have another war of world dimensions, and this will then provide an environment of many more opportunities in the next century.

 

“Now I think it is very important to recognize that our company has had a major influence on these very important trends that I have outlined for you. In the first place, the very technology that we have been involved with has given everyone in the world a better understanding about what everyone else is doing, what they are thinking, what they hope for, and how they see their future.

 

“In addition, our company has clearly been a visible symbol of opportunity in a free-enterprise economy. You may or may not know that President Reagan cited the example of Hewlett-Packard Company before a group of students in Moscow. He emphasized that this could not have been done under communism. Certainly our example as a successful company, doing what we have been doing, has been a major factor in influencing the thinking of many people all over the world.

 

Packard looks upon these changes in world outlook as representing a “watershed change,” – one that “gives us a larger responsibility as a company. It goes beyond doing the things that we have talked about in this meeting to meet our short-term objectives, our quotas, and so forth. I think it really implies that our company has a responsibility to stand tall and play it straight as an outstanding leader in every way and in every society where we participate.”

 

“I think that we’re going to have a more extensive responsibility to not only act like a good citizen, but in every sense to be a real citizen, and to act like we are really a part of that country. I think we’re well structured to do this and I am sure that those of you who are involved in our international operations understand this responsibility. We all, of course, have to take advantage of the availability of low-cost labor if we’re going to be competitive with other international companies where we operate.

 

“But I think we must do more, as we’ve been trying to do in Brazil and Mexico and in many of the other countries where we operate. That is to say that we must try to make a contribution to the development of their economy in ways that we are able to do so. I think that’s going to be a very desirable policy to continue.”

 

Packard talks a bit about two areas that are not yet important markets for HP – China and the Soviet Union. He says he thinks we have a good start in China. It’s going to take a long time before China develops into an important market for us, but it clearly will be a very important market some day. I think our continuing presence there must be an essential part of our overall plan for the future.

 

“As you know, we were involved to some extent in the Soviet Union, and I think it is going to be desirable for us to get back there again, sooner or later. I don’t see any great urgency in doing this, because it is not clear yet how firmly the Gorbachev leadership is established and whether or not it is going to continue without a setback. As it becomes clearer, as I think it will, that these trends are for real and are going to be permanent, then it will be important for us to establish a presence in the Soviet Union because that is potentially a large market. We are going to have to enter that market cautiously and carefully and not expect it to be one of great value in a short period of time.

 

“In summary, I think we’re indeed facing a watershed change around the world, and I think this is a very optimistic situation for our company. I think we’re at the place, at the end of our first 50 years, that we clearly have a much larger and a much more important challenge and a much more important opportunity than Bill and I had at the beginning 50 years ago. Now it’s important for us to build on our strengths and I sense that you all recognize this from the presentations that you’ve made.

 

Packard switches form the world scene to share some observations on HP operations. “It is important to recognize that we don’t bat a thousand and we have some weaknesses that we need to continually address and shore up. I think a very good job has been done in the past 10 years to greatly strengthen our marketing capability and to get ahead of the power curve in computers and in data products capability. I think we’re now at the point where we might work toward a little better balance among technology, marketing and manufacturing. I sense that some of us felt that way from the reports that you have made. I think that’s a balance that should be maintained and preserved and emphasized in the future.

 

“It’s clear from the financial reports over the last 10 years that our operating profit has gone down. In 1979 it was 18%; it’s gone down to 11% ten years later in 1988. This is clearly an area where we have not done as well as we should have. I was very pleased to see that Dean Morton reported that the goal for the computer business next year was to increase the operating profit by 50%. That looked to me like a big challenge until I realized that to go from 1% to 1-1/2 % is a lot easier than to go from 10% to 15%. In any case, good luck. You’re going in the right direction.

 

“Now it seemed to me very clear in the reports that were presented that those in technology have had the best performance. Medical products, analytical products, electronic measuring products – they have dominant market positions because they have continued to maintain technological leadership. They have combined this with good marketing capability and good overall management capability.

 

“I think the Component activity deserves special mention because here clearly we have a very important lead in technology in the light-emitting diode field. I’d like to remind you that this capability is something we started in the mid 1960’s and a lot  of  people thought it would not come to anything. We insisted that it be continued, and I think that our position in light-emitting diodes is probably as strong as anyone in the country, perhaps as anyone in the world, simply because we did some basic research very early on. We continued that research and we are out in front because of our fundamental technology. We can now do some things first and some things better than anyone else.

 

“We had a good start in fiber optics, but I’ve come to realize that we’ve fallen behind in that area. I started a research foundation here in the Monterey Bay to explore the depths of the Monterey Canyons with unmanned, remotely operated vehicles, and we wanted to control these vehicles through light fibbers and to bring back the imaging information through light fibers. I’d hoped that we’d be able to find Hewlett-Packard products to do all of these things, and it turned out that we could not.

 

I think that this is an area which has immense potential – not only in those things that have been talked about, communications in general, communication among computers and localized situations, but there are some other areas of great potential. For example, in the future, aircraft design is going to make wide use of composite materials. One thing I’m sure that’s going to develop is that fiber-optics will be interwoven through those composite materials so that they will be able to monitor the strength and characteristics of those materials, detect any changes and provide a warning as to when important changes occur. Fiber optics have a tremendous potential in the measurement business. I think here is a field where we could well devote some more basic research and development.”

 

Packard comments on the Spectrum program and says it seems to have been a “great success and is going to be a very important pillar of strength in our growth for the future. Now in this field, as you all know very well, hard work and continuing strong effort in research and development will be needed in the computer field, both in hardware and software. What I’m suggesting is that we might look toward a little better balance than we’ve had in this past 10 years.”

 

In the area of personnel programs Packard says that he and Bill have “received an increasing number of letters from employees concerned about how they have been treated. A good many of these letters are the result of lack of good communications….

 

“There are still some cases where I think we should have given a little more attention to the situation of the individual employee. It seems to me that the one simple requirement of the HP way is just the Golden Rule. Every employee should do unto every other employee as he would have done unto him. I suggest you  work on the Golden Rule principle wherever you deal with a personnel situation. Put yourself in the other fellows shoes and think about what should be done. I think that’s probably the best test of all and you ought to apply that test in whatever you’re doing.

 

“I think that there were some cases in these letters from employees that indicated we may have put a little too much effort on the bottom line. Looking at the fact that we had in excess of $800 million of profit after taxes last year, a few dollars more spent in preserving the HP way might have been a very good long-term investment for the company.

 

“In summary, I again want to say that I’m very well impressed with what I’ve heard at this meeting, and I want to congratulate you all on a job well done during these last 10 years. I want to encourage you to keep the investment in basic research and development up, keep the investment in preserving the HP Way, building teamwork, and in making a contribution in whatever we do. Increasing the bottom line with tax benefits, stock buybacks, or other financial shenanigan[s] really does no credit to the traditions of our company.

 

We built this company on the basis of making a contribution, and profit is the best measure of the contribution that we make. I think if we continue our dedication to those principles that have carried us through these first 50 years, we will be assured of our continuing success over the next 50 years. I’m sure I speak for Bill as well as myself, in saying we are very very proud of what you’re doing and we expect you to do an even better job in the future.”

 

1/17/89, Copy of earlier draft of Packard’s remarks with many handwritten additions and changes by Packard

1/15/89, Copy of typed program for the conference

1/15/89, HP memorandum from Tom Uhlman to all Attendees giving the program and also a sheet to use in evaluating each presenter.

Box 5, Folder 33A – General Speeches

 

January 6, 1989, Remarks at the David and Lucile Packard Center for the Future of Children, Location not given, probably Palo Alto, CA

 

1/6/89, Copy of typewritten speech

“Over the centuries in nearly every society in the world mothers and fathers have given the highest priority to the welfare of their children. They have often even considered the survival of their children ahead of their own survival. The treatment of children has however varied greatly over long periods of time in different countries. The way children have been dealt with in any society has been determined to a large extent by the characteristics of the society. For example, the regimentation of the people which is necessary for the survival of a socialist state requires the regimentation of children in their formative years.

 

“It is clear that children’s lives are strongly influenced by their early environments, the first six or seven years, and thus this period is of great importance to both the future of the individual child and the future of the society to which that child will spend his or her life.

 

“Although the population of the United States has always been diverse in its origins and its history is distinguished by assimilation of a series of migrations of different peoples, we are currently in a period of unprecedented social, ethnic and racial diversity. This situation has caused unique and critical problems for children in our society. The concept of equal opportunity regardless of race, color, or religion is the cornerstone of our national heritage, admired and envied by people all over the world. This concept, however, is not a reality for many children and their families.

 

“Over the past half century, Black and Native Americans in this country have become recognized as major exceptions in the establishment of equality of opportunity for all. Slavery in the South, a violation of the concept of equality, was abolished by the Civil War but has been an aftermath which is still with us today. By the middle of the twentieth century the proportion of Black people in the United States had become significant in respect to the total population and it had become obvious they did not yet have equality of opportunity. Events during the 1960s focused the attention of both the Federal Government and many responsible people in the private sector on this problem. Equal opportunity was mandated by law, measured and enforced by quotas in educational institutions and in employment. In spite of vast expenditures of money and human effort, the beneficial effect of many of these programs has been hard to document. Many individuals and groups have made impressive progress, but we are still far away from achieving the goal of equal opportunity for all citizens of the United States.

 

“Our Foundation has been trying to do its share in improving the opportunities for people in these minorities. We have provided support for special educational activities and other activities to help minority people at both the local and the national level. After a number of years of experience working in this field, we have come to the conclusion that we, along with many other people, have generally overlooked an opportunity that could be the most important of all in improving the participation of these minority people in the privileges and benefits of our free society. We believe it has now become quite clear that equality can not be mandated by law without endangering the freedom we want to preserve. Remedial education at the high school or college level has not worked as well as many had hoped and the granting of diplomas or degrees that are not earned is often a disservice to those we are trying to help.

 

“We have concluded that our Foundation might make a much more effective contribution to the solution of this important problem by doing what can be done to help children have a more equal opportunity during their early, most formative years. We are encouraged to notice that other people who have been working in this area have come to similar conclusions.

 

“The David and Lucile Packard Foundation is establishing this new Center for the Future of Children to deal with this problem in two major dimensions, Children’s Health, and Children’s Educational and Motivational Environment.

 

“Because of recent developments in biological science many childhood disabilities and diseases which in the past resulted in lifetime disabilities can now be successfully treated. The Lucile Salter Packard Childrens Hospital at Stanford will be a World Class facility for the treatment of childhood diseases. This new Center For The Future of Children will have a close working relationship with the Childrens Hospital at Stanford, and will endeavor to establish cooperation with other Childrens Hospitals in the country. The Center will have the responsibility to bring the latest and best information on the treatment of childhood disabilities and diseases to the attention of influential people in both the public and the private sector. The Center will also have the responsibility to advise our Foundation as well as other interested parties on research that should be funded in this field, and may initiate or coordinate multi-institutional studies.

 

“This new Center will also have the responsibility to do what can be done to improve the educational, and motivational environment for children during their early, formative years. This will involve investigating what is already being done, with special attention to those programs that have been successful, and the Center may also selectively encourage new initiatives. We will want the center to bring the latest and best information in this area to the attention of influential people in both the public and private sector, and to provide advice on research and Public Policy in this field.

 

“This new Center will have a very big and important job to do. It will require the better part of the first year to study the situation in detail and to devdelop a specific plan of action. The Foundation is allocating one billion dollars for the first year’s work and will increase the funding to five million dollars per year or more to implement the plans as they are developed.

 

“As one of the founders, and as the Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation, I expect this new Center for the Future of Children to become one of the Foundation’s most important long range programs. I am most pleased to announce that Dr. Richard Behrman has accepted the appointment as Executive Director of the Center. He has been an outstanding leader in this field and is as well qualified as anyone in the entire country to provide strong leadership for this new endeavor.

 

 

Box 5, Folder 33A – General Speeches

 

March 21, 1989, Presentation of Lifetime Achievement Award to The Honorable Eliot Richardson, The International Day for the Elimination of Racism, Palo Alto, CA

 

3/21/89, Copy of typewritten text of speech

 

After greeting members of the audience, Packard says, “I consider it a great honor, and a great pleasure to be with you tonight to present the Lifetime Achievement Award to Eliot Richardson.

 

Packard says he first met Richardson in January, 1969, at the beginning of the Nixon Administration. Packard was Undersecretary of Defense and Richardson was the Undersecretary of State. “We spent considerable time,” Packard says, “working together that year as members of the Undersecretaries Committee preparing position papers for the National Security Council. Henry Kissinger, President Nixon’s National Security Advisor, in effect directed the work of this group and there were some very important issues to consider. We were still engaged in Viet Nam and that had a high priority in our work. President Nixon wanted to reduce our expenditures on defense in order to spend more on domestic programs. Work on arms control had a high priority, problems of the Middle East were high on the agenda. All in all, Eliot and I and the rest of the Undersecretaries team had a great many important and interesting things to work on in 1969.

 

“I considered Eliot to be a very impressive and a very capable gentleman when I met him and worked with him back in 1969. I assure you my high regard for him has been strengthened by everything I have seen him do in the intervening twenty years.”

 

Packard lists the many positions Richardson has held since his graduation from Harvard in 1947 – starting with a position as Law Clerk for Judge Learned Hand in New York City, on to several positions with the State of Massachusetts, until he came to Washington in January 1969. Packard continues with Richardson’s resume telling how he left the State Department to become Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in June 1970, was appointed Secretary of Defense in January, 1973, and then Attorney General in May of 1973.

 

“You may recall,” Packard says, “that was in the midst of the Watergate scandal, and his performance as our Attorney General represented a commitment to the highest level of integrity at a time when integrity was in very short supply in our nation’s capitol.”

 

Packard says Richardson became Ambassador to the Court of St. James in early 1975, and from 1977 to 1980 was Special Representative of the President to the Law of the Sea Conference. “During the last few years,” he says, “Eliot has continued a wide range of activities. He is the Senior Resident Partner in the Washington office of Milbank, Tween, Hadley and McCoy. As you probably know, he is now the Chairman of the United Nations Association of the United States of America. He has been involved in a number of professional associations, both in his law profession and in important areas of public policy. He has received numerous awards and honorary degrees, far too many for me to enumerate tonight.

 

“As you can judge from what I have said, Eliot’s achievements have been outstanding in every sense of the word. What has particularly impressed me is that everything he has done in this very full lifetime of activity has been done with an absolute commitment to integrity. He has also had an unusual commitment to the welfare of this country and to the improvement of the quality of life for disadvantaged people everywhere. For example, in his work on the Law of the Sea he had an unusual interest in the welfare of the poor and developing nations of the world. Not the vested interests of the rich and powerful nations. I am sure his desire to improve the opportunities for people who need help wherever they may be was a strong motivation for him to accept the chairmanship of the United Nations Association.

 

“For these and many other reasons, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to present this award for a Lifetime of Achievement to the Honorable Eliot Richardson here in San Francisco on this International Day for the Elimination of Racism.”

 

 

Box 5, Folder 34 – General Speeches

 

April 30, 1989, Philanthropy in America, Greater Santa Cruz County Community Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA

 

4/30/89, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard congratulates the Greater Santa Cruz County Community Foundation members on the “outstanding job that has been done in the six years since the Foundation was established in 1983. By reaching your goal of a $3,000,000 endowment you now have a firm base which will assure that this Foundation will be a permanent asset in your community.

 

He tells of the origin of the words ‘charity’ and ‘philanthropy,’ saying they mean the same thing – ‘philanthropy’ coming from the Greek word that means ‘lover of mankind,’ and ‘charity’ coming from the Latin word meaning ‘love.’ So, “both mean brotherly love,” he says.

 

Packard looked in the encyclopedia he says and found that in the Renaissance merchants created foundations for educational and local charitable purposes. He says he learned “…that although a few charitable foundations [were] established in the United States in the 19^th century, most notably the Smithsonian Institution in 1846, the 20^th century has been a time of prolific growth of charitable foundations in the United States….”

 

Packard says churches were “…the main charitable institution in the early settlements in North America,  establishing hospitals, schools and universities, as well as help for the poor.

 

Packard recalls the 1930s in his home town of Pueblo, Colorado. He says, “No one in our neighborhood was wealthy, but there were poor families with virtually no income. Yet I can recall of no one actually starving or without shelter or clothing. Those who were fortunate enough to have the means to support their own families shared it willingly and voluntarily with those who could not provide food, clothing and shelter for themselves. This personal experience left a lasting impression with me of the importance of personal involvement at the local level in charitable activity.”

 

When Packard came to California in 1930 he says he found “The major cities in California far ahead of my home town in charity as well as many other things….Community foundations were established early in California and have become very important in recent years. I am sure this Foundation will become a very important endeavor in your county in the years ahead”

 

Packard says that “Religion has had the highest priority over the centuries, and religion still receives the largest amount of charitable support today. The care of the ill, hospitals and medical activity to relieve suffering and to save people from dying has also, historically had a high priority and receives the next to the highest amount of charitable support today. This, as has been noted by others, indicates that above everything else people want to get to Heaven when they die, but also they want to put it off as long as possible. Now I suppose that is not a very charitable view of charity, but the fact is that a great deal of charity involves a significant amount of self interest, and I see nothing wrong with that as long as it does not provide a direct benefit to the giver.”

 

“Since the 1960’s there has been a tremendous increase in Federal outlays for a wide range of activities intended to improve the quality of life in our country. Direct benefit payments for individuals for the fiscal year 1989 are expected to take 43% of the federal budget, well over 400 billions of dollars. This compares with national defense at 27%, or just under 300 billions of dollars. These domestic payments include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, Civil Service retirement, veterans pensions, temporary employment assistance, Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, public housing, and child nutrition. In addition, there are dozens of other Federal programs in the realm of public charity; a National Endowment for the Arts and for the Humanities, on and on ad-infinitum. As one looks at the magnitude and breadth of this public charity program in the United States one should wonder what is left for private charity. Yet private charity has been increasing about as rapidly as public charity.”

 

Packard says there are several reasons why there continues to be an important role for private charity from individuals and corporations. “Probably the most important reason,” he says, “ is that these Federal programs are not doing what they are intended to do and this is quite obvious to people at the local level. Your Foundation funds programs in the arts, community services, education, help for seniors, help for youth, health and in other areas that receive substantial Federal money. The level of your support is not large but the good that you do is very substantial. You know from personal knowledge where the money will be most useful, and the involvement of people who care, your members, your staff and your donors is often as important as the money you provide.

 

“The second reason why people who are concerned want to become involved on a personal basis is because they are very troubled about the waste and mismanagement of the Federal programs. These are to a large extent ‘pork barrels’ for the members of the Congress. They are riddled with red-tape, and the funds are appropriated not in accordance with the real needs but all too often on the basis of the most effective lobbies. And as I am sure you know far too often this results in large sums of money being placed where it will in effect buy votes.”

 

Packard says he has seen some of these things from within the Federal Government, “and I have been involved with a number of charitable activities in the private sector. From my personal experience I feel very strongly that community foundations such as yours play a very important role in improving the quality of life in our country even though their finds are usually small in relation to federal grants.

 

“I have noted that your Foundation receives contributions from corporations. Charitable contributions by corporations in the United States is a recent, but very important development. Before 1950 it had not been clearly established that a business corporation had the authority to make a charitable gift. I can recall discussions among groups of corporate leaders in the 1940’s that questioned whether they had any responsibility beyond that to their shareholders. Many thought labor was merely a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market, and that charity had no place in corporate affairs. There was an important change in corporate thinking after World War II, and some of the enlightened leaders began to make charitable contributions to universities and other private institutions. Such contributions were challenged in a legal action; A. P. Smith Mfg.. Company vs. Barlow, that went to the Supreme Court. In the year 1953 the Supreme Court decided that ‘For profit corporations’ did have the authority to make charitable gifts when the gift would advance the general interests of the corporation and its shareholders. The tax laws were changed to allow the deductions of charitable contributions up to 5% of profit before taxes. During the following years , corporations developed a rationale for charitable contributions but very few made contributions up to the 5% limit. About 1% of profits before taxes was the average for a number of years. The general rationale was established on the theory that the success of a corporation was influenced by the social environment in which it operated and that theory is widely accepted today. The quality of education in both the local community and in the nation came to be considered important by corporate management, and this will become even more important as we move further into an economy based on knowledge rather than raw materials, energy supply and transportation. Corporate charity has now become legitimate for essentially everything that will improve the quality of life in the community, and is an important source of support for your Foundation.”

 

“There is another recent development that I want to bring to your attention. That is the cooperation between the public sector and the private sector in charitable activity. The Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts in Washington D. C., which is operated by a private foundation with substantial funding from the National Park Service is a good example. There are other examples, some here in the local area, of co-operative endeavors between the private sector and the public sector. In looking over the activities you are already supporting it appears that some of them are also supported by public agencies. I believe cooperative endeavors have much to commend them, and I encourage you to continue discussions  with officials in the cities and county where you operate. I am sure that you can develop cooperation that will be mutually beneficial.”

 

Packard says he has been troubled by increasing hostility toward private charity in some agencies of our state government in the last few years. The State Board of Equalization proposed to apply a property tax on the Monterey Bay Aquarium because we have a bookstore and gift shop and a restaurant for our visitors that might be competitive with some of the private enterprises in the area. They have also denied a property tax exemption for the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute which is doing some very important and exciting research with remote, unmanned, underwater operating vehicles. This institute is chartered to explore the deep waters of the Monterey Bay with these ROVs. thousands of feet below the surface. This equipment is now operating every day, taking color video pictures nearly 2000 feet below the surface, and in a year or so they will be able to go down to 10,000 feet. The scientists of MBARI have already observed marine life at these depths that has never been observed before. I am convinced that with the technical leadership already established the Monterey Bay will become one of the worlds outstanding centers of ocean science in the years ahead. I am very proud of The Monterey Bay Aquarium and the associated research institute. It is very discouraging to have important state officials opposing what our family foundation has been doing in this area and if this attitude can not be corrected it will severely limit what we will want to do in the future.

 

“It seems to me it would be much better public policy for the State Government to encourage private charity of this kind. We are working to try to get these issues straightened out in Sacramento and some of the members of the State Legislature from this area have been helpful, but the issues are not yet resolved.

 

“This adverse attitude at the State level so far does not affect community foundations such as yours, but it does not bode well for the kind of cooperation I think should exist between the private sector and the public sector.

 

“I will conclude by simply saying to all of you who are involved in the Greater Santa Cruz Community Foundation, congratulations on a job well done. Keep up the good work!”

 

No other papers are in this folder

 

 

Box 5, Folder 35 – General Speeches

 

August 28, 1989, Welcoming Remarks to The Oceanography Society at their inaugural meeting, Monterey, CA

 

“Welcome to the Monterey Bay. I know I am speaking for all of the people in the Monterey Bay area who are interested in ocean science when I tell you how greatly honored and pleased we are to have the inaugural meeting of the Oceanographic Society here this week. This event has a rather special personal significance for me, because, over the past ten years or so I have become addicted to the vision that within the next few years the Monterey Bay will become one of the major world class centers for Ocean Science. I base this vision on my realization that the Oceans of the world are one of the major remaining frontiers of opportunity.

 

“One of my friends recently described a frontier in this way. He said ‘It’s that place in American mythology where things are wild and unknown, where mysteries and wonders await discovery.’ The oceans of the world certainly qualify as a remaining frontier in that romantic description. They qualify as an important frontier in a more pragmatic way, there is much we do not yet know about the oceans of our world, thus there is new scientific knowledge to be discovered; the oceans of the world contain major resources of economic value, the potential of which has by no means been fully realized, thus there are important economic benefits to be developed. In my humble opinion the oceans of the world are a more important frontier for research that will bring more tangible benefits to the world than space, or high energy physics, or other areas that have received a high level of public interest and therefore political support. It is about time someone gave ocean science more attention.

 

I am only a novice and a newcomer to this field, and I realize that speaking to this distinguished audience about the importance of ocean science is simply preaching to the choir, but even so I want to take a few minutes to tell you about the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, MBARI, because they are the reason for my interest and involvement in ocean science.

 

A little over ten years ago the members of our family foundation decided that we should develop some worthy programs of our own instead of just responding to the many requests to provide funds for worthy projects that were being presented to us for consideration. One of the first ideas we considered was the possibility of building an aquarium on the site of the old Hovden cannery next to the Hopkins Marine Station here on the Monterey Bay. Our first step was to ask SRI  [Stanford Research Institute] for a feasibility study because I wanted to be sure such an aquarium would be of interest and value to the people who lived here or who visited this area. I decided that the only really viable measure of the value of an aquarium here would be whether the visitors would be willing to pay for the cost of operation through admission fees, gift shop and bookstore purchases and the use of the facilities for special events. In other words could we build an aquarium that would be self supporting over the long term.

 

“The SRI report was positive, an aquarium here would be of great interest to a large audience of residents and visitors, it could be self supporting, and it might cost $10 million. Armed with this advice we established the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation, selected a group of scientific advisors, hired a firm as architects ands went to work. We did not establish a firm budget, but of course we had the $10 million SRI estimate in mind. This soon became a family project including my wife, Lucile, two daughters, Nancy and Julie, and a son in law Robin Burnett. There were several other people who had a major influence in our decision to go ahead, Steve Webster, who is now the director of the educational program at the aquarium and Chuck Baxter who is now on the scientific staff at MBARI. We were very fortunate that Dave Powell agreed to join with us as we began work on o1ur plans because he helped in the design of the water system, the display tanks, and all of the details necessary to provide the best possible environment for the specimens we planned to display.

 

“We established some important guidelines at the beginning. We decided

the aquarium should concentrate on the natural history of the Monterey bay, it should be educational as well as enjoyable, and it should have a large participation from the local community.

 

“We knew practically nothing about aquariums, but we visited nearly all of the aquariums in the United States and several in other parts of the world, including the orient. I soon realized that we had the unique opportunity to design and build one of the best aquariums inn the world but to do that everything must be done in the best way possible. I concluded that we should do as much of the work as possible ourselves. For example we set up a shop across the way in sand city to make fiberglass reinforced tanks, artificial rocks, and anything else we might want in fiberglass plastic. We could have contracted outside for this work but I thought we might want to do some things that had not been done before. The life size grey whale and her calf, the two life size killer whale models and our exhibit of plastic dolphin models would have been difficult to obtain from outside sources. I also bought equipment to make fiberglass reinforced cement panels. In looking at other aquariums it was obvious there were serious corrosion problems in using dry wall and other common construction materials around the exhibit tanks, and fiberglass reinforced cement appeared to be an ideal material. It was corrosion proof, fireproof, and should last forever. There were not many outside sources for this work.

 

“As we proceeded with the design we chose what we thought would be the best material for the construction and the best designs for the artificial habitats to house and display the specimens.

 

“This of course played havoc with the $10 million SRI estimate, the cost ended up at over four times that figure. As you might expect I have been chided by the comment that this was a larger cost over-run than I ever encountered at the Pentagon.

 

“This concentration on quality, I am pleased to report has really paid off. The aquarium will have been operation for five years this October. It looks just as good as the day it was opened, after nine billion visitors. It has not only paid its way but has built up a surplus adequate to finance a major expansion which is in the early stages of design

 

“In the course of planning and building the aquarium we realized that we should have some associated research. The most obvious was that which would help to improve the operation of the aquarium. We [could] have done some useful research at the Aquarium but not of major importance. Because of our research on sea otters the Aquarium is the only place that has been successful in raising stranded sea otter pups. Just last week we sent two from the oil spill area in Alaska to their new home at the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia. Although the research we have done at the Aquarium has contributed to its successful operation, we began to realize three or four years ago that the Monterey Bay could become a real world class center for Ocean Science. We decided this should not be a mission of the aquarium foundation but that a separate foundation should be established to do Ocean Science on an extensive and long term basis.

 

“That is the genesis of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. We wanted the aquarium to be closely associated because it would provide an excellent window for the general public to learn more about this exciting frontier. And this close association should make it possible to have exhibits at the aquarium which would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else.

 

“As we began the establishment of MBARI we realized it would be desirable to have good relationships with other organizations in the country that are involved in this field. We thought it was particularly important to work closely with those organizations here around the Monterey Bay. We have tried to do both. This meeting here this week is most encouraging for it is what we hoped would happen sooner or later.

 

“There were three areas of developing technology that I thought would make research in the deep waters of the oceans much more effective in the future. One was the progress that was being made in unmanned remote operating vehicles, ROVs. The second was the progress being made in instrumentation for chemical analysis. It is now possible to do chemical analysis with accuracy and sensitivity in the deep waters without having to bring samples to the surface. The third is the progress that is being made in computer science and communication. Deep water research involves immense amounts of data. I have the impression that much more time is being spent in collecting data than in looking at it and analyzing it. We believe that situation can be greatly improved.

 

“In establishing MBARI I gave a good deal of consideration to the management issues. I have been involved with the problems of Federally funded research for a number of years, and as I suspect most of you know it has become very inefficient. There are exceptions, the ONR has done a much better job over the years than others. I decided that our family foundation should provide the operating funds so the scientists and engineers at MBARI would not have to waste any of their time applying for grants and making excessive reports. We thought three million dollars a year would be adequate to get started, and in fact both Dr. Barber and Dr. Lee, our two key people agreed to join us at that budget level. After we got started we decided that three million dollars was not enough to do what we wanted to do and we have increased that level to five million dollars.

 

“By providing this funding without strings, except a bit of personal supervision by me, we established the foundation, had a nationwide search for talent, brought an outstanding group of scientists and engineers together, designed and acquired the first ROV and mother ship and had it operational, all in just over one year. We could not complete our facilities at Moss Landing as quickly because it has taken over a year to get the necessary permits. Those facilities will be completed this fall, about two and a half years from the time we started.

 

“As I am sure you all know progress in scientific research is highly dependent on the instrumentation and equipment available to the scientists doing the research. To deal with this problem more effectively we have established a management structure in which the scientists and engineers are working in parallel with each other, in personal contact on a daily basis. This arrangement greatly facilitates communication, eliminates reams of paper work and as I had hoped is working extremely well.

 

“I hope you have concluded from my remarks that I am very proud of what MBARI has done in a relatively short time. I hasten to add that I know we do not have all of the answers by any means as how to best explore this frontier of the deep oceans. I am sure we will benefit from the discussions over the next three days, for the wisdom and experience of you who are here from across the country far exceeds anything we have done so far. I hope the meeting starting here today will mark the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship among all of the organizations and people from all across the country who are challenged by the exciting frontier of the deep oceans.”

 

No other papers are in this folder

 

 

Box 5, Folder 36 – General Speeches

 

September 11, 1989, 1989 Interex HP Users Conference, San Francisco, CA

 

This speech was presented at a conference of HP computer customers. Packard spoke on September 11, with a welcoming address.

 

9/11/89, Copy of typewritten address by Packard

 

Packard thanks all “…for the great contribution you are making in partnership with us in this exciting era of technological progress.”

 

He says that he and Bill Hewlett realized very early on the importance of a close personal relationship with customers. He recalls that when they were still working in the garage in early 1939, “A manufacturers representative named Norman B. Neely called on them. He had heard about the audio oscillator, which was the only product we had at that time, and he said he could help us get to know the customers he dealt with, particularly in the Los Angeles area.”

 

They engaged Neely as their first sales representative and with his help “Bill and I became personally acquainted with the key people in nearly every organization doing work in audio frequency in the Los Angeles area.

 

Having decided they wanted to make a contribution with their products, not simply duplicate what other companies were doing, Packard says “…the only way we could do this was to find out what our customers needed so we could develop additional instruments that would help them do their job better.

 

“As we expanded our operations over the first two years, we signed up other sales representatives in the Midwest and on the East Coast, and with their help we became personally acquainted with many customers.

 

“It was this close personal association with our customers which began fifty years ago that enabled us to develop a successful family of instruments for audio frequency work of instruments for audio frequency work during the first few years. Throughout our first twenty years or so we broadened our product line to include nearly every type of general purpose electronic instrument.”

 

Packard says he “can not recall a single instrument that we developed and put into production during our first fifteen or twenty years without consulting closely with customers or potential customers. That is why nearly every new electronic instrument we developed and produced was successful.

 

“We also built a strong base of technology. This was essential to be able to create products ahead of the competition. Fortunately we realized that products with  the best technology we could muster would be doomed to failure in the market if they did not help our customers do their job better.

 

Packard describes the market when they started as “much smaller and simpler. When Norm Neely called on us in 1939,” he says, “we had three employees, Bill Hewlett, a young man named Harvey Zeiber, and me. Norm had about ten. We were in business for ten years before we had over two hundred employees.

 

“As our company grew and expanded into new fields, it became more difficult to maintain the close relationship with our customers. As I look back there was a period, roughly between 1965 and 1975, when we were expanding very rapidly, entering the computer business, expanding our line of medical and analytical instrumentation, and marketing components. We were also rapidly expanding our international business.”

 

Packard says during this period their marketing activity became very complex and they began to recognize that they were not doing as well as they should be in their marketing activity.

 

These problems have been corrected, Packard feels, “and our marketing capability and our relationship with our customers are now back on the kind of a sound foundation that we had in our early years, and which is so necessary to assure our continuing success over the next fifty years.

 

Packard notes that “INTEREX  has had a key role in helping HP establish a sound foundation for the future. It was fifteen years ago that you began to help us in this important endeavor….All of us in HP thank you.

 

“It was also about fifteen years ago that John Young and his outstanding team of associates at the head of our company began to address this problem of re-establishing a strong marketing capability which required the strengthening of our relationship with our customers. Ten years ago John Young became our Chief Executive Officer and Bill and I are very pleased with what John Young and his team have done to get our marketing activity back on the track.

 

Packard says he is proud of what HP has been able to do. “We have established and maintained a corporate culture that has brought financial success by endeavoring to provide real and meaningful benefits to our shareholders, our employees, our suppliers, the communities where we operate, and most important of all to our customers.

 

“We now have not only the opportunity, but the solemn obligation, to make the next fifty years even more successful than the first fifty years. To do this, we have to keep our marketing capability and the relationship with our customers strong. We need to develop and produce new products that make a real contribution, so that our customers can do their work better. We have to maintain a superior research and development program, supported by a manufacturing capability, that will enable us to manufacture our products with the highest quality and the lowest cost. We have everything in place to make the next fifty years even more successful than the past.

 

“We need your continuing enthusiastic involvement, and I hope you have an interesting and an enjoyable meeting discussing these issues at this 1989 INTEREX HP Users Conference.”

 

 

9/11/89, Copy of typewritten earlier draft of  Packard’s comments

7/31/89,  Letter to Packard’s secretary, Margaret Paull, from Suzanne Bellamy of HP television department, saying that they will be sending the meeting live to the Apollo Users Conference in New Orleans and to the Cupertino and Fort Collins HP sites. She invites Packard to a rehearsal. Summaries of the messages each of the key speakers is to put across are attached.

Undated, Copy of printed flyer announcing the conference

Undated, Copy of a letter to all Conference Attendees giving information on arrangements

8/24/89, Letter to Packard from Bart Coddington of HP attaching the program of events

9/12/89, HP Newsgram from HP Public Relations describing activities at the conference

 

 

Box 5, Folder 37 – General Speeches

 

September 13, 1989, James H. Doolittle Award, Hudson Institute, Washington D. C.

Packard  was selected to be the inaugural recipient  of the James H. Doolittle Award for Sustained Contribution to the National Security of the United States, from the Hudson Institute The award was presented at a luncheon during the Institute’s National Policy Day.

9/13/89, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says he feels “greatly honored to receive this award in recognition of the great accomplishments of General James H. Doolittle. I also feel very humble in doing so, because I do not think there is anything I have been able to do in my lifetime that is in the same class as even one of General Doolittle’s many great accomplishments.

 

“I realize this award is for sustained contributions to the National Security of the United States. Service in our military establishment is where the men and women in our country make the important contributions to our National Security….General Doolittle’s entire professional career was a sustained contribution to our National Security, one of the most important of this entire century.

 

Packard describes Doolittle as an “outstanding military leader, and when not in the military “he seemed to be almost always involved in some activity that would contribute to our National Security.”

 

“General James Doolittle clearly has always been a brave man endowed with a venturesome spirit. His rigorous mind, taught him to learn as much as possible, and to be well prepared to deal with any contingency that might be encountered.

 

Saying that he has admired Jimmy Doolittle for many years Packard feels prompted to recount some of his accomplishments: his first cross-country flight in 1922, first successful blind landing, bombing raid over Tokyo in 1942, commanding role in World War II.

 

“After recalling his many accomplishments I sincerely believe that James Harold Doolittle was as well qualified as any man who lived in this century to conquer the mysteries of aviation, that great frontier which he chose to enter seventy two years ago. I also sincerely believe that people over the entire world should feel in debt to him for the great contribution he has made to all of us during his long and productive career.

 

“I want to compliment all of you in the Hudson Institute for creating the Doolittle Award, and express my sincere appreciation to you for my being chosen as the first recipient. After recalling his many accomplishments, I now realize what a great honor it is to be associated with General Jimmy Doolittle in this way. Thank you very much.”

 

9/13/89, Copy of typewritten sheet listing program for the award luncheon

9/13/89, Copy of printed program for the entire National Policy Day.

9/13/89, Photo copy of biography of General Doolittle

5/30/89. Letter to Packard from Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. of the Hudson Institute, telling him he had been selected as the first recipient of the Gen. James Doolittle Award

 

7/28/89, 7/28/89, Letter to Packard from Mitchell Daniels, Jr. sending a copy of the program for the day

8/16/89, Letter to Packard from Mitchell Daniels, Jr. sending a program for the luncheon and award presentation

8/29/89, Letter to Packard’s secretary, Margaret Paull, giving “some of our thinking here at Hudson Institute in creating the Doolittle Award….

 

 

Box 5, Folder 37A – General Speeches

 

October 24, 1989, YMCA Enlisted Personnel Military Awards Dinner, Monterey, CA

 

10/24/89, Photocopy of Packard’s speech, handwritten by himself on 47 notebook size pages.

 

In this speech Packard includes some retrospective cmments on the work done by the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense management. See speech dated March 26, 1986 for complete list of speeches covering work of the commission.

 

Packard begins by saying how pleased he is to be present and to honor ‘…the men and women who serve our country in our Armed Forces. The Monterey area has a number of imporatant military activities, the largest of which is Fort Ord, and these people are an imporatant part of your community. In addition to their military responsibilities many contribute to community affairs.

 

“I think it is altogether fitting for this dinner to be sponsored by the YMCA for there has been a long veneficial relationship of enlisted men and women and the YMCA.

 

“The citizens of our country have had a very high regard for the Army, the Navy and the Marines from the very beginning. It was the military capability of our early armed forces which gave us our freedom – and the strength, the ability of our armed forces, undergirded by the dedication of our men and women in Uniform.

 

“The trauma of the Viet Nam War has eroded the confidence of many people in the country in the military forces. What we should remember, however, is that it was the civilians in the Federal Government, the White House, leaders of the Congress, and two Presidents, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who got us involved. The men and women who served in Viet Nam were performing their duty, often taking action beyond the call of duty.

 

“It was the draft dodgers and all the other young men and women who refused to sereve their country who were the traitors. But, unfortunately, the media often gave them positive support, clearly far more than they deserved.

 

“As I am sure you know there has been a great deal of criticism of the department of defense and our entire military establishment that seems to be increasing over the last two decades. This critical attitude, expressed by the press, is in turn reflected in the congress. This has resulted in a tremendous increase in the number of regulations imp[osed by the Congress on the Department of Defense. This excessive legislation has had a very deleterious effeft on the efficiency of our entire military establishment.

 

“Several years ago I had the opportunity to be the Chairman of a Presidential Commission chartered to make recommendations that might improve the performance of our military establishment. The Commission made a number of recommendations which, if properly implementated, could save from $75 to $50 billions of dollars a year. The White House, both President and President Bush, strongly supported the recommendations of the Commission. The Congress was generally supportive but we could not get them to reduce the legislation relative to conflict of interest. One of the problems is that the defense establishment is so large, including the defense industry, that someone is going to do something wrong every day, and there is nothing one can do about it.

 

“As we worked on this problem I often wondered why members of both houses refused to support a broad program of self discipline by the DOD and the industry.

 

“I think the reason why the Congress found this to be so difficult is that many of the members – not all –  and present company excepted – these members of the Congress think everyone outside the Congress are as crooked as they are.

 

“President Reagan supported his Secretary of Defense, Cap Weinberger, in a major build up of US military strength during his eight years. It was not done efficiently – billions of dollars were wasted – but this major build up had two important benefits for our country. It was a great boost for the morale of the men andd women in uniform. It gave President Reagan, and President Bush, real strength in dealing with the …Soviets.

 

“I have mentioned the vast amount of bad publicity our military establishment has received by the press. Our commission decided to find out what the attitude of the American people was in respect to the Armed Forces. We hired a firm to do an opinion survey and the results were very intereesting. On a scale of 1-10, people were asked how they rated various professions. Ministers and doctors were high on the scale, 8 or 9 – but so were military officers. Businessmen did not rate very high, a 5 or 6. Members of Congress were near the bottom of the scale, a 2 or 3. Lawyers weren’t much better.

 

“So I want to tell each and every one of you who are here tonight – without the slighest doubt the American people are proud of you. Keep on standing tall, doing your duty to the best of your ability.”

 

Packard then says he wants to spend the remaining time providing some observations about what he thinks is going on in the world. “What is now underway on a world wide basis,” he says. “will make the 21^st Century much different – and probably much better than the 20^th Century. The affairs of the world up the the middle of the 20^th Century – World War II – have been characterized by large wars tetween groups of the major nations of the world. These wars have cost millions of lives over the years, and they have also wasted major economic resources. This vast waste has been decried by world statesmen, but they have been unsuccessful in doing anything constructive. The main result of most major wars is that they have produced victors for the moment, and set up a process of chosing sides in preparation for the next war to correct the distortions of the last.

 

“World War II had a quite different outcome. It ended with the United States and the Soviet Union having undisputed leadership of the free world and of the Communist world. With both nations having nuclear weapons, the strength of both the US and the USSR gave each nation unchallenged military dominence over any possible combination of other nations. This resulted in the Cold War which began at the end of World War II.

 

“Fortunately, the dominent nuclear strength of each country has been the deterrent that has prevented World War III up to the present day. There has been conflicts, some like Korea where the Soviet sponsors predicted what the US would do. This is a classic case of the importance of military strength in determining actions among nations; or Viet Nam, which in retrospect, was a serious mistake. And the Middle East where thr same antagonists have been fighting over the same issues for too many years.

 

“The early stages of the Cold War involved tests of military strength and determination. It was also characterized by two basic doctrines of the Soviet leadership:

1. That Communism is a superior social and economic system
2. That it was possible to win a nuclear war

Over the last ten or fifteen yearsthere has been a major change in Soviet doctrine.The Communist system has not delivered what it promised to its people, and it has not been competitive with thefree enterprise economy. I might add, there has been preserved a surprisingly strong commitment to personal freedom in these societies.

 

“This change in the attitude of the communist leaders, not only in the Soviet Union, but also in China and other countries, is the direct result of the amazing advances in communications and travel over the last few decades. People everywhere in the world can observe what is happening in other parts of the world. People can travel to virtually anywhere in the world in one day.

 

“This change in attitude of the Communist leadership all over the world is not the result of dominant personal leadership such as Gorbachov has implied. These undeniable forces are making it necessary for the leaders to admit the sad facts and do something about it.

 

“The other profound change is that the leadership of the USSR and the US have finally realized that an all out nuclear war is not only unwinnable, but also un thinkable. In the Soviet Union this change has come about because of a reduction in the influence of the military establishment on national policy. I think the failure of their large nuclear power plant had a profound effect on this change in attitude about nuclear war.

 

“What all of this means is there is a very high probability that the hostility between the US and the USSR which has characterized the Cold War is coming to an end. The 21st Century could be charactereized by a coopereative relationship between the US and the USSR and some reduction in world wide military forces.

 

“This watershed change which I believe is real is also fraught with danger. Major changes in Communist leadership must be established and supported by the bureaucracy.”

 

10/24/89, Copy of cover of program for the dinner

8/16/89, Copy of  a letter to Packard from Dr. Charles A. Sweet Jr. inviting him to speak at this dinner award ceremony

9/25/89, Copy of a letter to Packard expressing his pleasure that Packard has agree to atten the dinner.

10/24/89, Copy of Packard’s hotel bill for the night in Monterey. He has written “Personal” across it.

Box 1, Folder 34 – HP Management

 

February, 1986 – Remarks on Spectrum Project

 

Not clear who the audience is. Packard presents his thoughts on the Spectrum computer program.

 

2/86, Text of Packard’s remarks

 

Packard says he and Bill Hewlett have been watching the spectrum “with a great deal of interest.” “It is a difficult technical challenge and a large management challenge. At the same time there has been continued growth in both our technical capability and our management capability. I have never had any doubt about how the spectrum program will turn out. It will clearly be a strong foundation on which we can continue to build technological leadership in the computer industry for many years in the future.

 

“I can really feel the excitement and genuine sense of achievement behind this program. I know Bill Hewlett feels the same way.

 

“Shortly after Bill and I founded the company in 1939 we decided we were going to concentrate our efforts on making a real contribution in our field of endeavor. We did not want to be a me too company – we wanted to do things that had not been done before.

 

“From the first product – the 200A audio oscillator – we have made a great may important contributions, microwave instrumentation, digital counters, medical instruments, electronic calculators. Product after product over the years we have demonstrated that making a contribution in new products has always been a key to a successful product.

 

“As our activity in the field of computers increased, we learned that teamwork as well as technical excellence is essential to making important contributions in the computer and data products area. Spectrum is a great program in the history of HP for we have demonstrated a great team effort in combining technical inputs from various parts of the company, a team effort among software and hardware people, and a great team effort in melding the various components into a real contribution to the needs of our customers.

 

“The Spectrum program will bring an important contribution to the needs of our customers not only this year and next year but for many years ahead.

 

“While the spectrum program has been the largest new product development in the history of the company, it has not overshadowed our other R&D efforts. We have an outstanding program to strengthen and expand our technology base. We will be announcing this year a great vintage of other new products, electronic instruments, medical instruments and including computer peripherals, all of which will be the same kind of important contributions we have made in the years past.

 

“I want to congratulate everyone who has taken part in this great team effort. But I want to add – don’t stop running hard now because that’s just what our competitors are going to continue to do.

 

“We have to demonstrate by our continuing performance that all of our old customers will benefit if they continue to depend on HP. And also we have to demonstrate to a lot of new customers that their future will be better.”

 
Box 5, Folder 12A – General Speeches

 

March 26, 1986 – Remarks to The Brookings Institution on the work of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, Washington D. C.

 

Packard gave many speeches covering work of this Commission, see end of this speech for a complete list of such speeches.

 

3/26/86, Copy of the typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT REFORM

 

INTRODUCTION

“It’s a pleasure for me to address you today on the subject of reforming defense management. The forum here addresses military procurement. However the broader issue of management includes the way we do planning and budgeting, the way we’re organized to make decisions, as well as the actual process of procurement. So I’d like to ask you to take a stop back and look at some very fundamental issues relating to the defense that underlie the procurement activity.

 

“Last year the President established our Commission to look at essentially every aspect of defense management. In our Interim Report we covered four major subjects:

 

• National Security Planning and Budgeting
• Military Organization and Command
• Acquisition Organization and Procedures
• Government-Industry Accountability

 

“Our Interim Report was intended to be a terse summary of the Commission’s conclusions and recommendations to date. [See speech May 5, 1986 to The Heritage Foundation.] I thought today I would give you some of the rationale and philosophy underlying the report that involve military procurement.

 

Packard says the Commission members were able “to agree on recommendations to change the JCS structure that will, we believe, improve national security planning and budgeting and also military organization and command. Our recommendations also mesh closely with the legislation on JCS reorganization being considered by the Congress.”

 

PLANNING AND BUDGETING

“There has been no rational system whereby the Executive Branch and the Congress reach coherent and enduring agreement on national military strategy, the forces to carry it out, and the funding that should be provided. In the absence of such a system, instability and uncertainty plague our defense program. In turn, they cause imbalances in our military forces and capabilities, and increases in the costs of procuring military equipment.

 

“Since World War II, planning has been dominated by each military service’s own perception of its role and mission. The Services have done their own long-range planning and determined, to a great extent, their force level and weapon system requirements. Final decisions on weapons required are made more often on a piecemeal basis characterized by a process of negotiation rather than through a coherent and preconceived master strategy.

 

“Congress adds to this management by fits and starts. The present method of Congressional budget review centers on either the minutiae of line items or the gross dollar allocation to defense. This approach obscures key defense issues. It also causes instabilities which require program stretch outs, cancellations and other actions that will result in substantial waste.

 

Packard reviews Commission recommendations to change these procedures.

 

“We recommend that the President propose and the Congress approve defense budget levels for five years ahead. We are recommending that the Chairmen of the JCS be asked to plan military forces that can be procured and supported within those budget levels. To do this effectively, the Chairman must be able to balance the inputs of the military departments against each other and also take into account the requirements of the unified and specified commanders (CINCs) who are the ultimate users of the forces which are provided by the military departments.

 

“To enable the Chairman of the JCS to provide the best, most objective professional advice on this very important issue, he must have his own staff and not be dependent on the Service staffs for advice. We are also recommending that a Vice Chairman of the JCS be established and that he be specifically responsible to provide inputs from the CINCs for the Chairman to take into account in developing the military plans for the Secretary.”

 

Getting the Congress and the Administration to agree on defense budget levels looking five years ahead is an important goal Packard says. “We do not believe these budget levels need to be established down to the last dollar – or the last billion dollars. A projection with even a 5 percent uncertainty would be much better than the FYDP has been over the years and would provide a much more useful long-range plan for the management of the Defense Department.

 

And another major weakness in the defenses budget system Packard points out “is that the President and the Congress have not been provided with a satisfactory way to determine whether or not US military forces are adequate to support our worldwide national security requirements. To do this, an assessment of the capability of the forces of the United States and its allies versus the capability of enemy forces needs to be made, the so called net assessment of military forces.

 

“This is a complex problem and difficult to do in a way that is useful. We believe a better net assessment can be made by the Chairman of the JCS working in cooperation with the DCI, since the Chairman is less dependent on the Service Chiefs.

 

“We are recommending that such a net assessment be made and provided for the President and the Congress so that each can be better able to evaluate the overall adequacy of the US military forces in relation to the threats they will have to deal with around the world.”

 

The Commission wants to see more effective teamwork within the national defense establishment. “In the Defense Department,” Packard says, “this will require better teamwork between the Secretary, the Chairman, the Joint Chiefs, and the CINCs.”

 

“These recommendations are highly dependent on the support of the Congress. Some new legislation will be required, but our recommendations are consistent with that which the Congress is already considering. There is recognition that stability in defense planning an result in very substantial savings and so the incentives are strong for the Congress to support these recommendations.

 

“We realize that absolute stability in five-year budget projections is not likely to happen. The Congress will want to keep some control of funding. In fact, Congress has already provided stability for some major programs. We believe a major improvement in this long range planning aspect of defense management can be achieved at this time. If it can be done, the payoff will be very substantial.”

 

ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES

Packard continues saying, “Another major recommendation of the Commission is intended to improve the management of the new weapons development and production.

 

“Our Commission looked at some successful examples of systems acquisition both inside and outside the DoD and concluded that they had the following characteristics:

 

“First, clear command channels. That is the program manager had clear responsibility for his program and a short unambiguous chain of command to the CEO, General Manager, or comparable decision maker.

 

“Second, stability. Meant that the program manager made a ‘contract’ with his CEO at the beginning of the program specifying performances, schedule, and cost.

 

“Third, limited reporting requirements. The program manager was required to report only to the CEO, and typically on a management by exception basis.

 

“Fourth, small high quality staffs.

 

“Fifth, communication with the user. That is, the program manager established a dialog with the customer and maintained it throughout the program.

 

“Sixth, prototyping and testing.

 

Packard interjects a statement to the effect that his own experience has validated these principles many times. “Successful programs,” he says, “result from assigning good program managers and giving them clear cut authority to get the job done. My experience has also shown me that prototyping is absolutely essential. Every successful new product development in the commercial world must meet both a performance target and a cost target. There is no valid reason why this cannot be done with military equipment. Thus, we are recommending the slogan, ‘Fly and know how much it will cost before you buy,’ to be the guiding principle of all future new weapons programs.”

 

Packard says the Commission has recommended a procurement process which will “result in better decisions, made early and with more resolve. To encourage the right decisions, we recommend a streamlined acquisition organization, headed by a full time Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition on the same level as the Deputy Secretary and the Service Secretaries.

 

Responding to what he says  has been “some concern” that establishment of such a position as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition would encourage greater centralization of the acquisition process, Packard says, “In the present system the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary provide the overall final authority for the entire acquisition process in the Department of Defense. These two officials have a tremendous range of other responsibilities. In the past the Deputy Secretary has been given the primary responsibility for the acquisition process, but even so he is able to devote only part of his time to this tremendously important job. We believe the defense acquisition process, which is one of the largest and most important management challenges in the world, will be substantially improved with an experienced manager in charge full time.

 

“Putting an experienced manager in charge of acquisition full time has nothing to do with whether the acquisition work is centralized or decentralized. The person would need a much larger staff to centralize the entire acquisition process. That is not what we are recommending. The acquisition work should continue to be decentralized to the Services and agencies just as Secretary Weinberger has done. Unified policies must be established and implemented and performance must be evaluated.

 
This recommendation adds one person, not another layer of management to the system. It reduces the span of control of the Secretary and his Deputy which is now far greater than good management practice would dictate.”

 

Government-Industry Accountability

“In recent years there has been increasing public mistrust of the performance of private contractors in the nation’s defense programs. Wide coverage in the news media of questionable practices on the part of industry have eroded public confidence in corporate morality.

 

“This country relies heavily on the private sector to carry out weapons system development and production. Cooperation between government and industry is essential if private enterprise is to fulfill its role in the defense acquisition process. Contractor or government actions that undermine public confidence in the integrity of the contracting process jeopardize this needed partnership.”

 

Packard says the Commission’s Interim Report urges “that the laws continue to be aggressively enforced. We also recommend that both defense contractors and the Department of Defense take steps to apply the highest standards of ethics and conduct.”

 

And Packard adds that he believes “industry itself will be far better off by cleaning up its own act rather than relying on the federal government to do the policing. In the long run, lax internal auditing leads to public outrage and resulting reaction by enforcement agencies. The result is damage to the corporate reputation, personal suffering on the part of corporate executives, loss of revenue to the corporation, and cost to the nation as a whole.”

 

Role of Congress

Packard says he wants to reemphasize the point that “Congress needs to focus on larger issues and stop trying to micromanage the Defense Department….No  matter how well DoD streamlines its own organization and procedures, Congress can undo most of it by continuing to get involved in day-to-day management.”

 

Packard cites one central theme in his remarks:

 

“If you want the job done, pick a qualified person to do it, say what you want done, leave him alone but hold him accountable for the outcome.” [A statement of HP’s Management by Objective policy.] And he adds that this message “should apply both to DoD and to the Congress.”

 

Closing Remarks

As I mentioned earlier, the Commission’s final report will be issued by the end of June. We hope to amplify on some of the recommendations already made, and we may issue two or three more reports on special topics. These reports will probably deal with acquisition, personal conduct and accountability, and planning.

 

“The response to our Interim report has been very positive, both on the part of the President and Congress. Those of us on the Commission have been extremely encouraged by this. We feel very strongly that reforms in defense management are long overdue. Now is the time to do something and stop talking about it. I hope all of you will support us.

 

“In closing I want to emphasize that our recommendations are not in any way intended to be a criticism of Secretary Weinberger. I pointed out in my covering letter to President Reagan that our military forces are stronger and their morale is higher than at anytime in recent memory.

 

“Secretary Weinberger has already undertaken a number of the management improvements we suggest. He has developed an outstanding relationship with the JCS, and he has saved billions of dollars by stabilizing major programs.

 

“He was also responsible for seeking out and discovering a number of serious problems that have been in the establishment for a long time. Unfortunately, the news media blame him as though these problems were the result of his management. They should instead be complimenting him for discovering the problems and for taking steps to correct them.

 

“We believe the adoption of our recommendations will enable Secretary Weinberger to do an even better job in the next three years and will provide the foundation for better Defense Management by future Secretaries.”

 

3/11/86, Letter to Packard from A. Lee Fritscher, Director, The Brookings Institution, expressing delight that he has agreed to be their luncheon speaker. He encloses a preliminary agenda.

3/24/86, Letter to Packard from B. K. MacLaury, President, The Brookings Institution, inviting him to an “off-the-record discussion with 18 people listed on the enclosed sheet prior to your remarks….”

 

The following is a list of Packard speeches which cover work of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management. Many were similar to other speeches and thus are not summarized here.

 

Packard speeches wherein he discusses work of the Commission on Defense Management:

 

March 26, 1986 – Remarks to the Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.

May 1, 1986 – Keynote Address to The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Arlington, VA

May 5, 1986 – The Heritage Foundation, Washington D.C. (Not summarized   here)

May 21, 1986 – American Electronic Association, no location (Not summarized)

July 24, 1986 – Another to AEA, Palo Alto, CA

July 25, 1986 – Lakeside Talk, Bohemian Club

September 10, 1986 – The Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA

September 23, 1986 – Aerospace Industries Association/ National Security Industrial Association. (Not summarized here.), Williamsburg, VA

October 7, 1986 – Keynote address Electronic Industries Association, San Francisco, CA

Novembeer 6, 1986 – Committee for Economic Development, New York, NY. (Not summarized here)

December 4, 1986 – American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C.

March 1, 1988 – The Thomas Jefferson Research Center, Beverly Hills, CA

June 14, 1988 – Defense Systems Management College, Fort Belvoir, VA

July 22, 1988 – Bohemian Grove

July 27, 1988 – Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington D. C.

October 24, 1989 – YMCA Enlisted Personnel Military Awards Dinner. [Offers retrospective comments on the work of the Commission.]

August 1, 1991 – Testimony before the Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives

 

 

Box 5, Folder 12B – General Speeches

 

April 15, 1986, Statement before the Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services, U.S. Senate, Washington D. C.

 

4/15/86, Typewritten copy of speech

 

“Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you the subject of personnel in the federal government. I cannot overemphasize the need to make sure that we get high quality people to fill critical positions in the government. Presidential Commissions may recommend, and Congress may legislate the creation of new positions or more effective organization structures. But without the right kinds of people in these jobs, the structure alone will not solve the problem.

 

“I will base my remarks today on my experience as a former Deputy Secretary of Defense, on the review of federal laboratories that I chaired for the White House Science Council, as well as on my present work with the President’s Commission on Defense Management. My focus will be on federal scientists and engineers and on critical acquisition personnel in the Department of Defense.”

 

Packard first addresses the issue of scientists and engineers, and says that
research and development are key to both our national security and industrial competitiveness. In the past 10 years both federal and private support for R&D in the United States have been increasing in constant dollars, and in 1985 this support reached an all-time high of $107 billion, about 47 percent of which was federal. Ironically, with more national emphasis on R&D than ever before, the federal government’s inability to attract and retain qualified scientists and engineers has become a major problem.

 

“At the heart of the problem is pay, with rigidity and inertia of the personnel administration system being a less important but contributing factor. The pay disparity between government and industry began to grow with the last cycle of inflation, when increases in federal salaries failed to keep pace. The problem is particularly acute in the scientific and engineering fields, where industrial pay scales have risen faster than the rest. Congress has made the problem worse by insisting on linking congressional and civil service pay. Because Congress is reluctant to raise its own pay, civil service salaries have been capped for at least six years; in 1986 the salary ceiling is $72,300. The result is not only lower federal salaries, but also severe salary compression at the senior levels, which penalizes some of the most highly trained and experienced people entrusted with critical responsibilities.”

 

Packard cites 1984 studies by the GAO and the Air Force that showed engineer and computer science people were from 30 to almost 50 lower paid than those in industry, and adds that data from other agencies tell a similar story.

 

“There are indications,” he says, “that problems exist in other critical career fields as well. For example, in my role as Chairman of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, I found that the Defense Department is losing many of its best contracting specialists at critical stages in their careers, principally at the journeyman level of GS-9, 11 and 12. In 1984 there was a 68 percent increase over previous years in the number of contracting specialist resignations.” And he adds that 45% of those resigning said they did so to join private industry, where they expected higher pay and better promotional opportunities.

 

He also cites an independent survey made by purchasing managers which showed that salaries in private industry were from 16 to 51 percent higher than Department of Defense pay scales for jobs of comparable experience and responsibility.

 

“Faced with problems in recruiting, federal agencies often have to choose between accepting a less qualified candidate or leaving a position vacant. Defense Department data show that the aptitude score of newly hired scientists and engineers are declining relative to national norms. This situation illustrates that the nation is getting only what it is willing to pay for.

 

Fringe benefits are also being eroded, Packard says. “Although the federal pension plan is still relatively generous, it has been affected by recent budget cuts and is often matched or exceeded in the private sector. Federal health and life insurance provisions, and annual and sick leave allowances, are far less generous than those offered by many private companies and universities.”

 

Packard mentions his work on the White House Science Council panel established in 1982 to review the federal laboratories, which he chaired. “The panel concluded,” he says, “that the inability of many federal laboratories – especially those under civil service restraints – to attract, retain, and motivate qualified scientists and engineers limits the productivity of the laboratories. If not corrected, this situation will seriously threaten their vitality.”

 

When the Federal Laboratory Review Panel compared administrative practices in government operated laboratories with those in industrial R&D organizations, “…they found that industry typically places more administrative control over technical personnel in the hands of technical supervisors than do government operated laboratories. In the federal system, personnel administration is handled by a more or less autonomous bureaucracy focused on procedures and standardization rather than on technical achievement. The federal government also commonly imposes personnel ceilings as well as budgetary controls on the laboratories, while the general industrial practice is to use budgetary control alone. Our panel recommended that government operated laboratories, also, use budgetary control alone.”

 

Another problem cited by Packard is that federal personnel administration tends to emphasize length of service over quality of performance in determining pay. “Thus,” he says, “a federal employee who has a clean service record is assured of a step increase at regular intervals regardless of productivity. Conversely, the process regarding high performers is administratively cumbersome, and most bonuses and promotions are difficult to push through the system.”

 

Packard recommends a greater exchange of scientists and engineers between government and academia, saying it would provide an exchange of new ideas to the laboratories involved, and to the federal R&D program offices as well. “Unfortunately,’ he says, “the current structure and rigidity of the federal personnel system inhibits the mobility of technical personnel between government and universities. Pay comparability would do a lot to improve the situation, as would additional flexibility in retirement accounts. There is no reason for example, why academics who join a federal organization should not have the option of retaining their own pension plans rather than being required to join the federal one.

 

“The Navy is attempting to rectify some of these personnel management problems in a demonstration project started in 1986 at two of its California laboratories, the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake and the Naval Ocean Systems Center in San Diego. An alternative personnel management system has been created at each facility that, among other things, aggregates the numerous civil service grades into broad pay bands, links pay to performance, and simplifies personnel administration. The broad pay bands give supervisors more flexibility in making initial salary offers and giving subsequent in-grade raises; they also permit more generic job descriptions and greater latitude in rewarding deserving individuals without having to promote them. In contrast, the existing civil service system, with its many narrowly and rigidly defined grades, makes it difficult to match market rates for scarce talent. This system also forces supervisors to rewrite job descriptions, thereby justifying promotion to higher grades, in order to give employees pay raises.”

 

Packard expresses his belief that the more general approach to personnel management demonstrated by the Navy at China Lake needs to be expanded and applied elsewhere in the federal work force. “In particular,” he says, “we have identified a need to stop talent drain among scientists and engineers as well as critical Defense acquisition personnel. We need to bring modern personnel management practices into the federal government, and this will require some structural changes as well as greater flexibility in the pay system.”

 

Packard says the China Lake system works quite well at entry and middle levels, and provides salary comparability with the private sector. “However,” he says, “we must also make allowances to have some top quality people in the very senior positions. These are the people who will provide the ideas and leadership to keep our R&D and systems acquisition activities above the level of mediocrity.

 

“Today, for example, the directors of large federally operated laboratories are paid only about half as much as their counterparts in contractor-operated laboratories. Some provision must be made to pay them above the current ceiling before the government loses the majority of its best talent. Adopting the China Lake approach solves part of the pay problem, but this issue of the pay cap must be dealt with in order to solve the whole problem.”

 

Realizing that the of such an approach as he recommends is an important question, Packard says, “I believe that present budgetary controls are adequate to limit costs. A program or laboratory manager, given a fixed budget for personnel costs, can make the necessary trade-offs between quality and quantity. In other words, the manager must understand that getting better people at higher salaries will mean having fewer of them within the budget constraint. From the defense systems acquisition point of view, this would certainly be a move in the right direction, since indications are that there are already too many people cluttering up the acquisition process.”

 

Packard emphasizes the need to do something about this situation very soon….  “Time is running out.” he says, “Many of the best senior people are nearing retirement age, and many of the subordinates who would have replaced them have left the government. Congress has an opportunity to pass remedial legislation this year, and I urge you to do so.”

 

“I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee, and I will be pleased to respond to your questions.”

 

Box 5, Folder 13 – General Speeches

 

May 1, 1986, Keynote Address, AIAA, Arlington VA

T. A. Wilson, Chairman of the Board of the Boeing Company, invited Packard to be the keynote speaker at the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) 1986 Annual Meeting and International Aerospace Exhibit, April 29 – May 1, 1986. Packard was Chairman of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, and his speech here covers the interim recommendations of the Commission. The Commission’s Interim Report was issued February 28, 1986. See speech March 26, 1986 for complete listing of speeches which include comments on the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management.

 

5/1/86, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

When he was asked to speak at this meeting Packard says he realized that it would be “an excellent opportunity …to talk to many of the key people who would be putting the recommendations of the Commission on Defense Management into action on a day-to-day basis.” He says he is “confident that our major recommendations will be implemented.

 

“The old way of doing business with the Defense Department is going to change, he says, “we hope, in important ways. Many of you will be the ones responsible for putting the changes into action. We hope you will understand and embrace the changes we are recommending, and make sure that the men and women who work for you down the line do, too.”

 

Packard says that the reports which have been delivered to the President are brief, – “each represents a great deal of hard work and effort, and careful, and at times agonized, analysis of this country’s defense management policies by a group of Commissioners with diverse and impressive backgrounds. We had decades of Chief Executive and flag Officer experience to draw on; — academic expertise, government and Capitol Hill knowledge, also. We were fortunate to have a highly talented, experienced and hard-working staff.”

 

The Commission had been appointed in June of 1985 and Packard says that “one of the most overwhelming obstacles to our success was the simple fact that more than 30 reports on defense management have been issued since the last major reform during the Eisenhower Administration – and not much has changed.” However, he says he has been optimistic that the current climate for reform would “give our Commission a real chance for success. Each of our recommendations has received our careful consideration as to how it should be implemented – to insure that our reports would not end up on the shelf, like those of many other Commissions.”

 

Packard says he would like to “review the major recommendations the Commission has made – the rational behind them and what they mean to you.”

 

He explains that they separated their recommendations into four major areas: “National Security Planning and Budgeting, Military Organization and Command, Acquisition Organization and Procedures, and Government-Industry Accountability.” He stresses that “none of these recommendations stands alone – they are intended to work together as a package and they were arrived at with considerable thought and deliberation as to how one will affect the others.

 

“National Security Planning and Budgeting.

 

“One of the most serious problems in our defense management process has its roots in the way we plan and budget. The Commission concluded that there is today no rational process by which the Executive Branch and the Congress reach an agreement on funding, forces or strategy.

 

“As we all realize, the Defense Department budget has been for a long time too largely the product of parochial in-fighting between the Services and of an agonized Congressional examination of line-item minutiae. There has been too much lobbying by industry and too much pork barrel politics by the Congress. We know that cannot be completely eliminated but we need to do better long-range planning.

 

“Our piecemeal assessment of forces and weapons means that we lose all focus on matters of strategy, operational concepts, and key defense issues. Lost, too, are many opportunities for dramatically greater management efficiency. Avoidable instability, program stretch-outs, cancellations and waste are the unfortunate results of the way we conduct our planning and budgeting process.

 

“The Commission has recommended means for achieving better management of this process at the highest level, including that the President propose and the Congress approve defense budget levels for five years ahead and then a specific two-year operational budget. These changes would realize major improvements.”

 

“Military Organization and Command.

 

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would play a key role in this new process. He would be the principal military advisor to the President, the National Security council and the Secretary of Defense.

 

“To date, we have not fully realized satisfactory ways of evaluating whether we are buying the right number of weapons, or in fact even the right kind of weapons. This has been the Secretary’s responsibility, but we believe it can be improved.

 

“This should be part of the job of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He should be able to balance the interest and needs of the services for new weapons, against the readiness requirements of the unified and specified commanders in the field.

 

“He should also be responsible for working with the JCS and the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare a net assessment to evaluate the military capabilities of our forces, and those of our allies. This would provide information indispensable to making better long-term decisions.

 

“The Chairman should have the authority, staff and responsibility to accomplish all this. It is my belief that in the past we have had Chairmen more than equal to this job, but we have never told them that this is what we want them to do.

 

“I want to emphasize that these recommendations are in no way intended to reduce the authority of the Secretary. They are designed to enable the Chairman of the JCS to give the Secretary better advice.

 

“To assist the Chairman in this critical process, we are recommending that there be a Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He should be specifically responsible to represent the interests of the CINCs, and take an active role in the process of determining weapons requirements.

 

“Acquisition Organization and Procedures.

 

This Commission was established in part because of the spare parts horror stories. We looked at these cases, but we concluded that there were other more serious systemic problems in the acquisition process that cost billions of dollars. Correcting these will improve the management problems causing the horror stories.

 

“We have recommended, — and the necessary legislation already has been introduced in Congress – putting a senior OSD official, with experience in industrial management, in charge full time of defense acquisition policies. Today at DoD, you have the biggest acquisition operation in the whole world, and no one in charge full time.

 

“The new organization we are recommending includes the position of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition. A level II appointee, this person would be given the authority and responsibility to oversee the entire acquisition system.

 

“We are recommending that the Services retain the responsibility for all new major weapons systems from the beginning of full-scale development through production and deployment. The procurement procedures should be uniform, hopefully, embracing the best features of each Service.

 

“We have recommended a process with greater emphasis on the early stages of weapons development that picks the right system early in the process and uses more prototypes for adequate developmental and operational testing.

 

“The most important decisions are those made at the front end of the acquisition process. That’s when the analysis is done to determine if the technology is really adequate and can be converted into a useful military capability. If this is done correctly, with the first 3 to 5% of the expenditures, you will be able to stabilize costs and assure better performance further along in the program’s life span.

 

“The new Under Secretary would have the authority to establish appropriate policies for this part of the process. Only when it could be determined that program uncertainties have been addressed and dealt with adequately would Congress be asked to authorize high rate production and make major commitments of funding. The guiding principal of this new approach is: ‘Fly and know how much it will cost before you buy.’

 

“We are calling for more prototypes and more operational testing in the early stages of major programs. To do this may add some time and so streamlining will be very important at this stage. In addition to recommending a streamlined acquisition organization and a better balance of weapons system cost and performance, we have proposed other ways – for example, expanding the use of commercial products, and improving procurement competition – to run the Defense Department more like a successful commercial business.

 

“Government-Industry Accountability.

 

“Industry has a big role to play in the defense reform initiatives. The defense industry has to shape up and do a better job of keeping its own house in order, but defense contracting is a two-way street. What we need is a more honest and a more productive partnership between government and business.

 

“Public trust in our defense effort has eroded, and, more often than not, industry is seen as the villain. Whether this is fair or undeserved is irrelevant, because it is absolutely vital that a healthy government-industry relationship be restored. This country relies heavily on the private sector to carry out weapon system development. It could not be done without private industry.

 

“We have made some specific recommendations to industry in our interim Report, and will be making some additional recommendations in our final report in June. I want simply to stress today that industry will be far better off by cleaning its own house rather than relying on the federal Government for more regulation and enforcement.

 

People

 

“Improvement in senior level appointment system.

 

“SecDef to have more flexibility in personnel management policies.

 

“Expanded opportunities for education and training of all civilian acquisition personnel.

 

“Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I will now be happy to answer your questions.”

 

1/16/86, Letter to Packard from T. A. Wilson, Chairman of the Board of the Boeing Company, inviting him to speak at the Annual Meeting of the AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics)

1/24/86, Copy of a letter from Packard to T. A. Wilson saying he would be pleased to speak at the meeting

4/29/86, Copy of the printed program of the AIAA meeting

 

 

Box 5, Folder 13A – General Speeches

 

May 5, 1986, Address on Defense Management, the Heritage Foundation, Washington D.C.

 

5/4/86  Typewritten copy of speech.

This speech is very similar to others given by Packard on the subject of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management and, therefore, it is not covered again here. See speech March 26, 1986 for complete list of speeches covering work of the Commission.

2/26/86, Copy of letter to Packard from Edwin J. Feulner, Jr. President of  The Heritage Foundation, inviting him to visit the Foundation for a public discussion on the work of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management.

4/4/86, Note to Packard from his secretary, Maddie Schneider, saying that she had talked to representatives of the Foundation , and they suggest three choices of format for the discussion – should Packard decide to accept. They recommend  a presentation in the morning, (attended by about 100, including members from the  administration, business, Congress, the media, and the Foundation)followed by further discussion over lunch with about a dozen attendees – Foundation members, congressional members and staff, and key administration representatives.

4/9/86, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mr. Edwin J. Feulner accepting his invitation.

Undated, Two typewritten sheets giving schedule for the meeting

Undated, Typewritten sheet listing projected guests

Undated, Typewritten sheet listing guests of honor

Box 5, Folder 14 – General Speeches

May 15, 1986, Statement before the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington D.C.

 

5/15/86, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard thanks the Committee for the opportunity to discuss the findings and recommendations of the White House Science council’s Panel on the Health of U.S. Colleges and Universities, and says he has had the “privilege and pleasure of chairing the Panel since its inception.”

 

He says they talked to more than 100 universities and over 40 private sector organizations. While these discussions bolstered their belief that America still enjoys a strong scientific and technological enterprise, Packard says a number of disturbing problems and questions concerning both the short and long-term health of this area were raised.

 

“In our Report,” he says, “we address these problems and questions and make specific recommendations directed to each of the federal government, the universities and private industry. Although we recognize that fully implementing many of these recommendations will be difficult, particularly given the continuing need to bring Federal spending under control, we are confident their implementation over time will preserve the health and vitality of a higher education system that has served this nation well in the past, and will be even more critical in the future as the worldwide technological competition becomes increasingly intense.”

 

“If we are to meet this competitiveness challenge, it is critical that we preserve and expand America’s science and technology base. The President’s Commission underlined the importance of science and technology to this country’s ability to compete when it noted that ‘Without doubt, [technology] has been our strongest competitive advantage. Innovation has created whole new industries and the renewal of existing ones. State-of-the-art products have commanded premium prices in world markets, and technological advances have spurred productivity gains. Thus, America owes much of its standard of living to U.S. pre-eminence in technology.’

 

“In the United States, we depend upon our universities and colleges to educate our scientists, mathematicians and engineers and to perform the basic research necessary to our technological enterprise.”

 

Historically, the United States’ commitment to maintaining a strong, stable higher education system dedicated to creative scientific inquiry and exploration has permitted industry to acquire the talent and technologies necessary to carrying out these chores. Yet there are worrisome signs that colleges and universities may not be able to play this role as sell in the future as they have in the past.”

 

He outlines a few of these signs:

 

• “The costs of research continues to increase, in most cases substantially faster than the ability of university revenues to keep pace with them.” Some 50% faster than the inflation rate, he says.
• “Scientific and engineering faculty salaries remain uncompetitive with those of private industry. As a result, fully one-tenth of the nation’s engineering faculty positions are vacant. In critical fields like electrical engineering and computer science, some universities report half their positions unfilled.
• “Universities are not producing enough new scientists and engineers. For instance, in 1983, the American Electronics Association projected that 200,000 new positions for electrical engineers and computer scientists would be created over the 5-year period ending in 1987 – more than twice the number our universities will have graduated during that time.
• Due to long years of forced neglect, university physical plant is decaying and scientific equipment is becoming obsolete. According to the Association of American Universities, the median age of instrumentation in our nation’s universities is twice that used in industrial laboratories. Universities are unable to upgrade this plant and equipment at a fast enough rate to ensure adequate future levels of scientific productivity.

 

“In response to these needs and problems the Panel produced a set of specific recommendations aimed at ensuring that colleges and universities would be able to meet the scientific and technological demands that will be placed on them over the next several years.”

 

Packard discusses three of the recommendations:

 

“First, the Federal Government must increase its commitment to the colleges and universities. There simply must be a greater and more focused Federal R&D effort.

 

“Second, the government should provide more realistic accounting and reimbursement of university research costs. The Panel recommended that the Federal Government fully fund all of the research it supports, rather than demanding an arbitrary level of ‘cost sharing,’ since, in fact, universities’ continuing support of personnel, support of students and provision of an environment conducive to the conduct of research and training in themselves constitute a very real and significant cost contribution.”

 

“Finally, and most importantly, the Federal Government should stop treating its basic research funding as an exercise in procurement and start treating it as what it is – a long-term investment. This change in approach would greatly enhance the efficiency and creativeness of university research, while at the same time eliminating unnecessary and burdensome administrative expenses that consume increasing percentages of every research dollar. Key elements of this investment approach that the Panel recommended be put in place are stability of funding, greater discretion on the part of researchers in the use of their research funds, and greater use by the government of block grants or contracts to support groups of investigators having shared research interests.”

 

“The Panel believes that if the U.S. Government, industry and higher education institutions undertake these and other steps cited in the Report, the United States will be able to restore and protect its most important scientific and technological resources – that is, its colleges and universities. In so doing, the United States not only will ensure that it remains on the cutting edge of science and technology, but also will help ensure that American industry remains competitive far into the future.

 

“In closing, let me emphasize again that, where recommendations urge additional funding, we recognize that fiscal constraints require that many of these objectives be long-term rather than immediate goals. However, we urge that the government at least start –now – down this increasingly important path of preserving the health of America’s higher education institutions. In this way our colleges and universities, so vital to building and expanding the nation’s scientific and technological base, will remain as effective in the future as they are today– the continuing envy of the rest of the world.

 

“Thank you very much. I will be happy t answer any questions you might have.”

 

There are no other documents in the folder.

 

 

Box 5, Folder 14A – General Speeches

 

May 21, 1986, Address to Amereican Electronics Association on the Presidents’s Blue Ribbon Commission of Defense Management

 

Since this speech is very similar to others on the same subject it is not included here. See listing March 26, 1986 for complete list of speeches covering work of the Blue Ribbon Commission.

 

 

Box 5, Folder 14B – General Speeches

 

June 24, 1986, Address on work of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission, at Symposium on Defense Acquisition Issues sponsored by the National Defense University, Washington D.C.

 

6/24/86, Copy of typewritten text of speech

This speech is very similar to that given to the AEA on July 24, 1986 so it is not summarized here. See speech March 26, 1986 for complete list of speeches covering work of the Commission

5/12/86, Letter to Packard from Lt. General Richard D. Lawrence inviting him to speak at their symposium. He says the audience will include corporate executives from throughout the defense industry, as well as key leaders from the executive and legislative sides of the defense establishment.

Undated, Copy of printed pamphlet describing the National Defense University Foundation.

 

 

Box 5, Folder 15 – General Speeches

 

July 24, 1986, Remarks to American Electronics Association, Palo Alto, CA

 

At this meeting – an Executive Briefing of the American Electronics Association’s Northern California Council, Packard continues to report on the recommendations made by the President’s Commission on Defense Management – this time following issuance of the final report. See speech March 26, 1986 for list of speeches covering work of the Commission.

 

7/24/86, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard explains that the Commission [of which he was the Chairman] had its last meeting in June. They had met with the President [Reagan] who asked that they return in six months to give him a progress report on implementation.

 

Packard says he was very pleased that the President asked for a progress report on implementation. “I was well aware,” he says, “that this was not the first commission to study and make recommendations on the management of the Defense Department. There have been at least thirty reports and studies of defense management since 1958. Not much has come of any of them.”

 

In accepting chairmanship of the Commission Packard says he thought the environment was ripe for change. “This turned out to be true,” he says.

 

“In April, the President directed the Defense Department to implement our recommendations not requiring legislative action, and the Congress is moving ahead in three areas that do require legislation.

 

Packard reviews the Commission’s Interim Report which had been submitted to the President on February 28, 1986, In this Report Packard says that the Commission “made a number of recommendations relating to the organization and the responsibilities of the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

In making these recommendations, the Commission had two objectives in mind. First to improve the command of the United States military forces deployed around the world under the Unified Commanders, including both the established worldwide commands and those assigned for specific actions, such as Lebanon and Grenada.

 

Second, the Commission’s recommendations were designed to give the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Unified Commanders a stronger role in the process of deciding what new weapons should be acquired and in distributing the resources available among the Military Departments. An important part of these recommendations involved developing a more effective long-range planning process to keep the overall military plans within limits of the financial resources that are likely to be provided by the Congress for the period of at least five years ahead.”

 

“Packard says that the practices that have evolved since the last major reorganization of the Department of Defense in 1958 have become very wasteful of our national resources. They have all but destroyed the one clear advantage the United States has over the Soviet Union: Technical Superiority.

 

“U.S. technology is clearly ahead of the Soviet Union in every area of military importance. The process of developing and deploying weapons utilizing our technical advantage has become so burdened with what can only be described as garbage that it now requires ten to fifteen years to deploy a major new high technology weapons system. This process should take no more than five years.

 

Packard gives two examples: the Polaris system which took five years to deploy over the period 1955-1960, compared to the Trident system which took sixteen years from 1972 to 1988. Another example which he describes is the Minuteman program which took 4 ½ years to deploy, compared to the MX system which is eight years along and will need several more years before a “meager 50 missiles” are deployed.

 

Packard says there are several reasons for the “disastrous deterioration of the United States military acquisition system.

 

“The first is poor decisions at the beginning of a new weapons program and the failure to develop a strong consensus to support those decisions that are made.

 

“The second is adding a plethora of unnecessary baggage to these important programs. Congress imposes much of the unnecessary baggage by legislating many detailed requirements. The Department of Defense makes the situation worse by issuing and enforcing rules that all too often go beyond the intent of the Congress.

 

“The new structure of the Joint Chiefs can make a major contribution to getting the whole acquisition process back on the right track.

 

“First, the decision to proceed with the development and deployment of a proposed new weapons should be determined by the contribution that weapons will make to the unified military capability of U.S. forces, rather than by the desires of the Military Departments.

 

“Second, stability can be greatly improved by assuring that all of the new weapons systems authorized can be properly funded for efficient development and production with the resources that are likely to be available for at least five years in the future.

 

“Better decisions at the beginning and better long-range planning are both essential steps to better defense acquisition management.

 

“A different philosophy of management must be introduced throughout the system. The sheer magnitude and complexity of a program to develop a modern high technology system put these programs beyond the ability of one man alone to plan and implement the work.

 

“These programs require a team of people working to achieve the basic objectives of the program, unfettered by laws and regulations that have little or nothing to do with the main job of designing and building the system.

 

“Another major recommendation of the Commission is the establishment of the position of an Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition as a level II Presidential appointee. He will have the responsibility for establishing the overall policy in all of the acquisition areas in the Department of Defense. In many ways, this is the most important acquisition job in the whole world, and right now there is no one in charge full time.

 

“The final area requiring legislation is the establishment of a unified transportation system. This is being worked on now and will require more time, but I am confident that it will happen.

 

Packard says the Commissions third report on the National Security Planning and Budgeting section in the Interim Report was released June 23.

 

“This report is an aid to assist the Defense Department which has started work on the first two-year budget scheduled to go to the Hill in January for consideration by the Congress.

 

“There are no guarantees that  Congress will adopt this budget which will be for FY 88-89, but in my view it is imperative that there be more stability and long-range planning in our budget and planning process starting with the President, and continuing with the Defense Department and in the Congress.”

 

“Much more is going to be required besides passing legislation to make our recommendations work. It will require a new way of doing business and a better partnership between all the members of the defense establishment. This is a major theme in all our reports.

 

“It means the Executive Branch needs to chart a better course for our national defense; the Defense Department needs to give better advice to the President to assist him in doing this, and in matters of acquisition the department needs to conduct its business more like a successful commercial enterprise.

 

“The Congress needs to make some changes in the way it operates as well. There is too much lobbying and pork-barrel politics which probably contributes as much to the instability in the Department as anything else. Granted, our democratic form of government provides some unique demands on the system, but the whole process has just gotten out of hand. And finally, the defense industry needs to be a part of this new partnership as well.

 

“Industry and defense have been playing games with each other. This was going on even when I was Deputy Secretary of Defense fifteen years ago.

 

“As a result, public trust in our defense effort has eroded, and more often than not, industry is seen as the villain. Whether this is fair or undeserved is irrelevant, because it is absolutely vital that we get away from this police-sate attitude. A healthy government-industry relationship must be restored. This country relies heavily on the private sector to carry out weapon system development which could not be done without private industry.”

 

Packard says the Commission’s final report includes specific recommendations to industry. “The thrust of these recommendations is that industry needs to be self-governing rather than relying on regulation by the government.

 

“Doing business with the government is different from doing business in the commercial marketplace. The defense industry has a higher accountability to the taxpayers, the Congress and the men and women in uniform whose lives often depend on their products.

 

“Business with the government is different in other ways as well. In commercial business, for example, profits and overhead for different product lines can be transferred from account to account, and it is perfectly legal and sensible. However, this is illegal in defense accounting and is an open invitation to hordes of auditors and investigators.

 

“These are lessons the defense industry has learned, and they have caused a lot of heartaches and hard feelings on all sides. However, I am convinced that a new page will be turned over.

 

“The key to this effort is to make it the responsibility of every individual in the industry and the department to know what good behavior is, what is expected of them, and to have the opportunity to report anything they see without danger of retribution. We need to get the entire defense establishment dedicated to a higher level of performance.

 

Packard says, “Twenty-four Chief Executive Officers have developed a set of Defense Industry Initiatives on Business Ethics and Conduct to do precisely this. The initiatives will be made public with the release of our final report. I feel confident that the entire defense industry is going to adopt these initiatives. I think you will find that this will put a whole new spirit of enterprise into your business.

 

“The higher level of performance cannot be legislated or mandated. It must come from a spirit of enthusiasm and dedication from every individual in the work place – or centers of excellence.

 

“These Centers of Excellence flourish in environments where individuals can identify with a team or unit, and take pride in their work. Centers of Excellence encourage entrepreneurial initiatives and give each person the necessary authority and responsibility in a management environment where policies are established centrally and implemented through a highly decentralized management structure. [He is describing the typical HP management structure.]

 

“This management technique is common in the business world and has been used to a limited extent by the Department of Defense in its Model Installations Program.

 

“This program has been very successful – base personnel have found innovative ways to accomplish their missions while saving money and improving the quality of goods and services.”

 

“We have recommended that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have increased authority and responsibility. This is another example of where there should be a Center of Excellence in the department committed to the job of providing the best, non-parochial military advice possible to the President.

 

“Centers of Excellence need to be established not only in the department, but also within the entire Defense establishment to include contractors and auditors. I am pleased to report that a first step in that direction has been taken by industry.

 

“Our Final Report contains some recommendations on data rights and the revolving door issues. The Defense Department and Congress have gone too far on both these issues, and a proper balance needs to be restored.

 

“Before I close, I want to spend a few minutes discussing our recommendations which will have a direct effect on some of you here today.

 

“The Commission was established in part because of the spare parts horror stories. We looked at these cases, but we concluded that other more serious systemic problems in the acquisition process cost billions of dollars.

 

“Many of you are familiar with these problems which plague the defense acquisition system, such as goldplating, overarching regulations and an inflexible bureaucracy. There are other serious problems that severely erode our ability as a nation to defend ourselves. Today it takes 8 to 10 years from start to finish to get a new weapons system in the field, and by that time the technology is out of date.

 

We must keep our technological edge both in the laboratory, and in the field where this ‘edge’ is deployed. Our ability to mobilize our industrial base in the event of a national emergency is also seriously threatened because of our encumbered defense acquisition system.

 

“The new Under Secretary [of Defense for Acquisitions] is the key to many of our other recommendations. Getting the right person in that position is critical to making the  other recommendations fall into place correctly.

 

“We have also specified a streamlined chain of command in the acquisition organization with only four layers: The new Under Secretary, a service acquisition executive, a program executive officer and the program manager. This streamlined system will mean fewer people and bureaucratic layers, and a more responsive system.”

 

“We have recommended that the weapon system decision structure be changed so that program initiation, full-scale development and production decisions are made by the Joint Requirements and Management Board. This Board, to be co-chaired by the new Under Secretary and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would change the focus of the decisions to concentrate more on requirements and operational suitability.

 

 

“We have recommended a process with greater emphasis on the early stages of weapons development which picks the right system early in the process and uses more prototypes for adequate developmental and operational testing. The idea is to evaluate a system using hardware instead of paperwork.

 

“The most important decisions are those made at the front end of the acquisition process. This is when the analysis is done to determine if the technology is really adequate and can be converted into a useful military capability. If this is done correctly, with the first 3 to 5% of the expenditures, you will be better able to stabilize costs and assure better performance further along in the program’s life span. The Services will retain the responsibility for all new major weapons systems from the beginning of full-scale development through production and deployment.

 

“The new Under Secretary will have the authority to establish appropriate policies for this part of the process. Only when it is determined that program uncertainties have been addressed and dealt with adequately, would Congress be asked to authorize high rate production and make major commitments of funding. The guiding principal of this new approach is ‘Fly and know how much it will cost before you buy.’

 

“In addition to recommending a streamlined acquisition organization and a better balance of weapon system cost and performance, we have also proposed increased use of baselining, improving procurement competition and expanding the use of commercial products.

 

“A perfect example of how money can be saved by increasing the use of commercial products is in the area of integrated circuits. The Defense Department uses $2 billion a year worth of integrated circuits. The mil spec integrated circuits cost anywhere from four or five to ten times as much as the equivalent commercial products. And, the quality and reliability is not as good. This one use of commercial products can save $10 billion a year or more and make more reliable equipment.

 

“Although our recommendations are being accepted and acted on in an encouraging way, it will require some very strong follow up work to achieve any real progress. The Defense Department bureaucracy has a way of accepting such recommendations with lip service yet nothing changes. I sense a broad interest among a great many organizations in some strong and continuing follow up activity. I am pleased about the active interest of the AEA in this important issue. Your continued active support of the Commissions recommendations will help in finally achieving much needed improvement in the management of the Department of Defense.”

 

7/17/86, Letter to Packard from Alice Zatarain Member Services Manager, AEA, thanking him for agreeing to address the AEA meeting, and discussing details of the luncheon.

 

7/25/86, Newspaper clipping covering the speech, clipped from the Times Tribune

 

Box 5, Folder 16 – General Speeches

 

July 25, 1986, Lakeside Talk, Report on President’s Commission on Defense Management, Bohemian Grove, San Francisco, CA

See speech March 26, 1986 for complete list of speeches covering work of the Commission

 

7/25/86, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard starts with a short history of the Defense Department, beginning with its inception by legislation in 1947. “Until that time,” he says, “the U.S. military establishment consisted of the Secretary of War, established in 1788, and the Secretary of the Navy, established in 1798. The Marines were established in 1775 and were under the Secretary of the Navy.

 

“By the end of World War II, air power had been established as a major military force and the Army [Air] Corps had become a very important part of the Army.

 

“The experience of World War II demonstrated that all future military operations were likely to be joint or unified operations of the four services. This view was strongly held by General Marshall and General Eisenhower and was a major consideration in the military reorganization Act of 1947. This act established the Defense Department, and a separate Air Corps and brought the three military departments we have today under the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense was given limited power and the 1950s were characterized by strong service influence on defense policy and intense competition among the services.

 

“During President Eisenhower’s second term he became quite concerned about this excessive service influence. He proposed to put a military chief over the services, reduce their influence and strengthen the hand of the Secretary of Defense.

 

“Legislation was passed in 1958 to make some but not all of the changes Eisenhower recommended. The authority of the Secretary of Defense was strengthened, the power of the service secretaries was reduced, the Joint Chiefs were excluded from any executive function in the assignment of military missions, but there was no effective military authority established to control the services.

 

“Secretary McNamara brought to the office of the Secretary of Defense a very strong team and he took charge of the Department. The military services, however, never fully accepted Secretary McNamara’s authority. When I joined Mel Laird at the Pentagon in 1969, the depth of resentment of the McNamara policies by the professional military people was still very strong and very evident.

 

“During this period the Joint Chiefs were asked to prepare plans for the military forces they thought would be needed to deal with the worldwide national security interests of the United States. These plans were essentially the combined with lists of the four services. These plans would require budgets substantially higher than likely to be provided by the Congress. Secretary McNamara would then prepare his own plans and budgets and take credit for the great savings he had achieved.

 

“This procedure gave strong incentives to the services to find ways to get their programs into the budget and encouraged lobbying efforts by industry and log rolling practices in the Congress. The most serious problems resulted from low estimates on the cost of a new weapons program to get it into the budget. The real costs which became apparent later built up a large bow wave of cost in future budget requirements. To keep within funding as it became available in future years, programs had to be stretched out or cancelled. In effect, there has been no effective long range planning in the systems since 1958 and tens of billions of dollars have been wasted every year because more programs are started than can be funded on an efficient basis.

 

“President Reagan took office in 1980 with a strong commitment to strengthen our military forces and to eliminate fraud and waste from the military establishment.

 

“Secretary Weinberger had a good understanding of some of the basic problems I have described when he took office. He established a good rapport with the joint Chiefs. He gave the unified commanders a larger role in resource allocation and he gave service secretaries and their services a stronger role. From FT1981 until FY1985 he obtained substantial increases in the defense budget from the Congress. Over this period there was about a 50% increase in the defense budget in constant dollars. This gained for him the enthusiastic support of the professional military people and he achieved a quantum increase in the strength and capability of U.S. military forces.

 

“I believe Cap[Weinberger] had every right to be pleased with what he had accomplished in his first four years. There was, as usual, criticism of waste. There was, however, a feeling that the country had not received its money’s worth for this substantial build up in our defense budget. This was not easy to evaluate because considerable money had gone to improve the readiness and sustainability of our deployed forces – factors that are not obvious to the untrained observer.

 

“Other problems caused concern. The U.S. operations in Lebanon indicated serious problems in our command control capability. Grenada raised other questions that troubled the Congress and the public.

 

“The actions taken by the Secretary to deal with fraud and waste were a sharp departure from long established policy in the relationship between the Department and the defense industry.

 

“About 1982 the Congress established legislation to assign Inspector Generals to the auditing problems with the defense industry as well as problems in the Department. The Inspector General has authority to bring criminal indictment and to assess penalties for actions it finds in violation. Questionable charges were investigated by the Inspector Generals assigned to industry and what had for decades been a matter for negotiation with the contracting officer became a legal violation. Unfortunately, this was done without any notice or discussion with the defense industry.

 

“The contracting people in the Department were also called to task for not adhering strictly to the rules. A great deal of real fraud was uncovered at military supply depots around the country as well as in the industry.

 

“What had been done by Cap in his first four years in a real contribution to the military strength of our country began to fall apart in 1984, and by 1985 had lost credibility with the Congress and with the general public. Both the Department and the industry were in a state of crisis.”

 

Having brought his discussion to this point, Packard moves on to the subject of the Commission which he headed.

 

“There had been some discussion about the appointment of a commission to deal with this problem initiated by Republican members of Congress. Cap was not very enthusiastic unless the commission would agree to convince the Congress and the general public that he had, in fact, done an excellent job and there was no need for any substantive change in the management of the Department.

 

“I had been aware of the discussion about the pressure on the President to appoint a commission to deal with this problem and I was not entirely surprised when the President called me and asked me to take on the job. I agreed to do so because I sensed that this was a very serious problem, yet might be a unique window of opportunity to make a substantial improvement in the procedures in the Defense Department management.”

 

Packard says he was able to select the majority of the members of the Commission – and he says he received strong support from the White House. “Some of the Commissioners were doubtful at the beginning that the Commission work would be either interesting or useful,” he says. However he found that after a few meetings, “all of the Commissioners became excited about the challenge we had accepted and our work was a real team effort from then on and every Commissioner made a substantial contribution to our work.” He adds that the report ended with the unanimous support of all of the Commissioners.

 

“I had been aware,” he says, “of the discussions which had been going on for considerable time about the role of the JCS and about the command control problems of the military establishment. I saw this as an opportunity to bring better professional military advice to the make up of our overall forces, to the selection of new weapons programs, and to the allocation of resources among the services. If this could be done I believed it would greatly increase our ability to undertake more effective unified military operations.

 

“The Marines were not very enthusiastic about unified military operations. General P. X. Kelley, the Marine Commandant, testified quoting one of his predecessors. He said it was all right to work with the other services but to expect a man to love the other services as he loves his own is just like asking a man to love all of his girl friends just as much as he loves his wife.

 

“It became very clear as we began to realize what a broad range of issues we were expected to deal with that we had a real problem in determining whether our recommendations should be limited to broad strategic recommendations or whether we should try to describe how our recommendations should be implemented.

 

After discussing this subject, Packard says they decided to develop a “grand strategy about how to improve the management of our national defense establishment,”  – and they also provided “some specific guidelines as to how this [could]  be done.”

 

“Now I want to say one more thing before I talk about our specific recommendations.

 

“There have been at least 30 separate reports by commissions and other knowledgeable groups about how to improve the management of the Defense Department since 1958. None of them have had any significant impact on the management of the DOD. There is, therefore, no evidence from the history of these attempts that our commission will have any useful influence toward improvement.

 

“I believe that the recommendations we have made have a good chance of breaking traditional behavior in the DOD and the DOD can indeed move to a higher plane of performance in its all important role of preserving peace and the freedom of people in this troubled world.

 

“The Commission had its last meeting in June [1986], and we issued our final report at the end of that month. At our last session we met with the President, and he asked us to come back in six months to give him a progress report on the implementation of our recommendations.

 

 

“The first two recommendations, National Security Planning and Budgeting, and Military Organization and Command, require changes in the structure of the JCS. These changes are consistent with both the Senate and House legislation and will be put into effect this year.

 

“Our second report titled  ‘A Formula for Action,’ makes detailed recommendations on the Defense Department system for developing and acquiring new weapons. It was done by a sub committee of the Commission chaired by Bill Perry who has served in DOD as the Director of Research.

 

“Our third report was done under the leadership of Vince Puritano who had been Comptroller of DOD. It is titled ‘National Security Planning and Budgeting’ and it is intended to help DOD implement our recommendations on this subject.

 

“Our fourth report is titled ‘Conduct and Accountability’ and it makes a number of recommendations to both the DOD and the defense industry to improve their working relationship.

 

“We say in this report – ‘Our study of defense management compels us to conclude that nothing merits greater concern than the unnecessarily troubled relationship between the defense industry and the government.’ The United States relies on private industry for its military equipment. It follows that the vigor and the capability of the industry is indispensable to the successful defense of America and the security of our people.

 

“It is a long complex business with 60,000 prime contractors and hundreds of thousands of other suppliers and sub-contractors. Contracts worth $164 billion were placed in 1985, seventy percent of which went to 100 large firms. An average of 15,000 contracts are placed every day.

 

“It is not surprising that in an enterprise of this size fraud and waste can be found. While fraud is a serious problem it is not as costly as many Americans believe. It is, as far as we could determine, less than 1% of  total expenditures.

 

“In a public survey we found that Americans believe that half the defense budget is lost to fraud and waste and that most of this is simply pocketed by defense contractors.

 

“We recommend as the best way to deal with this problem a greatly expanded program of self discipline, the establishment and self enforcement of codes of ethics, better auditing by both the contractors and the auditing profession.

 

“The Commission stated in its first report that:

Management and employees of companies that contract with the Defense Department assume unique and compelling obligations to the people in our armed forces, the American taxpayer and our nation. They must apply (and be perceived as applying) the highest standards of business ethics and conduct.

 

“I am very pleased that the defense industry has enthusiastically accepted our recommendations on this important matter. The industry leaders have voluntarily undertaken to expand and strengthen the enforcement of codes of ethics and work is under way to improve the auditing procedures of the defense industry.

 

“I believe there will be real improvement in the industry and in the Defense Department as the recommendations of the Commission are put into effect.

 

“I want to note that this will probably not change the public perception quickly. The politicians will continue to use DOD as the whipping boy. This is nothing new .In the 1930s the industry, although relatively small at the time, was characterized as ‘merchants of death’. Harry Truman gained public visibility by criticizing the defense industry. It is not always that way. In both World War I and II, the American defense industry was ‘the savior of democracy’.

 

“Whatever the public view and the pronouncement of the politicians, the American defense industry produces the best weapons in the world. We must keep the industry healthy and re-establish a better relationship between DOD and the industry.”

 

Saying that he has taken more time than he should have on the DOD/industry problems, Packard moves on to others which he says are “much more important”.

 

“We note in our interim report that – ‘Today, there is no national system whereby the Executive Branch and the Congress reach coherent and enduring agreement on national military strategy, the forces to carry it out, and the funding that should be provided – in light of the overall economy and competing claims on national resources.”

 

“There is simply no effective long range planning in the system and the decisions on what weapons to produce are distorted by service competition, contractors lobbying the Congress and far too much pork barrel log rolling by members of the Congress. These practices result in tens of billions of dollars of waste and are therefore much more serious than the waste resulting from fraud which is in the range of tens of millions of dollars a year.

 

“To improve the defense management we make a number of important recommendations.

 

“First: Military forces should be planned so that our unified military capability can be optimized to support our overall world wide national security objectives.

 

“Second: Military force should be planned under a five year fiscal plan agreed to by the Administration and at least tacitly supported by the Congress.

 

“Third: Military budgets should be on a two year cycle rather than one year.

 

“Fourth: The Chairman of the JCS should have a larger role in planning military forces, the ability of the forces to sustain their action over an appropriate period of time and the level and type of modernization that should be provided for our forces with new R&D and acquisition programs.

 

“Fifth: The unified commanders who are the users of the forces should have a larger role in the budget development and in decisions about what new weapons to acquire.

 

“I do not have time today to go into more detail about our recommendations. In the foreword to our Final Report I emphasized the need to establish and support strong centralized policies to achieve the objective of the Department. These policies should be long in range, and should have broad support.

 

“The Administration has given strong support to our recommendation. It is a big bureaucracy to deal with and it is very resistant to change.

 

“Congress causes many of the problems. During the defense budget review in 1985 Congress made over 1800 changes and directed the Department to conduct 458 studies from the feasibility of selling lamb products in commissaries to the status of retirement benefits for the Philippine Scouts.

 

“We hope our recommendations will encourage the Congress to direct their attention to the larger issues of National military strategy and the overall capability of our military forces rather than the line item detail.

 

“We realize that Congressional log rolling can not be stopped, but perhaps it can be reduced somewhat.,

 

“I have no illusions that even if all of the Commission’s recommendations are adopted the problems of defense management will be eliminated.

 

“Spending a year on this subject has impressed me again that defense management is a large and complex endeavor. I am convinced there is no possibility whatever for a complete reorganization of the entire system as some critics have suggested. I do believe that significant improvement can result from the Commission’s recommendations. I hope this will have your support.”

 

7/28/86, Letter to Packard from H. Leonard Richardson, Chairman, Lakeside Talk Committee, thanking him for speaking to Bohemian Club members

8/5/86, Letter to Packard from Wm David Smullin asking for a copy of Packard’s speech

9/5/86, Copy of a letter from Packard to Dr. Roger Heyns, The Hewlett Foundation, sending a copy of his speech

 

 

Box 5, Folder 17 – General Speeches

 

September 10, 1986, President’s Commission of Defense Management, Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA

See speech dated March 26, 1986 for complete list of speeches covering work of the Commission

 

9/10/86, Copy of the text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says he wants to begin with a brief “sketch” of the history of the Department of Defense, “which,” he says, “was established by legislation in 1947. Until that time the U.S. military establishment consisted of the War Department under the Secretary of War, established in 1788, and the Navy Department under the Secretary of the Navy, established in 1798. The Marines had been established in 1775 and were under the Secretary of the Navy.

 

“Prior to World War II the United States had a limited national security problem. We were not threatened by land forces and had no need for a large standing army. We did need to control the seas around our continent and the Navy with its Marine Corps provided our main military capability ready for action. The Navy and the Marines had a long, proud tradition.

 

“In light of this tradition it is not surprising that the Navy and Marines were opposed to unification with the other services in the negotiations that established the Department of Defense in 1947, and have not been very enthusiastic about unification ever since.

 

“By the end of World War II, air power had been established as a major military force and the Army Air Corps had become a very important part of the Army.

 

The experience of World War II indicated that all future major military operations were likely to be joint or unified operations of the four services. This view was strongly held by General Marshall and General Eisenhower and was a major consideration in the Military Reorganization Act of 1947. This act established the Defense Department, and a separate air corps and brought the three military departments we have today under the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense was given limited power and the 1950s were characterized by strong service influence on defense policy and intense competition among the services.

 

“During President Eisenhower’s second term he became quite concerned about this excessive service influence. He proposed to put a military chief over the services, reduce their influence and strengthen the hand of the Secretary of Defense.

 

“Legislation was passed in 1958 to make some but not all of the changes Eisenhower recommended. The authority of the Secretary of Defense was strengthened, the power of the service secretaries was reduced, the Joint Chiefs were excluded from any executive function in the assignment of military missions, but there was no effective military authority established to control the services. The fact that his recommendations were not completely implemented in the Reorganization Act of 1958 is what caused President Eisenhower to warn the country about the danger of the ‘Military Industrial Complex’ in his farewell address.

 

“The Joint Chiefs organization was intended to be a mechanism for developing our overall military strategy and planning the forces to support that strategy. Because its recommendations were the joint recommendations of the four chiefs, they generally involved an accommodation of the views of the four services and its    recommendations were thus almost always at the level of the lowest common denominator.

 

“Secretary McNamara brought to the office of the Secretary of Defense a very strong team and he took charge of the Department. The military services, however, never fully accepted Secretary McNamara’s authority. When I joined Mel Laird at the Pentagon in 1969, the depth of resentment of the McNamara policies by the professional military people was still very strong and very evident.

 

“During the McNamara regime the Joint Chiefs were asked to prepare plans for the military forces they thought would be needed to deal with the worldwide national security interests of the United States. These plans were essentially the combined wish lists of the four services. These plans would require budgets substantially higher than would be provided by the Congress. Secretary McNamara would then prepare his own plans and budgets and take credit for the great savings he had achieved.

 

“This procedure gave strong incentives to the services to find ways to get their programs into the budget and encouraged lobbying efforts by industry and log rolling practices in the Congress. The most serious problems resulted from low estimates on the cost of a new weapons program to get it into the budget. The real costs which became apparent later built up a large bow wave of cost in future budget requirements. To keep within funding as it became available in future years, programs had to be stretched out or cancelled. Thus, there has been no effective long range planning in the systems since 1958. Tens of billions of dollars have been wasted every year because more programs have been started than can be funded on an efficient basis. This is by far the most important problem dealt with by the Commission.

 

“President Reagan took office in 1980 with a strong commitment to strengthen our military forces and to eliminate fraud and waste from the military establishment.

 

“Secretary Weinberger understood some of the basic problems I have described when he took office. He established a good rapport with the Joint Chiefs. He gave the unified commanders a larger role in resources allocation and thus supported more effective unified operations. However, he gave service Secretaries and their services a stronger role. The better cooperation that he brought about among the Joint Chiefs and the unified commanders resulted in some improvement in unified operations. The more freedom he gave the service Secretaries badly fragmented policies that should have been unified. From FY1981 until FY1985 he obtained substantial increases in the defense budget from the Congress.

 

“Over this period there was about a 50% increase in the defense budget in constant dollars. This gained for him the enthusiastic support of the professional military people and he achieved a quantum increase in the strength and capability of U.S. military forces.

 

“In 1982 the Congress established legislation to assign Inspector Generals to the auditing problems and other problems with the defense industry as well as problems in the Department. The Inspector General had authority to bring criminal indictment and to assess penalties for actions it found in violation. Questionable charges were investigated by the Inspector Generals assigned to industry. What had for decades been matters which were resolved by negotiation with the contracting officers became legal violations. Unfortunately, this was done without any notice or discussion with the defense industry.

 

“The contracting people in the Department were also called to task for not adhering strictly to the rules. A great deal of real fraud was uncovered at military supply depots around the country as well as in the industry.

 

“It was the Inspector Generals’ actions that brought to light the high priced spare parts and numerous examples of fraud and waste in the Department and in the industry.

 

“These cases of fraud [and] waste provided headline news and political hay for members of Congress to hold up a high priced toilet seat before the TV camera and propose some legislation to solve the problem.

 

“Secretary Weinberger should have been given credit by the public and the Congress for dealing effectively with these problems of fraud and waste. Instead, he was blamed for these problems even though they existed long before he took office.

 

“What had been done by Cap [Weinberger] in his first four years in a real contribution to the military strength of our country began to fall apart in 1984, and by 1985 the DOD and the industry had lost credibility with the Congress and with the general public. Both the Department and the industry were in a state of crises.

 

Having  provided this historical background, Packard turns to the work of the President’s Commission on Defense Management which he was asked to chair in June, 1985.

 

“I had been aware,” he says, “of  the discussions which had been going on over the last several years about the role of the JCS and about the command control problems of the military establishment. Because of this I thought the Commission had an opportunity to make a fundamental change in the role of the JCS. If we could do this, it would bring better professional military advice to the make up of our overall forces, to the selection of new weapons programs, and to the allocation of resources among the services. This change in the role of the JCS could strengthen our ability to mount unified military operations and provide an effective procedure for long range planning.”

 

As the Commission began its deliberations, Packard says “It became very clear…what a broad range of issues we were expected to deal with [and] that we had a serious problem in determining whether our recommendations should be limited to broad strategic recommendations or whether we should try to describe how our recommendations should be implemented.

 

In the end, Packard says they tried to develop “a grand strategy about how to improve the management of our national defense establishment”, but they also provided “some specific guidelines as to how this can be done.

 

“The Commission had its last meeting in June [1986] and we issued our Final Report at the end of that month. At our last session we met with the President [Reagan] and he asked us to come back in six months to give him a progress report on the implementation of our recommendations.

 

“The Commission issued five reports. Our first report titled, ‘An Interim Report to the President’, dated February 28, 1986, covers most of our major recommendations. This first report is our grand strategy and makes most of our major recommendations. The other reports provide detail to support and help implement our major recommendations.[See also speeches dated May 1, 1986, July 24, 1986, and July 25, 1986]

 
“Our second report titled, ‘A Formula for Action’, makes detailed recommendations to improve the Defense Department system for developing and acquiring new weapons. It was done by a subcommittee of the Commission chaired by Bill Perry, who had served in DOD as the Director of Research.

 

“Our third report was done under the leadership of Vince Puritano, who had been Comptroller of DOD. It is titled, ‘National Security Planning and Budgeting’, and it is intended to help DOD implement our recommendations on this subject. It clearly indicates that our recommendations in this area can and should be accomplished with a smaller bureaucracy.

 

“Our fourth report titled, ‘Conduct and Accountability”, makes a number of recommendations to both the DOD and the defense industry to improve their working relationship.

 

“Our Final Report entitled, ‘A quest for Excellence in Defense Management’, is a summary of our other reports with a few additional specific recommendations.

 

“We note in our Interim Report that – ‘Today, there is no national system whereby the Executive Branch and the Congress reach coherent and enduring agreement on national military strategy, the forces to carry it out, and the funding that should be provided – in light of the overall economy and competing claims on national resources’.

 

“As I have said, there has been no effective long range planning in the system and the decisions on what weapons to produce are distorted by service competition, contractors lobbying the Congress and far too much pork barrel log rolling by members of the Congress. These practices result in tens of billions of dollars of waste and are therefore far more serious than the waste resulting from fraud, which is in the range of tens of millions of dollars a year.”

 

Packard says the Commission’s recommendations on this last issue are: [quotes from report]

 

‘To institutionalize, expand, and link a series of critical Presidential determinations, we recommend a process that would operate in substance as follows:

 

‘The National Security council would develop and direct a national security planning process for the President that revises current national security decisions directives as appropriate and that provides to the Secretary of Defense Presidential guidance that includes:

 

• A statement of national security objectives;
• A statement of priorities among national security objectives;
• A statement of major defense policies;
• Provisional five-year defense budget levels , with the advice and assistance of the Office of Management and Budget, to give focus to the development of a fiscally constrained national military strategy. Such budget levels would reflect competing demands on the Federal Budget as well as projections of gross national product and revenues; and
• Direction to construct a proposed national military strategy and strategy options for Presidential decision in time to guide development of the first biennial defense budget for fiscal years 1988 and 1989.
• The Chairman of the JCS would be given the specific assignment to construct the military strategy and to recommend the military forces necessary to support the strategy. The most important new element in this plan is that the Chairman of the JCS would be requested to recommend those forces that could be supported within the five-year defense budget levels and his recommendations would not require the concurrence of the other Chiefs.’

 

Continuing with his quote of the Commission’s recommendation, Packard says:

 

‘Following receipt of the Secretary’s recommended national military strategy, accompanying options, and a military net assessment, the President would approve a particular national defense program and its associated budget level. This budget level would then be provided to the Secretary of Defense as five-year fiscal guidance for the development of biennial defense budgets such that:

 

• The five year defense budget level would be binding on all elements of the Administration.
• Presidential guidance, as defined above, would be issued in mid-1986 to guide development in this transitional year of the first biennial defense budget for fiscal years 1988 and 1989 to the maximum possible extent.
• The new national security planning process would be fully implemented to determine the course of the defense budget for fiscal years 1990 to 1994.’

 

And back to his speech text Packard says, “These recommendations on planning and budgeting have been supported by the Congress and the Administration. The changes in the JCS to implement these recommendations is covered in legislation passed by both houses of the Congress and will be in place early this fall. The President has instructed the DOD to implement those recommendations that do not require legislation.

“Our second report entitled, ‘A Formula for Action’, analyzes the problems of the DOD’s new weapons acquisition system and  makes a number of specific recommendations for improvement.

 

“We point out that there is an ‘unnecessarily long acquisition cycle – ten to fifteen years for major weapons systems’. This leads to unnecessarily high acquisition costs, for time is money. More important it leads to obsolete technology in our fielded equipment. We have at least a five year advantage over the Soviets in advanced technologies in the laboratory. We forfeit this lead in the time it takes to get technologies from the laboratories into the field.

 

“We studied a number of successful new development programs, in the private sector, in other governmental agencies as well as in the DOD. We found that these had six underlying common features:

 

1. Clear command channels
2. Stability
3. Limited Reporting requirements
4. Small, high quality staffs
5. Communication with users
6. Prototypes and testing

 

“We noted that defense acquisition programs differ from these successful models in nearly every aspect. We made a number of recommendations which, if implemented, could greatly improve defense acquisition.

 

“One of the recommendations was to utilize more standard commercial products that are available on the open market. In the case of large scale integrated circuits, commercial products are in many cases more reliable than military specification products and often cost only one tenth as much. In this one area alone savings could be at least $1 billion dollars a year and we would have more reliable military products with the use of off the shelf commercial products instead of military specification products.

 

“We say in this report – ‘Our study of defense management compels us to conclude that nothing merits greater concern than the unnecessarily troubled relationship between the defense industry and the government’ The United States relies on private industry for its military equipment. It follows that the vigor and the capability of the industry is indispensable to a strong national defense.

 

“This is a large, complex business with 60,000 prime contractors and hundreds of thousands of other suppliers and sub-contractors. Contracts worth $164 billion were placed in 1985, seventy percent of which went to 100 large firms. An average of 15,000 contracts are placed each day.

 

“ It is not surprising that in an enterprise of this size fraud and waste can be found. While fraud is a serious problem, it is not as costly as many Americans believe. It is, as far as we could determine, much less than 1% of total expenditures.

 

“In a public survey we found that Americans believe that half the defense budget is lost to fraud and waste and that most of this is simply pocketed by defense contractors.

 

“We recommend as the best way to deal with this problem a greatly expanded program of self discipline, the establishment and self enforcement of codes of ethics, better auditing by both the contractors and the auditing profession and the DOD.

 

“The Commission stated in its first report that:

 

“Management and employees of companies that contract with the Defense Department assume unique and compelling obligations to the people in our armed forces, the American taxpayer and our nation. They must apply (and can be perceived as applying) the highest standards of business ethics and conduct.

 

“I am very pleased that the defense industry has enthusiastically accepted our recommendations on this important matter. The industry leaders have voluntarily undertaken to expand and strengthen the enforcement of codes of ethics and work is underway to improve the auditing procedures of the defense industry.

 

“I believe there will be real improvement in the industry and in the Defense Department as the recommendations of the Commission are put into effect.

 

“I want to note that this will probably not change the public perception quickly. The politicians will continue to use DOD as the whipping boy. This is nothing new. In the 1930s the industry, although relatively small at the time, was characterized as ‘Merchants of Death’. Harry Truman gained public visibility by criticizing the defense industry. This was his ladder to the presidency. It is not always that way. In both World War I and II, the American industry was ‘The Savior of Democracy’.

 

“Whatever the public view and the pronouncement of the politicians, the American defense industry produces the best weapons in the world. We must keep the industry healthy and re-establish  better relationships between DOD and the industry.

 

“In the foreword to our Final Report I emphasized the need to establish and support strong centralized policies to achieve the objectives of the Department. These policies should be long in range, and should have broad support within the Administration and the Congress. The implementation of these policies, however, should be decentralized to the greatest extent possible. The structure of the Department can be streamlined, lines of authority and responsibility shortened and the number of people can be reduced.

 

“Here we have the largest, most complex and the most important acquisition enterprise in the world and no one in charge full time. Our recommendation on this issue is to establish a full time acquisition official at the same level as the Deputy Secretary of Defense to see that uniform policies are established and adhered to and to see that the delegation of the work is decentralized down to the people who know how to do it. If this is done, layers of micromanagement within the Department can be eliminated and we will have much more defense for the billions of dollars we are spending.

 

“The Congress has caused many of the problems for DOD. During the defense budget review in 1985 Congress made over 1800 changes in the budget and directed the Department to conduct 458 studies from the feasibility of selling lamb products in commissaries to the status of retirement benefits for the Philippine scouts.

 

“The Administration budget for FY 1986 was presented to the Congress in January 1985. It was intended to be approved by October 1985, the beginning of the FY1986 year. We are now within a month of the end of FY1986 and no budget has yet been approved by the Congress.

 

“We hope our recommendations will encourage the Congress to direct their attention to the larger issues of national military strategy and the overall capability of our military forces rather than the minutiae of line item detail. This detail discussion by the Congress causes hundreds of thousands of man days of work by DOD and contributes absolutely nothing to our military capability.

 

“We realize that Congressional log rolling can not be stopped, but perhaps it can be reduced somewhat.

 

“I have no illusions that even if all of the Commission’s recommendations are adopted, the problems of defense management will be eliminated. In our democratic system, defense is and will continue to be a political issue. It will never have the efficiency of a private enterprise.

 

“Spending a year on this subject has impressed me again that defense management is a large and complex endeavor. I am convinced there is no possibility whatever for a complete reorganization of the entire system as some critics have suggested. I do believe that significant improvement can result from the Commission’s recommendations. It will depend a great deal on what the Congress does and that in turn will depend on the general public’s view of our defense management problems and whether our recommendations will have strong public support.”

 

6/20/86, Letter to Packard from Michael J. Brassington, The Commonwealth Club of California, inviting him to speak to their members on the subject of the President’s Commission on Defense Management

6/27/86, Copy of a letter from Packard to Michael Brassington saying he would be pleased to speak to the Commonwealth Club

9/19/86, Letter to Packard from Richard C. Otter, President of The Commonwealth Club expressing their gratitude for his addressing their meeting

9/22/86, Copy of the publication of The Commonwealth Club covering the speech

Undated, A clipping from a newspaper covering the speech

 

 

Box 5, Folder 18 – General Speeches

 

September 23, 1986, Keynote Speech at Joint AIA/NSIA Government Quality Conference, Williamsburg, MD

Packard was invited to be the Keynote Speaker and address the recommendations of the President’s Commission on Defense Management.

 

9/23/86, There is no copy of Packard’s speech in this folder. However, it is likely that it was similar (and possibly identical) to the speech he gave on October 7, 1986 to the Electronic Industries Assoc., also on the subject of the President’s Commission. A copy of the October 7 speech is included in the folder for this speech. See speech dated March 26, 1986 for complete list of speeches covering work of the Commission.

9/23/86, Copy of typewritten program for the conference

6/12/86, Copy of an internal HP memo to Packard from Roy Baker (Irvine Sales Office), and Greg Michels (Fullerton Sales (Office), passing along an invitation from Tom McDermott to be the keynote speaker at the conference. They mention that Dr. Wade, Assistant Secretary of Defense and “chief procurement officer of the Department of Defense” will also speak. They say this conference would be a good opportunity for Packard to speak on the recommendations of the President’s Commission on Defense Management.

6/20/86, Internal HP note from Roy Baker to Margaret Paull (Packard’s Secretary), among others, saying that Stan Siegel of the AIA will send Packard a formal invitation and acknowledgement of his acceptance of their invitation to be the keynote speaker.

7/2/86, Letter to Packard from S. N. Siegel saying they are pleased that Packard will be able to address their conference, and giving further information on program details

8/26/86, Letter to Packard from T. C. McDermott, giving more information on the program schedule

9/30/86, Letter to Packard from Don F. Bonhardt, Conference Program Chairman, thanking him for speaking at the Conference

 

 

Box 5, Folder 19 – General Speeches

 

October 7, 1986, Keynote Address, AIA Government Division, Requirements Committee Symposium, San Francisco, CA

 

See speech dated March 26, 1986 for complete listing of speeches covering work of the Commission

 

10/7/86, Copy of Packard’s speech on the subject of the President’s Commission on Defense Management.

 

Packard says he will discuss the Commission’s major recommendations and then make a few observations about what might happen in the future. He begins with a brief overview of  recent Department of Defense activities in the Reagan Administration.

 

He says, “President Reagan took office in 1981 with two basic commitments concerning our military establishment. First, he wanted to substantially increase our military capability. Second, he wanted to eliminate waste and fraud from the military establishment. President Carter had already begun a build-up in the defense budget….He started in his first two years on the assumption that his administration was going to work out some accommodation with the Soviets and that it wouldn’t be necessary to increase our military strength. They changed that view in the last two years and began a build-up which was underway when Secretary Weinberger took office.

 

“The first budget that the Secretary had a major influence on was the FY 1983 budget. For that year, it was a projected 7.5 percent increase for the full five years, and the same for the following year. To point out how unrealistic it turned out to be, the projection called for nearly $400 billion in expenditures for FY 1987. In actuality, it will barely get $300 billion.”

 

“By 1984, Secretary Weinberger had been able to achieve a substantial build-up of our military capability. He had to decentralize the operation in the Defense Department to a considerable extent. He developed a better working relationship with the Joint Chiefs than any Secretary had in recent years and gave the Services a free rein in what to do.

 

“This resulted in an increase in our military strength and higher morale and spirit [among] the uniformed men and women than there had been in recent years. In many ways, this was a very important contribution. Unfortunately, he did not anticipate that there were going to be some problems with the federal deficit. By the end of 1984, it was quite clear that Congress was not going to continue to support increases of the kind they had up to that time. Also, there was beginning to be criticism about the operations in Lebanon and Granada.

 

“Secretary Weinberger also established the Inspector General system as a result of Congressional action. This system was turned loose to look into auditing and potential fraud problems in the industry, as well as in the Department. This generated a very bad atmosphere between industry and the Defense Department. For some reason, Secretary Weinberger was not willing to spend much time talking with industry. In fact, he hardly talked with anyone in industry up to the time the Commission was started. The Commission had very extensive reports from the Inspector Generals, and some of the things they reported to us were worse than what you read in the papers. This all backfired on Secretary Weinberger. Instead of getting credit for uncovering all these things, which had been going on long before he was in office, he was blamed for them. The combination of these things resulted in complete loss of confidence by congress and by the general public in the defense establishment. The appointment of the Commission was recommended to President Reagan by some of the members of Congress who saw the Commission as a possible way to deal with these issues.

 

“Therefore, in this situation I saw an opportunity to make some recommendations and possibly accomplish some structural changes in the defense department that some of the Commission members, including myself, thought would be desirable. Since the last legislation in 1958, thirty other commissions have addressed the issue of defense management but none of them have had any significant impact on the operations. I thought this might be a little different.

 

“We got very good support from the White House. We also worked directly with the National Security Council staff. I picked the members of the Commission and two or three were appointed. They all turned out to be very good people. We had a good working relationship within the Commission. A good many of the members started by wondering whether this was going to be a futile exercise, but they all got quite enthusiastic about it , and it was indeed a team effort.”

 

“As we looked at this job, it was quite clear that we had a broad range of issues to address. We spent some time talking about whether we would just make some broad strategic recommendations and let somebody else implement them, or whether we would spend some time trying to get into enough detail that would be useful to the people who would be expected to implement the recommendations. Eventually, we decided to spend time trying to provide back-up material to enable our recommendations to be implemented.”

 

Packard says the Commission produced five reports:

The first one was an interim report to the President and contained most of the major recommendations.

 

The second was a detailed report on acquisition.

 

The third covered national security planning and budgeting.

 

The fourth was on relationships between the defense industry and the Defense Department

 

The final report contained a summary of the other reports with some additions.

 

Packard says their recommendations on national security contained this statement: ‘Today there is no national system whereby the Executive Branch and the Congress reach a coherent and enduring agreement on national military strategy, the forces to carry it out, and the funding that should be provided in light of the overall economy and the competing claims on our natural resources. In effect, the Secretary has pre-empted this decision, and decided what he should recommend in terms of what share of our natural resources are applied to defense. It is not really the Secretary’s responsibility. It is only the President who should do this. The result has been no effective long-range planning. The long-range planning that had been done was very unrealistic and the decisions on what weapons to produce have been distorted by service competition and contractors lobbying the congress. These practices, in the view of the Commission, resulted in tens of billions of dollars of waste and, therefore, were far more serious than the waste that resulted from fraud and abuse which has attracted the attention of the media. The losses from those are only in the range of tens of millions of dollars.’

 

“This recommendation to try to bring the system under a more rational procedure for long-range planning can, if properly implemented in my opinion, have a very large impact on the effectiveness of the Defense Department and on the return we get for the dollars spent. On this issue we made the following recommendations:

 

‘In order to institutionalize, expand and make a series of presidential determinations, we recommend a process in which the National Security council would develop and direct a national security planning process for the President that revises the current national security decision directive, as appropriate and provides to the Secretary of Defense presidential guidance that includes the following items:

 

• …a statement of national security objectives. This is being done.
• …a statement of priorities among the national security objectives, and
• …a statement of major defense policies. Neither of these last two items have been done, but they have been developed in the pentagon as a result of a lot of interacting factors.
• Finally, the most important item is a provisional five year defense budget level. These budget levels will be developed with the advice and assistance of OMB and will be designed to give focus on the development of a fiscally constrained national military strategy. Such budget levels would reflect competing demands on the federal budget and projections of the gross national product and revenue. They would also give direction to construct a proposed national military strategy and strategy options for the presidential decision, in time to develop the first bi-annual budget for the FYs 1988 and 1989.’

 

“More importantly, we recommend that the Chairman of the JCS be given the specific assignment of constructing the military strategy and recommending the military forces to support that strategy. These recommendations would then be given to the Secretary of Defense so the Chairman would not be able to override the Secretary. The Chairman would be asked to develop these forces in terms of the basic force level, and the amount of readiness, sustainability and modernization.

 

“In order to do this, the Chairman needs to be independent of the other chiefs and maintain his own staff. One other important element in this plan is to bring the views of the united commanders more directly into the considerations of all these important matters. Secretary Weinberger has done this to some extent by bringing the unified command in at a lower level. It was quite apparent that the people using the equipment will often have a different idea than the service people in Washington. We think a larger input from the ultimate users will result in better decisions regarding what weapons should be developed and also in terms of the balance of these last factors.

 

“We also recommend that a better procedure for making a military net assessment be made. We recommend that this task be given to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs together with the director of the CIA. This would provide the military plan, evaluation of effectiveness and the budget levels for the development of  bi-annual defense budgets.

 

“We would hope that the five year budget levels would be binding on all elements of the Administration. It would be desirable if you could get budget levels which were binding on the Congress, but to my opinion that is not feasible. On the other hand, in talking about what might be recommended five years from now, I think it is very likely to find an area where the Congress and the Administration could agree very closely, which would provide very important stability to the program.

 

“We were very anxious that the changes in the JCS structure and other issues that are required to put this system into effect be implemented as quickly as possible. We hope this could be done in developing the first bi-annual defense budget by FYs 1988 and 1989, and then in the second round, the budgets for 1990 to 1991 , the whole system would be in place.

 

“These recommendations on planning and budgeting have been supported by the Congress and the Administration. As you know, the legislation necessary to make these changes in the JCS structure was signed into law last week by the President. Everything is in place to go ahead.”

 

“The second report, which is entitled ‘A formula for Action’, was done by Bill Perry. This report addresses the specific problems [as well as the] related [subject of ] acquisition [i.e. procurement]. I might make a comment about our discussions on the JCS. We had some very heated discussions in the Commission because we had a former commandant in the Marines, Bob Barrow. In the first few meetings, every time we talked about any changes in the JCS circle, he got up and pounded the table and said we would destroy the capability of our whole military establishment if we do anything. We finally convinced him that what we were doing was giving the uniformed military people a role in the process. He finally agreed.”

 

“The recommendations on acquisitions were done by Bill Perry. I think the most important recommendations in this area is the establishment of the Under Secretary for Acquisition who is expected to spend full-time on the acquisition process. I think you know that the Deputy Secretary of Defense has generally been responsible for managing the acquisition affairs. When I was there I spent a good deal of time on that subject, but I had a lot of other things to do. Looking back, I’m sure I could have done better if only I had more time to do it.

 

“Secretary Weinberger, in a sense, has been lucky in this matter because Frank Carlucci came in first and actually made some good recommendations for improving the management. But before they were implemented, he left. Paul Thayer came in and it took him a little time to understand how everything worked. About the time he did, he got involved with a personal problem and had to leave. Then Will Taft, a very bright young lawyer, took over, but had no experience in acquisition.

 

“This highlighted a serious problem. We came down very strongly on the recommendation that this is the most complex and probably the most important acquisition job in the world and nobody is in charge full-time. There are 60,000 prime contractors and hundreds of thousands of suppliers. In 1985, the expenditures were $164 billion, 70 percent going to large firms. To illustrate the dimensions of  the problem, 15,000 contracts were awarded per day.

 

“This required the establishment of this new Under Secretary for Acquisition position and dividing the job of the Deputy Secretary into two pieces: the acquisition job being given to the new position, and the remaining responsibilities being left with the Deputy.

 

“In order to be effective, this person needs to be at the number two level. He has to have authority over the service Secretaries, and essentially over everybody in acquisition matters. We had quite a time convincing the congress that was necessary, but they finally authorized the position the way we wanted it. Dick Godwin, former President of Bechtel and a very capable manager, was sworn in last week.”

 

“There is one part of the plan that may not be obvious to everyone. We are recommending a major change in the point at which new weapons program decisions are made. We set up a procedure when I was there called DSARC. That was a small group that worked very well, but it has gotten to be a very large committee and has become almost ineffective.

 

“We are recommending that the major decisions on new acquisition programs, in fact, on all acquisition policies that are at a high level, be done at the level of the Joint Requirements Management Board, which is an organization of the Joint Chiefs. This will be restructured to be co-chaired by the new acquisition Under Secretary and the vice-Chairman of the Joint chiefs, because we think it is very important that we bring the unified commanders views more into focus when decisions are made on new weapons. These two will co-chair this group and its members. It is our recommendation that these two alone make the recommendations without requiring a majority vote of the group. If they can’t agree, then they will go to the Secretary.

 

“Our recommendations anticipate that the services will continue to have a large role in the acquisition process. Specifically, we are recommending that the services be responsible for all the major programs, from the beginning of full scale development through to operation. The services will also continue to have a large role in the advanced development area, but we are hoping that the role of DARPA can be increased in order to do some things that the services themselves are not likely to do.

 

“We are proposing that all of these new major programs be funded on a milestone basis. The first of the key milestones is from the beginning of full scale engineering development through to low-level production. The second milestone is the beginning of full scale production through to deployment.

 

:Our recommendations contain some guidance on operational testing, which as you know, has been somewhat controversial. We recommend strongly that operational testing should begin at the advanced development stage early on, with the very simple proposition that if you don’t know how a new weapon is gong to be tested, how in the world are you going to be able to design it. The operational testing procedure needs to start early and integrated through the program.

 

“The final operational testing should be done on articles that are from the production line, because there are always things that show up in the initial production that don’t show up in the development. It is for that reason that we are recommending that the first milestone extend through limited production so that the final operational testing can be done on limited articles before undertaking full-scale development.

 

“The Congress is likely to go along with milestone funding on major programs. They have already done this on the B-1 program and are sympathetic to the general idea. Obviously, these key points can not always be precisely defined, but we think this will provide a better environment of funding so that contractors will know what the funding will be through this period, and have some stability that it won’t be revised every year.

 

“One of the more serious problems in the whole matter is the fact that we are ahead of the Soviets, maybe by quite a few years in the laboratory, but it takes so long to get the equipment into the field that we are behind. Our recommendations are that the new Under Secretary of Acquisition be encouraged to manage the development part of the program with some streamlining procedures. Some of you know that the impact of the Inspector General on the general environment has increased the time to award contracts. To award a contract for DARPA, it previously took 90 days, which was too long. It actually should take only 60 days. In some days it is up to over 200 days. Some things like this need to be cut back.”

 

Packard says the Commission looked at several successful acquisition programs, both in the government and in private industry. They found they all had several things in common:

 

1. “clear command channels
2. stability
3. limited reporting requirements
4. small, high quality staffs
5. good communications with the users of the equipment
6. extensive prototyping and testing”

 

“It is quite clear,” he says, “ that most defense acquisition programs differ from successful programs in almost every respect and in most cases.”

 

Moving to matters relating to national security and budgeting, Packard says their report “…sets out a way to get long-term planning in the system without setting up a whole new bureaucracy in the Defense Department. Vince Puritano, former Comptroller, spent some time looking into this and making detailed recommendations as to how to implement this part of the program.

 

“The [Congressional] Defense Appropriations Subcommittees have greatly increased their surveillance of line items. Line item mark-up of the defense budget has played a major role in moving Congressional review of the defense budget toward narrowly focused financial action on individual items and away from oversight based on operational concepts and military effectiveness.

 

“During the 1985 defense budget review, for example, the Congress made changes to over 1800 line items, directed the Defense Department to conduct 438 studies, ranging from the feasibility of selling lamb products in commissaries to the status of retirement benefits for Philippine scouts. This kind of tinkering and financial fine tuning has really contributed to instability in the acquisition process and has cost a lot of money. These actions keep programs in an uncertain status and usually they do not cancel very many items. But in order to get everything within  the budget, they stretch out adjustments and so forth that are very, very wasteful.

 

“Our conclusion was…that the procedures and systems already in the Office of the Secretary an be used to provide the data that the Chairman of the Joint chiefs will need. In fact, if done properly, it will take fewer people to do what we recommend than the number of people required in the present system.

 

“Our next report is on conduct and accountability and it follows on the fundamental proposition that the United States has been dependent upon private industry for its weapons, and therefore, the vigor and capability of our defense industry is indispensable to our national security capability.”

 

Packard says they conducted a variety of public surveys on a number of issues relating to defense budgeting. He says “There were two very interesting conclusions that came out of this study. One was that the general public holds the uniformed military in very high esteem. On a scale from one to 100, professional military people are rated at about 80, the same as doctors and the same as professors the most distinguished profession in society. Military officers are also considered by the general public to be at that level. The defense industry, on the other hand, is at a level of 25 on the same scale, about the same rate as the Congress. Lawyers are also in that category.

 

“Beyond that the public thinks that 50 percent of the defense budget is lost to fraud and waste and that defense contractors simply pocket the money. The fact is that fraud and waste amounts to, at most, one percent or so of the total defense budget. It may be a little more than that, but not much more, therefore the perception by the public is entirely different than the facts.

 

“The horror stories in which you hear all the bad things and not any of the good things have been created by the media. There is serious concern about what can be done about this. The fact is that the industry has not dome as good a job as it should establishing codes of ethics and maintaining accounting procedures which are different for defense business than for commercial business. We decided that the best way to handle this would be to recommend that the industry establish codes of ethics and establish procedures so those codes of ethics would be implemented and understood by everybody in the organization. Furthermore, we recommend that some changes be made in the accounting procedures, which would eliminate some of the problems that evolved.”

 

Packard says he is pleased that industry leaders are in agreement on the need for a code of ethics and are already working on one.

 

Turning to the final report of the Commission Packard says it was “entitled ‘A Quest for Excellence’, and contains, in the foreword, some of [his] personal observations. Specifically, there must be established centralized policies, objectives and goals for the Defense Department and every element of the Defense Department.

 

“Excellence, however, cannot be created by policy, objectives or goals. Excellence can only be created by the people who do the work. You can only flourish when individuals identify with a team, take professional pride in their work, and above all, have the freedom and incentive to explore new and better ways to get their job done. There are many examples in the military over the years where this has been done, i.e. fighting units.”

 

“We think that most of the recommendations that have to do with basic structure are going to be put into place by legislation. There is one area where we made a recommendation dealing with improving the environment for people. This is based on the idea that whatever you do in the structuring of policies, getting better people in the department would improve the performance.

 

“We wanted to institute a system that provides more flexibility and that will reward people for accomplishment rather than survival as a civil servant, which this system tends to do. This idea was rejected in an intercommittee dispute in the congress. We had the exact legislation we wanted proposed by the Senate Armed services committee, but Ted Stevens of the Post Office committee considered it their baliwick. He was all for it, but he got the legislation put aside.

 

“In my opinion, the major issue we now have is whether people are going to really work hard in trying to get some of these recommendations completed. The President has directed the Secretary. to implement the recommendations. The Secretary has come to realize that if they are implemented, it will improve the job he can do. We have a big problem with the Congress. My speculation is that that is probably going to be the most difficult situation we could have.

 

“In my opinion, the major issue we now have is whether people are going to really work hard in trying to get some of these recommendations completed. The President has directed the Secretary to implement the recommendations. The Secretary has come to realize that if they are implemented, it will improve the job he can do. We have a big problem with the Congress. My speculation is that that is probably going to be the most difficult situation we could have.

 

“In the final analysis, these recommendations will be held to the extent that they can be supported by people in the industry and the general public. I hope that you will have some time to review these recommendations. I do not say they are perfect by any means, but we think they are a step in the right direction. If they can be implemented, we think that good results and a better defense capability for the dollars we are spending will be achieved.

 

“I understand you are going to be talking about the defense environment for the next few years. I might just relate my view of what is likely to happen in this five year plan. It was the recommendation what I made to the people at the White House that this five year plan be given to the Defense Department and involve a 1.5 percent real growth over the next five years, from about a little under the $3 billion level. Secretary Weinberger is talking about a 3 percent goal and the Congress will probably support 3 percent. If we could get rid of some of the red tape and the other things we are doing, we could indeed have adequate defense capability for budgets around that level. The job is simply then to find some way to get these recommendations done.

 

“Thank you very much for giving me the time to discuss these recommendations and I hope we can have your support in one way or another to see if we an make some significant changes in the management of the defense Department.”

 

6/16/86, Letter to Packard from Jean A. Caffiaux, Senior Vice President of the Electronic Industries Association inviting him to be the Keynote speaker at a symposium titled ‘The Military Electronics Market: Outlook on Future Opportunities’.

7/14/86, Copy of a letter from Packard to Jean Caffiaux saying he would be pleased to speak at the symposium

8/12/86, Letter to Packard from Frank A. Mitchell, of EIA, giving details on the program

11/3/86, Letter to Packard from Jean Caffiaux, Thanking him for participating in the symposium

 

 

Box 5, Folder 20 – General Speeches

 

October 31, 1986, Remarks at the 40^th Anniversary Symposium of the Research Laboratory  of Electronics at Massachusetts Institute of  Technology

 

10/31/86, Copy of the text of Packard’s remarks

 

Packard says he is pleased to participate in this symposium on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Research Laboratory at MIT. “This occasion,” he says, “has a special personal meaning to me, for the life of this laboratory coincides very closely with my professional career, both in the time span and in the area of my personal involvement. Our company has also benefited greatly from its relationship with this laboratory. Thus, there are many reasons why I am pleased to be included in this symposium.”

 

Packard explains that the laboratory at MIT had its start from a report prepared by Vannevar Bush in 1945 which recommended a continuing high level of federal support for research and development.

 

“This program was implemented first through the Office of Naval Research. Centers of excellence…were identified in several scientific disciplines, including electronics, and were supported with funds administered by the Office of Naval Research. This laboratory as well as the laboratories at Stanford University and several other universities were supported in electronics.”

 

Saying that, after World War II,  there was not agreement about the future of electronics, Packard lists some of the important military  contributions of electronics: radar, electronic counter measures, the proximity fuse, sonar, electronic navigation, and not the least, the atom bomb.

 

He says “There were those who questioned whether the great advances in electronic technology, as well as other technology, made during the war would be translated into comparable contributions to a peacetime economy.”

 

“Fortunately, the optimists of that era prevailed and electronics has made an immense contribution to progress in every aspect of our society since the establishment of this laboratory.

 

“Federal support of research at university laboratories began after the war with policies that were enlightened by scientists who understood university research. Individual faculty members or groups of faculty who had demonstrated capability and interest in various scientific fields were identified and supported. Federal support was provided without excessive supervision in or influence on their work. Funds were provided for the equipment they needed as well as for the salaries of the people doing research. Graduate students were supported so that they could be effectively involved in the research work.”

 

“The widespread hope that World War II would mark the end of worldwide military conflict and that the energies of research could be devoted to a world at peace turned out to be a false illusion.”

 

“The Korean War was probably the turning point in the events that have shaped the world since 1953. The military budget of the U.S. reached a low point in the early 1950s. We hoped at that time that moderation on our part would be answered with moderation on the part of the Communist world. We were wrong in that hope and consequently had to respond with the defense of South Korea.”

 

Packard says he emphasizes this point to show that federal support of R&D since the founding of these laboratories has been largely influenced by military considerations.

 

“Total federal support of research and development increased from $4.5 billion in 1953 to $18 billion in 1966 in constant (1972) dollars. federal support of research and development at universities was only a small part of the total but a very important part. In 1953 federal support of research at universities was at about $210 million. It increased, in constant dollars, to over 1.8 billion by 1968.

 

“Federal support of research and development leveled off in 1969, declined a bit and began to increase again, in real terms, eight or nine hears later. It is not easy to explain why federal support of research and development deteriorated so seriously from 1968 to 1978. It coincided with the national anti-establishment trauma, caused in part at least with disillusionment about U.S. involvement in Vietnam. While military requirements were a driving force for the substantial increase in federal support of R&D from 1953 to 1968, it had been administered under an enlightened policy that encouraged commercial fall out from military research. The Defense Department policies on independent research and development were developed to encourage defense contractors to develop products from their military research. The Mansfield amendment of a defense bill in 1969 prohibited independent research and development to be used to develop commercial products, it constrained these funds to be used for research having potential military applications only. This was in direct opposition to the original purpose of independent R&D.

 

“During the hiatus in the growth of federal funding for research and development two unrelated things exacerbated the situation.

 

“The first was a greatly increased involvement by the federal government agencies, the Congress and the Administration in trying to manage the research the federal government was funding. This is what has come to be called micromanagement.”

 

“Because of this micromanagement by the federal government the universities…and faculty members were required to spend too much time in administrative detail, paper work that detracted from their time and effort in their research work. This resulted in a serious decrease in the amount of real research a federal dollar could support.

 

“The second trend during this period was that the real cost of research increased. In electronics, for example, good research could be done in the 1940s and early 1950s with a modest amount of instrumentation and equipment. As electronics advanced into solid state technology and then large scale integrated circuits, very expensive equipment was required to work at the frontier of knowledge. Equipment costing millions of dollars became necessary for electronic research in the 1980s, contrasting with equipment costing only thousands of dollars in the 1940s and 1950s.”

 

Packard feels the damage done by the hiatus in federal support of university research is not easy to assess.

 

“One important indicator is that the number of scientists and engineers employed in research and development peaked in 1969 at 558,000 and declined to 530,000 by 1975. In universities the number of scientists and engineers was relatively constant from 1968 until 1975. By contrast the total number of scientists and engineers employed in research more than doubled from 1954 until 1964.

 

“I takes time for the research work of scientists and engineers to be converted into useful products that strengthen our economy or strengthen our military capability. In my view, the fact that we are losing our clear advantage in worldwide technology today is a direct result of the fact that we are supporting much less effective research and development than we supported in 1968…We must find some way to restore this deterioration in federal support of research.”

 

Packard points to the concern in the country about the deterioration of the United States economy in its ability to compete in worldwide markets and says that while the causes are complex, “I believe we should look at those factors that have changed and that can be corrected. Federal support of research and development has clearly deteriorated since the late 1960s both in quantity and quality. There is ample evidence to support the proposition that research at our universities has made a major contribution to our economic well being. Not just since World War II, the period when this laboratory has made its great contributions, but clear back to the beginning of this century when research at our agricultural colleges made the United States agricultural enterprises the most productive in the world.

 

“I was pleased to be asked in May, 1982 by Dr. Buchsbaum, Chairman of the White House Scientific council, to chair the panel on the Health of U.S. colleges and Universities, with Dr. Allan Bromley as Vice Chairman. Your President, Dr. Paul Gray, was a member of the panel.”

 

Packard says their report “…began by saying, ‘One conclusion is clear. Our universities today simply can not respond to society’s expectations for them or discharge their national responsibilities in research and education without substantially increased support.’

 

“While the panel did not make recommendations on specific dollar amounts for increased federal support, some of us believe it would not be unreasonable to ask the federal government to double its support for university research and development over the next three budget years.

 

“As I have tried to indicate to you already, the problem is not just in the level of federal support for university research. The panel makes several recommendations to improve the administration of the federal funding that is provided.

 

“Research grants or contracts with universities should be for a longer period of time, at least three and preferably five years.

 

“Investigators should be freed to use up to 10% of their time on a discretionary basis and they should be permitted to carry over unexpended funds to the next fiscal year.

 

“Greater use should be made of block grants to groups of researchers.

 

“Except for young research people who do not have a record of achievement, the achievements of research people should receive more emphasis in making awards.

 

“The importance of involving students, both graduate and undergraduate, should receive more consideration in federal support of university research.

 

“The panel recommended more joint research activity among universities, federal laboratories and other federal research activities and private sector organizations doing research.

 

“The panel agreed that the federal government is not always paying the full cost of university research and that it should do so.

 

“To compound the problem the federal government is driving up the cost of overhead by asking for far too many reports and is doing excessive micromanagement of university research programs.

 

“In my view it is high time to get federal support of university research back on the right track again. There is support in the Congress and in the Administration for a watershed change in this matter. There is not, however, very good understanding of the problem. In a meeting only a few weeks ago some of us recommended a substantial increase in the support of basic research in our universities, from about four billion to about eight billion, over the next three budget years. I was shocked to find that four of the most influential people at the White House did not understand how an increase in federal support of university research could strengthen the economic future of our country. Those who believe in the importance of university research as I do have a very important job to do. We must convince the Administration, the Congress, indeed the American public, of the importance of university laboratories, of which the Laboratory of Electronic Research at MIT is a great example.”

 

10/31/86, Copy of the program for the symposium

10/31/86, Copy of the printed invitation to dinner banquet

10/1/86, Copy  of an agreement to have his presentation videotaped signed by Packard

10/4/86, Letter to Packard from Jonathan Allen, Director of MIT’s laboratory giving details on the symposium arrangements

11/17/86, Letter to Packard from Jonathan Allen thanking him for participating in their fortieth anniversary celebration.

Box 5, Folder 21 – General Speeches

 

November 6, 1986, President’s Commission on Defense Management, The Committee for Economic Development, New York, NY

 

Packard spoke on this subject on several occasions (See speech dated March 26m 1986 for complete list of speeches covering work of the Commission.)  In view of the similarity of this speech with others on the subject it is not included here.

 

11/6/86, Copy of the typewritten text of Packard’s speech

6/20/86, Letter to Packard from Edmund B. Fitezgerald, Chairman, Committee for Economic Development inviting him to speak to their group on the subject of the President’s Commission Report. He says they would be interested in hearing what the CED might do to help.

6/27/86, Copy of a letter from Packard to Edmund B. Fitzgerald saying Nov. 5^th or 6^th would be acceptable. He also says that the CED could help to convince Congress to avoid ‘micromanaging’ defense programs and confine themselves to major defense matters.

7/9/86, Letter to Packard from Edmund B. Fitzgerald saying that he is pleased that Packard will be able to speak to their group. He adds that the CED can no doubt help to promote the recommendations suggested by the Commission.

10/23/86, Copy of CED announcement of Nov. 6 meeting where Packard will speak

 

 

Box 5, Folder 22 – General Speeches

 

December 2/3, 1986, Issues on Maintaining a Quality Ethic, Second NASA Symposium on Productivity and Quality, Washington D.C.

 

12/3/86, Copy of notes for speech, handwritten by Packard

12/3/86, Copy of typewritten transcript of Packard’s remarks prepared by NASA

 

Packard says he has concluded there is not a lot he could add to what other speakers are saying about how they could rejuvenate their organization, so he has decided to “reminisce with them about some of the experiences he has had during his career that have had an impact on his own thinking about productivity and quality.

 

He tells of his first job with General Electric Company – 51 years ago.  “I worked in the vacuum tube engineering department where they were working on a new kind of tube –an ignitron – which was a controlled mercury vapor rectifier.”

 

At this point, before getting into his story,  he says he would like to digress a few moments to tell them how he happened to get the job with GE. He tells of graduating from Stanford and interviewing with  someone from GE and telling him that he was interested in electronics. He says the interviewer’s reply was ‘There is no future in electronics.’ Packard says he persisted in his interest in electronics and asked permission to talk to people in some of the departments to see if he could find something of interest to him. Receiving permission, he found the job in the vacuum tube engineering department.

 

Continuing with his story of work in the tube shop, he says “I’d been there about two months when something began to happen down in the factory. They had been producing one of these tubes with no problems when all of a sudden their yield went down. Only about 20 percent of the tubes would pass the final test. They asked me to see what I could do about it.”

 

Packard describes the testing process as a simple one. He says. “The final test is just to see if the tubes can handle the maximum load. If they can, they pass. If they can’t, they lose control and blow up. All you have left is a bunch of glass.”

 

Worse yet, he explains that each tube contains about a pint of mercury, so if the tube fails you get not only flying glass but floating mercury vapor as well. In this event he says all personnel must leave the room until the mercury settles.

 

Packard says “I finally decided that the only way we could deal with this problem was to spend some time in the factory, close to the manufacturing process.” He tells of talking to the employees working on the production process and, even after three weeks, they could not find any reason for the failures. However, the yield starting going back up, seemingly by itself, returning to the goal of 90%.

 

Packard says he learned two things from that experience. “Quality and productivity are highly dependent on paying a great deal of attention to every detail involved in the process. And, if you can get the people doing the work to take some interest in the problem it will almost always result in something positive.”

 

Next Packard tells how Bill Hewlett, after they had started their company, had to leave due to the World War II. Packard was left to run their little company. With the war effort everyone was interested in quality and productivity and Packard says they visited other companies to see what they were doing to promote productivity and quality. He says they visited the Lincoln Electric Company which had a profit-sharing program which allowed employees to participate in the success of the company. “They gave their employees,” Packard says, “an incentive to produce a better  quality product at a lower cost than their competitors…There was another company called Jack & Hines that was set up in Cleveland. Their management also provided financial incentives for employees and they, too, were able to produce their products with greater efficiency than their competitors.

 

“We’d been thinking about this ourselves and came up with a system whereby all of our employees would benefit from higher productivity. We had only a few hundred employees at the time, but this system was the basis for a management policy still in place today.

 

“Our idea was to pass on to employees any savings they could make in direct labor costs. The company would benefit from savings in overhead.

 

“This had a tremendous effect on our people. At the end of every period, everybody would just work like the devil to get that last item out the door. That system worked so well during those years that our productivity was about double at the end of the war what it had been at the beginning.

 

“This system did have one bad effect, however. There’s additional pressure at the end of the period and it’s very hard to get the work distributed uniformly throughout the period. But there is no question that financial incentives have a very big influence on productivity and the dedication to quality that people develop.

 

“Now we’ve changed that incentive system but we’ve kept the basic policy. We have a profit-sharing plan and also an opportunity for our people to buy stock in the company at 25 percent below the market. These have been very important incentives for our company and I’m sure many of you have had similar experiences.

 

Packard says that HP perhaps had more reason that most to emphasize quality because they made instruments which were used by other people to measure the quality of their products.

 

“We spent a good deal of time looking how we could improve quality. One method we found very effective was to structure the lines in our manufacturing operation so that the final test and the final assembly areas operated close together. We were able to get feedback from the final test area back to the people in final assembly directly and immediately without having to go through procedures and reporting.

 

“This was very much like what has come to be known as a ‘quality circle’ because here were people working closely together with effective, informal communication. We found, over a period of time, that there were  many ideas that came from those people doing the work down on the factory floor. If they hadn’t had an opportunity to work close to and directly with each other, we probably wouldn’t have benefited from these ideas. The ability to get immediate feedback, plus those financial incentives I mentioned earlier, contributed a great idea to keeping an emphasis on quality and productivity.”

 

Moving on to another story, Packard tells to a joint venture in Japan which HP formed in 1963. He says the Japanese partner  was “a company that has been involved in process instrumentation and had some compatibility with our product line. It’s interesting to recall the early discussions that led to this organization, which was called Yokogawa-Hewlett-Packard, or YHP. This was before the Japanese had become famous for things you’ve heard about in recent years.

 

“When we were first considering the venture, I spent some time with our prospective partner and concluded that the only way we could possibly work out a partnership was to get them to agree that the company would be managed our way rather than their way. We were pretty tough on this point and they were kind of anxious to get us to join them, so they agreed to it. And, during YHP’s first few years, they picked up some of the things we’d been doing and found them to be beneficial.

 

“Now, HP is structured into many relatively small divisions. Every year we get all of the division managers together and spend two or three days reporting, comparing notes, evaluating performance and so forth. One of our sessions always had to do with how well we’re doing on quality. We kept a record on the failure rate of every product we had in the line and we kept a detailed record on our warranty costs.

 

“During the first few years of our Japanese joint venture, the YHP manager came to the meeting and reported along with all of our other managers. YHP’s performance was usually just about in the middle. They were neither at the top nor the bottom in product failure rates or warranty costs.

 

“After this had gone on for some time, a bright young Japanese manager who was really doing good work over there cornered Bill and me one day. He said, ‘Why don’t you let me run this operation? You send an American manager over there to look over our work. We spend a lot of time – in fact, waste a lot of time – talking to him, and if something goes wrong, he’s the fellow we blame. Besides that, you’re not sending over very good people anymore.’ And he was right. So we said, ‘Okay, Kenzo, you go ahead – run the operation from here on in.’

 

“The following year, YHP’s growth rate was much more rapid than it ever had been before. They even showed a little bit of improvement in the quality of their product. They started to move up toward the top of the HP list . The following year, the manager came back with some reports that were just amazing in terms of what they had done. Their record on failure rates with the product they were building was better than any of our other divisions. And the year after that, YHP received Japan’s Deming prize for productivity and quality.

 

“Let me give you an example of what they were able to do. We had been making printed circuit boards in various parts of the company. Our best failure rates were about four in a thousand. We thought that was fairly good – a little less than one-half percent. And that was the target we found a lot of other people were achieving.

 

“Well, our Japanese division came in with a failure rate in their printed circuit boards of only 10 per million. That’s 400 times better than anything we had been able to do. Obviously that shook up a lot of people in the company. It simply demonstrated that our targets on quality just were nowhere near what could be achieved, and it opened up a whole new ball game for us.

 

“So, we found that we can learn something from the Japanese and we’ve been carefully watching what they’ve been doing since. The encouraging thing is that the work they were doing at YHP was soon reflected all over the company. Our people in the U.S. divisions were not going to be outdone, so we were able to raise the quality targets in a great many areas, far beyond anything we thought could have been done before.

 

The final story Packard relates shows that quality and productivity are important in every area of the company, not just in engineering and manufacturing and production.

 

“Our company,” he says, “has been committed from the very beginning to financing our growth by reinvesting profits. Bill Hewlett and I were raised during the Depression and we took a very dim view of any kind of debt, so we didn’t go for this business of leveraging. We wanted our company to continue to have no long-term debt.

 

“In about the middle of the 1970s we found that we were running a little short on capital. Our management people got together and decided they were going to go out and raise $100 million in long-term debt. After thinking about this, I said something else was wrong. So we looked into the situation and found that our people had lost control of assets, lost control of inventory and lost control of accounts receivable.

 

“Drawing on my early experiences, I decided that there was a simple way to handle this. I went around the company and gave a lecture to every division about how to manage assets. I managed to get everybody worrying about this. And it turned out that, as is quite often the case, a lot of managers had simply forgotten that all the little details count.

 

For example, they were sending shipments out with one or two pieces missing. That, of course, gave the customer a perfectly good excuse not to pay the bill until it was fixed. There were a whole series of things that our people learned they hadn’t been doing right. They went to work to fix the problem areas and a year later we had $100 million more in the bank  We didn’t have to borrow the money after all.”

 

“Our first-hand experiences in this matter of quality and productivity have taught us some lessons I’d like to offer today.

 

“You’ve got to have a real commitment to quality and productivity. I’ve often thought about that in terms of the difference between a winning team and a team that doesn’t win. I was interested in athletics in my younger years and have followed sports ever since. I’ve noticed that there are many cases when there are two teams that are very closely matched, player for player. There are two differences between the winning team and the losing team. The winning team has better teamwork and the winning team has  greater desire to win, a stronger will to win.

 

“I think this applies to almost any competitive situation. Look at NASA. In the Apollo program, you had a tremendous incentive to prove you could win, you had the will to win and you had every reason to promote great teamwork.

 

“I’ve also seen it in defense programs. During the development of the Polaris system, led by Admiral Rayburn in the late 1950s the Navy was determined to prove that they could do a better job than the Air force. You might have read about this in a book called The Mind of the Organization.

 

“They put a good team together. And they fostered a spirit of competition. Admiral Rayburn got the whole organization working together, almost as one man, with a tremendous amount of cooperation and enthusiasm and a commitment to win. There hasn’t been a major new military product or weapons program since then that has come as close to being as efficient as that one in terms of the time it took and the success they realized.

 

“We need to learn to make a new commitment to winning. First, we need to get the best people that we can, and then encourage teamwork and a will to win.

 

“That has to do with another matter that I’ve had some interest in. I think a good many of you know that the U.S. has not kept its basic education system up to standard during the last decade and a half. We’re not graduating as many engineers and doing as much basic research as we should.

 

“We can’t have a winning team without winning players. Now, we do have quite a few winning players in the business, but we simply need more. Look at what’s happened in Japan and some of the European countries. Unless we can correct our situation down the line, we’re not going to have enough winning players to have a winning team. This has to be a very high priority in what we do to say ahead.

 

“Second, we need a stronger commitment to teamwork. This has to include not only you people out there doing the real work in your program. It has to involve the people here in Washington, the Congress and the Administration. Everyone has to work together as a team. I don’t know whether this is possible, but I’ll tell you that if it can’t be done, we’re going to be in for some real competition – and trouble – down the line.

 

Finally, we’ve got to want to be first. That shouldn’t be hard. After all being number one has been a characteristic of America from the very beginning. Maybe we lost that drive for a while but it seems to me that a lot of people are now sensing that we are threatened by competition from the Japanese and from the Europeans. This realization in itself should get us back on track and set those critical ingredients in place so that we can, indeed, have a winning team and stay ahead for the long run.

 

That’s my message for today, ladies and gentlemen. I’d be pleased to respond to a few questions if you’d like. Thank you very much.”

 

12/2-3/86, Printed invitation and preliminary program for the symposium

12/2-3/86, NASA news release about the symposium

8/20/86, Letter to Packard from David R. Braunstein, Co-Chairman of the symposium, inviting him to be the keynote speaker

10/1/86, Letter to Packard from David Braunstein, requesting that he write President Reagan urging him to attend the symposium for a short opening address

10/16/86, Copy of a letter from Packard to President Reagan urging him to attend the symposium

10/17/86, Letter to Packard from David Braunstein, asking Packard’s help in securing a room in the Old Executive Building for a reception, and thanking him for writing the President

10/20/86, Copy of a NASA form giving various releases

1/27/86, Copy of a general letter to symposium speakers giving details on the arrangements

11/4/86, Letter to Packard from NASA asking if he would be willing to participate in a video taped interview

11/6/86, Copy of a letter to symposium speakers giving more details on arrangements

11/17/86, Letter to Packard from Gene Guerny of NASA asking if he would agree to be interviewed by a reporter from Quality and Productivity magazine

1/12/87, Letter to Packard asking that he sign a copyright release on his speech

4/16/87, Letter to Packard from C. Robert Nysmith of NASA sending him a copy of the video tape of his address

5/1/87, Copy of a letter from Packard to Robert Nysmith thanking him for the tape

 

 

Box 5, Folder 23 – General Speeches

 

December 4, 1986, – Management of America’s National Defense, American Enterprise Institute, Washington D. C.

 

This is another speech on the recommendations of the President’s Commission on Defense Management which Packard chaired. Since it is similar to the other speeches on this subject it is not repeated here. For other speeches on this subject see list with speech dated March 26, 1986.

 

By way of epilog Packard does tell of government reaction to the Commission’s recommendations: “At the end of June this year,” he says, “the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management completed its work with its final report to President Reagan. Since that time legislation to reorganize the Office of the Joint Chiefs consistent with our recommendations has been enacted by the Congress and signed by the President.

 

“Legislation to establish a new Undersecretary position in DoD, which the Commission recommended, to provide for a full time professional manager for the defense acquisition process has been enacted. A well qualified man has been appointed and is already hard at work in the Pentagon.”

 

5/30/86, Letter to Packard from William J. Baroody, Jr, President, Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,. inviting him to deliver the tenth annual Francis Boyer Lecture and receive the Francis Boyer Award

6/17/86, Copy of letter from Packard to William J, Baroody, Jr. accepting his invitation

8/14/86, Letter to Packard from Paul W. McCracken, discussing the printed text of Packard’s speech

12/18/86 Letter from Patrick Ford, AEI, enclosing a draft of his speech which they wish to publish in their newsletter, and asking for Packard’s OK

5/7/87, Letter to Packard from Isabel Davidow, AEI, enclosing several copies of Packard’s speech printed in booklet form. One copy is attached here.

Copies of printed invitation and other material from AEI

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

Box 1, Folder 1 – Stanford

 

April 24, 1956, Land Development Program, Stanford Club, Los Angeles

 

4/24/56 Typewritten speech, with notations, given at Stanford Club in Los Angeles.

 

As a preface to the main subject of Stanford’s land development program, Packard first describes some current projects, such as new dormitories. Regarding space for academic functions Packard says, “There has been great improvement in the housing for the academic functions. Some of the areas in the old quadrangle have been rehabilitated, new buildings have been added or plans are in progress for the electrical engineering department, for the physics department; a new building for chemistry, a new building for the mineral sciences, just to name a few. Plans are now completed and work will soon begin on a beautiful facility for the music department, a memorial to Mrs. Dinkelspiel, and work is progressing on the plans for the Tressidor student center in the area around the Union. Work is progressing on plans for additional faculty housing, and last and certainly not least, we expect to let the contract this year to begin the Medical School facilities on the Stanford campus.”

Moving to the main topic Packard quotes Senator Stanford at the first meeting of the Board of Trustees on November 14, 1885: “The endowment of lands is made because they are in themselves of great value and their proper management will insure to the University an income much greater than would be realized were their value to be invested in any reliable interest bearing securities. Again, they can never be alienated and will therefore be an unfailing support to the institution which they are designed to benefit.” Packard says “(the Stanfords) expected these lands to yield an income to the university from some kind of agricultural operations. Packard points out that “much of the land is useful only for grazing and it has almost  continually been rented out for grazing purposes.”  He says, agricultural uses have provided the university a net income “in the neighborhood of about 10 to 15 thousand dollars per year.”

“These thousands of acres of rolling foothill land around the campus have been maintained relatively unspoiled by this limited agricultural usage. They have the land.  And so it is not strange when the Board of  Trustees embarked upon a land development program which would convert some of these beautiful lands into industrial tracts residential areas, which would place Veterans Hospitals and shopping centers upon part of them that the             local     residents accused Stanford of wantonly spoiling the land simply because the             Trustees hate land and love money”

Packard points out that “The compelling reason for the land development program is simply to make possible some of the things which I have described to you. It has to do with the vision held by the Board of Trustees and the President that Stanford is destined to maintain its leadership as a cornerstone for freedom in higher education. It is the belief that Stanford can and must set the pace in the fields of science and engineering — in the fields of medical education and medical research — to provide leadership in education, and perhaps above all to provide leadership in the great field of humanities and human relations where we are engaged in a life and death struggle with our Russian adversaries for the control of men’s minds.” So “bold and aggressive measures are called for” and “it seems obvious that certainly here is a great resource which should be made more useful to the university”

Packard describes some of the considerations before the Board of Trustees: “First, could we spare some of the land for commercial development or should it all be reserved for future campus and academic use? Second, is it possible to develop land which cannot be sold, and how do you do it? Third, if the land can be spared and if a practical plan for development is possible, is this the proper time to go ahead with the development?”

Packard says the Board approached the question of how much land could be spared for commercial development “with great caution because it has been the experience of nearly every university which has sold or otherwise committed some of its land to commercial development that it has found itself severely limited for academic expansion some years later” Based “largely on the recommendation of the Presidents office and the faculty advisers…the Board of Trustees have set aside 3800 of the 8800 acres as a campus reserve untouchable in the land development program.”

Packard goes on to the second question about how it might be possible to develop lands that cannot be alienated. Having little experience in this area “they ventured upon some limited programs to explore the possibilities. They found it would be possible, for example, to develop a shopping center on leased land, and after rather lengthy negotiations they were able to conclude the first industrial lease with Varian Associates on land to the south of the campus….it seems clear now that the university will be able to obtain as much or sometimes even more for a 99-year lease than other people can obtain from the outright sale of comparable land. Also, some exploratory development of the residential areas have gone ahead. these also demonstrate clearly that land for residential use can be developed on a 99-year lease, and it too will be worth as much to the university as though it were sold outright. It seems, then, that the second question has been clearly answered. These lands can be developed without violating the restrictions of the founding grant.”

Regarding considerations of timing for a land program Packard says, “Here, studies of population trends, real estate values, and I might add much soul searching by the Trustees, have lead to the conclusion that this is a good time to move.

Regarding implementation of the program Packard says “There are three separate areas in the Land Development Program and each of them requires a different treatment. the area bounded by the campus on one side and Menlo Park on the other side along El Camino is being developed into a Shopping and Professional area.”  “The area bounded by the campus on one side and Barron Park on the other side, that is the area on the opposite side of the campus from the Shopping Center, is being developed for industrial use.” “The rest of the land, that back toward the hills both behind Menlo and in the direction of Los Altos, is to be developed for residential use. We have already demonstrated to our satisfaction that the residential area can be developed on a 99-year lease basis. A great amount of work is going into this part of the development because we are anxious that the residential development be in keeping with the spirit of the University. “And so we are undertaking this land development program primarily because it is an important supporting element for Stanford’s march to leadership. But, in closing I would like to make it clear to you, and especially to you who have been so generous in your help with our fund-raising activities, that the land development program will in no way eliminate the need for additional finds for current use. At the present time we receive only about two million dollars from our total endowment income against a current budget of twelve million dollars. And so even though this land development program will provide a substantial increment to the endowment income, the potential yield from this program is nowhere near as great as the potential yield from our fund-raising program, and we hope that while the Trustees are actively going ahead with the land development program and all of the other work that is being done to build a great University that we can continue to count on The loyal support of the Stanford Club of Los Angeles to keep Stanford on the march.”

 

4/24/56, Typewritten copy of above speech. Appears to be an earlier draft.

 

2/15/56 – 4/26/56 Letters between Alfred B. Post, Chairman of Program Committee , Stanford Club of Los Angeles, about scheduling Packard talk to the club on the subject of land development at Stanford.

2/21/56 Memorandum to Mr. Packard, Dr. Sterling, and Mr. Brandin from Richard F. O’Brien, Stanford Associates, confirming topics and time schedule agreed upon for the dinner Friday evening, February 24. He says the topic is to be broken down something like this:

1. Mr. Packard – “Why we are doing it” – a historical description of the problems faced by the University and why (the trustees) made the decision to go ahead at this time.

2. Mr. Brandin. “What we are doing” – what is going on at the shopping center, light industrial, and residential.
Box 1, Folder 35D – HP Management

Box 3, Folder 36 – General Speeches

 

January 8-10, 1973, AIAA Ninth Annual Meeting and Technical Display, Washington D. C.

 

Packard was asked to Chair the technical session on “Prototype Programs.” The folder contains the Meeting Program along with copies of letters between Packard and AIAA people arranging details for the meeting.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 37 – General Speeches

 

February 26, 1973, The Corporation and Society: Allies or Antagonists?, Business & Society Seminar, California State University, San Francisco, CA

 

2/26/73, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard recalls that the first meeting he ever attended where the subject of corporate responsibility to society was discussed was back in the mid 1940s. The prevailing opinion was that business management had no particular responsibility to society beyond “simply doing a good job.”

 

Packard says he did not concur with that idea then, and “as you know, the [idea] that management does have…a responsibility beyond simply doing a good job in their business has become accepted on a rather broad base.” Packard mentions Adam Smith and his laissez -faire doctrine which said, in effect, that  if business men are left alone to do what is in their self interest, the result will be …what is best for society. And, in the same vein, Packard recalls Charles Wilson’s statement that what was good for General Motors was good for the United States.

 

When looking at the issue of the responsibility of business management to take an active part in social problems Packard recommends taking a  broad view. “We have to recognize that when there are concerns generated in the society about any matter, whether it is a business matter or some other concern that affects a significant number of people in the society, there are, generally speaking, three ways by which something is done to address the concern.”

 

The best way, Packard feels, is a voluntary effort by citizens to try to understand what the problem is and try to do something about it. “That is what business management can do, and that in my view is probably the best basis for rationalizing, justifying, and involving business management. If the people who have the responsibility and ability to do something about the matter of concern do not do so voluntarily, then it is almost certain one of two things is going to happen. There will be some kind of countervailing force built up -– a group of citizens, a group of protesters. That, I believe, is really the kind of mechanism that brought about the labor union situation. Failure of management to do what was appropriate, what was right in terms of employees, generated enough concern that caused and brought about the labor movement.”

 

“The third way things get changed, if people think they need to be changed, is through government regulation, and we have all had plenty of experience with that. In fact, if you look back into the history of business and industry there has been a very long history of government regulation that has restricted the freedom of management and at the same time I think has in general brought about some things that need to be brought about.”

 

“So, when I think about this general subject I always get back to a fundamental proposition. When there are concerns expressed about the business community and its relationship to society at large, including any group of people in the society – employees, customers, and people in the community where your plants are located – then to the extent that management can be responsive and can perceive and understand what the problems and concerns are and undertake to do something abut it, the result will be a much better solution that one imposed by a protest group of countervailing force of any kind. It will also be much better than the solution imposed by governmental regulation. Actually things are not quite that ideal, and even though business does undertake to address some of these things and do what is perceived to be right, it is very likely that there will be protest groups and governmental regulations anyway.”

 

“It seems to me there are lots of reasons why it is very desirable for business management to accept a responsibility to undertake to do those things which are obvious. Business should look ahead and try to understand those things that are likely to build up in the future. When there is some indication of concern in relation to society with which we are involved, it is much better to have done something about it. I suppose you can make the argument that management has a moral responsibility in this area, but I don’t think you need to rely on that sort of rationalization. I think it is just simply good business. I think you are going to end up with a better organization, and you are going to do a better management job if indeed you do some of these things. You can justify almost anything that is likely to be required in this area as responding to those things which are desirable to do in terms of simply better management.”

 

Packard says he would like to move on and talk about some specific things “One of the most important segments of society that we have to deal with is our employees. They are not only our employees but they are representative of the society in which we live. Therefore our dealings with our employees have a significant impact on the relationship of our organization with society. Here, there are a number of things that are important, but one is that we all complain about the bad image that business has these days. I simply tell you that the best and most effective public you have is your own employees. If they are home every day bitching about the way you are running your shop it certainly isn’t going to help the image of your company. On the other hand if they think, as they should, that it is the best company in the world this can go a long way towards that public image.”

 

“The attitude towards your employees is more important than anything you do, and the employees are able to perceive this. If they know that you are interested in their welfare, if they know that when there are some problems that they can come in and get a fair hearing, if they know they can count on you, this will go much further than any specific thing you do, any specific monetary reward or benefit of substance.”

 

Packard tells of an example where HP management and employees worked to solve a problem – in this case heavy traffic making commuting difficult to do in a timely way. The idea came up about trying a flexible work schedule whereby people could come to work any time between 6:30 and 8:00 in the morning and then put eight hours of work, excluding a half hour for lunch.
This has really been an amazing thing. As a result we now have substantially that kind of program in all of our plants in that area.”

 

“I think that to the extent we can look with our employees at some of their problems and adjust to them, that is one of those things that can have a real and positive benefit. Of course it is easier to do these things if you do not have a union, and fortunately we do not have a union in any of our plants except one in Singapore which we have to have by law. I have tried to follow the basic policy that I have really more reason to be interested in my employees than a union leader does. As soon as the employees think that one of these union people is going to be more interested and more responsive to their needs than I am, then I think they should have a union.”

 

Packard takes up the problem of discrimination. “…I guess everybody has spent a great deal of time in the last few years trying to figure out how to provide better opportunities for minority people and to address some of the other discrimination problems. But these things seem to be coming a little bit faster than they can be dealt with. I think one of the very serious problems we have is in regard to women. It won’t be long before a meeting like this well be picketed because there are no ladies sitting around the table with you. It is going to be very difficult to do the things that some of these people are interested in doing in respect to women in any reasonable time. I will again suggest to you that if you try to do something about it and actually recognize that this is a matter of real concern, then you will have a much better chance of dealing with this problem without having some completely impossible regulations imposed.

 

I have already indicated that if there is increased legislation, I think you will be able to live with that legislation whatever it is, more effectively if you get with it and think about it and try to get something done before you are forced to do so. The problem of minorities is a very difficult one; it is really a matter of educational levels, and I think we all are going to have to continue working on this problem. I must say that I am very encouraged by the progress that has been made. We started about six years ago working with the new urban coalition and with some other activities outside of the company and in the community, and we were able to undertake a great may things that have had positive results.”

 

“There are pressures for quotas; people would like to measure progress we have made in this area by numbers, which is not really the way to judge it, but there is going to be that pressure. We can respond to this problem in a positive way and it will be constructive.

 

“Our next equally important group of people in society that we must deal with are our customers, and I think in general the business attitude toward customers has come a very long way in this century. If you look back at the basic business attitude, caveat emptor, or buyer beware, you look at all the snake oil practices that were going on in the early days. There has been lots of regulation, but there also has been a great deal of responsible action by management people. And I think we are going to have to continue. I don’t know the extent to which these consumer movements will convert into legislation, but some of them will. In a sense the environmental problem is one, but there is also going to be pressure on uniform packaging, and not putting a small product in a big package and things like that.”

 

It seems to me the area of employees, the area of customers, the area of those communities around our plants where we operate are reasonable straight-forward problems. That is, we can deal with them and we can understand them if we try, and the impact that we have is a direct one on that particular group of people. Where you have a more difficult time is to understand in advance those areas where the collective action of business generates a problem which one business enterprise wouldn’t generate alone. In a sense air pollution is that type of problem. We have always had an air pollution problem if there has been one factory that generated a tremendous amount of smoke in a particular area. Apart from that, however, the fact that you now have a combination of a number of factories, the contribution of automobile exhaust, and other things have generated a problem that is very difficult for one business to deal with.”

 

“One of the reasons why private initiative has not been very effective in this area is because of our anti-trust and restraint of trade laws. It would be a lot easier for everybody in industry to sit down and address some of these problems themselves and decide what might be done. In doing so they might decide that they would have to increase their prices a little bit to pay for this, and that wouldn’t go over very well with the Justice department. We have a real problem in terms of how to get responsive private initiative in some of these areas.

 

I think myself it would be very helpful if it were possible to get some changes in these laws, and not only in terms of the environmental impact. There are a great many other ways in which business could contribute more effectively towards some of these larger social problems if we could get more flexibility under the law. Other countries do have a better situation in this regard. In Japan they have the situation where the government and business are almost in partnership, and they can and do decide all kinds of things. What they decide doesn’t always turn out to be the best, but at least they have a mechanism whereby this can be done and this procedure is followed.

 

“A question underlying the whole case for private business is really going back to Adam Smith’s laissez-faire philosophy. Despite the many, many problems we have had, despite the fact that there have been some very serious social problems, and some things that haven’t turned out well, the free enterprise economy has been demonstrated to be by far the most efficient and effective way to combine groups of people into a business enterprise, regardless of the kind of enterprise it is. That to me is the stake we have in this business, because we can all be very proud of the accomplishments that each of our business enterprises has made.

 

“We want to do what we can to preserve the environment that will enable us to be able to make individual decisions, to be able to continue to run our own businesses. Sometimes I am sure you all have gone to the office and you have so damn many problems you wonder if you are free to do anything without getting permission from somebody on the outside anymore. Actually we have a great deal of freedom, and that freedom is going to be preserved. However, it is going to be available to us to exercise and enjoy only so long as we are responsible in that exercise. I suppose this seems to get back to the moral issue, but I don’t really think so. I believe we can justify our decisions on the simple proposition that we are each going to be able to run our business better. In fact each business can make a better contribution to society at large to the extent we can maintain the control of those businesses and manage them ourselves and do those things that are be necessary.

 

“I don’t know whether the pressures that have built up in these last five years – or approximately that period – are going to increase or not. I do think there is some evidence that the pressures are lessening a little bit in some ways, but there are also some evidences that some pressures are increasing. These things to go through cycles and we are probably moving into an area where there is a little more concern than there has been on the average.

 

“However, let me go back to what I said in the beginning – that this is not a new subject. It is a subject that scholars have been thinking about for centuries. It is a problem that people have been dealing with and living with for centuries. If you look at the overall progress we have made it has been a very heartening thing and a very impressive performance.”

 

2/25-27/73, Printed program listing speakers at the seminar

9/21/72, Letter to Packard from S. I. Hayakawa, Cal State University of San Francisco President,  inviting him to participate in the seminar the university is having on Business & Society.

10/4/73, Copy of a letter to Dr. S. I. Hayakawa from Packard accepting the invitation

2/5/73, Letter to Packard from Homer Dalbey, seminar director, giving details of the schedule

3/7/73, Letter to Packard from Homer Dalbey thanking him for participating in the seminar.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 38 – General Speeches

 

March 26-28, 1973, Perceptions of the Military Balance, Europe-America Conference, Amsterdam

 

3/26/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with two pages of handwritten thoughts at the end of the typewritten pages

 

This Conference, attended by large contingencies from NATO countries, the U.S. and Canada, was an appraisal of past policies and a look toward opportunities in the future. Packard had been asked to give a paper on the balance of military power in the Atlantic/Mediterranean area.

 

Packard says the NATO alliance has been a great success – “It has provided the security and kept the peace in western Europe. This was an absolutely essential ingredient to make possible the great economic and social progress of the nations of the Atlantic Community during these past 24 years.”

 

During the 1950s and the early 60s there were several crises but these were “containable,” Packard says, “because the overall military balance weighed heavily on the side of the Free World. It was a decisive balance because of the vastly superior United States strategic nuclear power. This was backed with worldwide Naval superiority of the NATO  forces, and what has turned out to be an adequate air and ground force posture in Europe.”

 

However, Packard describes the situation in 1973 as greatly altered. “Today, the Soviet missile force ….exceeds both in numbers and in destructive power the U.S. missile force of …nuclear missiles…..Today neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could risk a nuclear exchange.”

 

Packard sees this change in military power as posing a different problem, though not necessarily a more difficult one than existed in the past. “It is essential to recognize that great changes have taken place and to try to comprehend their significance in charting a course for the future.”

 

Packard then summarizes “some of the changes that must be taken into account when considering what must be done to help assure a peaceful environment for the Atlantic Community in the years ahead:”

 

1. The superiority the U. S. enjoyed in nuclear forces in the 1950s was lost in the 1960s “and it cannot be regained short of a major technical breakthrough, which no one can foresee.
2. “This change,” Packard says, “in the nuclear force balance has been accompanied by a substantial increase in the destructive power of both sides….This vast increase in destructive power, combined with the rough equality which has been achieved, severely restricts the utility for nuclear forces for the kinds of confrontations which are probable in the future.
3. “The United States, supported by its allies, has had virtually absolute control of the oceans and seas around the world. This favorable balance is being threatened by the current buildup of Soviet naval power.” Packard says the balance of naval power need not swing towards the Soviets, but he cautions that the matter “deserves a very high priority.” He sees this need for a favorable naval balance as critical as the strategic nuclear balance.
4. “The role of tactical nuclear weapons as an element of the military balance has never been resolved in a satisfactory way and must be re-examined in light of the changing situation.
5. “There will continue to be many factors, including technological improvements in non-nuclear weapons, which influence the military balance.” Packard points out that “evaluating the balance of conventional (non-nuclear) forces by simply adding up the men, the guns, the tanks, the planes, and the ships on each side and expressing them as ratios, …serves no useful purpose. There are many other factors which counter-balance an apparent advantage in numbers. Technology is and will continue to be an important factor – probably one of the most important factors – in the future.”
6. Packard says that the Sino-Soviet split has already, “and will continue to influence the balance of forces in the European theatre.
7. “There have been political changes of great significance. Increased trade and a strengthening of communication between the free world and the two major Communist countries are examples. This changing political climate will influence what needs to be done, as well as what can be done, about the future military balance.
8. “The very significant economic progress of all nations in the Atlantic Community makes it quite feasible to do what is needed to maintain an adequate military balance in the future with an equitable distribution of the load.

 

 

The Changed Strategic Nuclear Balance

 

Packard sees the “decisive and irreversible” change in the balance of nuclear forces between NATO and WARSAW PACT countries as the most important element of  their military balance.

 

“In the early years of NATO the military balance was strongly in favor of the West because of the vast superiority of United States Strategic Nuclear power. Conventional NATO forces in Europe had no need to be capable of handling alone a massive Soviet thrust into Western Europe. As long as these forces contained a reasonable number of U.S. military personnel, they would serve as a ‘trip wire’ to bring forth American nuclear might should any expansionist venture be attempted….Although the Alliance worked hard to maintain an effective conventional military force through this period, there was always the satisfaction that the nuclear umbrella was there should it be needed.

 

“There is no doubt the leaders of the Soviet Union felt this U.S. nuclear superiority to be a serious constraint to their freedom of action, and that it was in their national interest to change the situation….This they have now done, and what exists is a nuclear balance. Both the Soviet Union and the United States are now very effectively deterred from using their nuclear capability against each other for any reason short of a dire threat to their very national survival.

 

“With the strategic nuclear forces now in place on each side, it is almost certain that neither nation could survive as a viable society after an all-out nuclear exchange. This is a very sobering fact which I hope is reasonably understood by our friends in Europe. This nuclear balance means that both sides are now effectively constrained to the use of non-nuclear force in nearly every conceivable situation in which force may be needed.”

 

“The SALT negotiations can in no way change this fundamental situation….It can be assumed that this stalemate will not be changed. Neither side can agree to a reduction which would bring into question the effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent. Neither side can do anything with present technology which would break this stalemate.”

 

Packard says in the “…1960s it was recognized that the nuclear balance was changing and that the massive retaliation strategy had become much less credible. Thus there was the ill fated attempt to strengthen the NATO nuclear capability with a multi-lateral force. This was followed with an alternate strategy based around a flexible response, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

 

“These strategies of the 1960s assumed that the so-called nuclear umbrella provided by the United States was either a credible deterrent or a possible course of action of last resource. Most of the thinking about conventional forces involved escalation to nuclear forces in one way or another, and that conflicts which resorted to force would ultimately be resolved at the nuclear level.”

 

With the current situation of approximate equality of nuclear power forces between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Packard says, “the strategy from now on must be designed to minimize the possibility of escalation of a conventional force conflict to nuclear forces. This requires that conventional forces be adequate to handle the range of all probable confrontations without the use of nuclear weapons.

 

“Such a strategy is consistent with the Nixon Doctrine to resolve future conflicts with negotiation rather than confrontation; it is consistent with the aims of arms control, SALT and MBFR; and is the most realistic strategy for the Alliance to follow in the decade of the 1970s and beyond.

 

“Thus the Atlantic Community is faced with the need to support a more effective conventional military capability in the future than it has had in the past. This need to reorient emphasis to conventional forces is already accepted by military planners. You may recall that Secretary Laird made this point very clear at the NATO meeting in Brussels last fall.”

 

In this regard Packard says “…naval power can play an increasing role. Specifically, if NATO can maintain worldwide naval superiority, this can add a great deal of realism to the credibility of the NATO conventional force deterrence….”

 

“The increase in the level of nuclear forces is also relevant to the utility of third party nuclear forces in the European theatre. The present level of nuclear forces of France and Great Britain, even if they could be combined and placed under effective command and control, would have very little deterrent or war fighting capability against the Soviet Union except as an addition to U.S. nuclear forces. “

 

“It is difficult to postulate any situation in which these third country nuclear forces will have much independent impact on the NATO military balance.”

 

“These European nuclear forces do add somewhat to the overall NATO nuclear capability even though they have very limited capability standing alone. Until there is a better understanding of and a confidence in what is meant by the United States commitment to provide the nuclear umbrella for the Atlantic Community in the era of the new nuclear balance, it would not be desirable, however, to propose a reduction in these indigenous nuclear forces. In the long run, the resources which are now used to support these indigenous nuclear forces might be more effective if applied to the NATO conventional force capability.”

 

“I have said that I believe the United States will remain firm in its nuclear commitment to the Atlantic Community. I have also said that with the present nuclear balance the United States would not use its nuclear forces against the Soviet Union short of a dire threat to the survival of the United States. These statements taken together imply my faith that there will be a strong and continuing interdependence between the United States and the European nations of the Atlantic Community. To encourage cooperation toward this goal is what this conference here in Amsterdam is all about. This impact of interdependence on the credibility of the United States nuclear umbrella is one of the reasons why what happens to the Atlantic community in the future is so important to all of the member states, including the United States.”

 

“The Naval Problem”

 

As with nuclear power, Packard explains that, although NATO forces essentially did rule the seas, the Soviet Union “…has been taking steps to redress this balance….and seems intent on developing a navy capable of challenging hostile forces anywhere on the oceans of the world.”

 

“This Soviet naval build-up must be viewed with great concern by the Atlantic Alliance. I do not see how the Alliance can survive unless it has effective control of at least the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean. If the alliance can maintain a superior world with naval capability, this can be a strong factor in maintaining an acceptable conventional force balance in the future. NATO naval superiority could be a major factor in limiting or dealing with low level confrontations. This need not be a difficult job, because the only barrier to an adequate naval superiority through the foreseeable future would be the lack of a determination in the Alliance to take the necessary action.”

 

“Looking to the decade of the 1980s, a superior NATO naval force may be the most important element in the military balance….The most visible factor is the dependence of Europe on middle-Eastern oil today, and the projection that the United States will be in the same situation by 1980, or shortly thereafter, when about half of U.S. oil and gas requirements will have to be imported. No known source other than the middle-East can meet these requirements. This lifeline must be kept secure for the Atlantic community and this consideration alone dictates a strong naval superiority continuing into the future.”

 

“The Tactical Nuclear Situation”

 

“In the early years of NATO, when it appeared difficult to counter the considerable Soviet ground force capability with non-nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons were introduced into the theatre. They were thought to be a way of greatly increasing the fire power and, therefore, the effectiveness of NATO forces in Europe. These tactical nuclear weapons included warheads for artillery, for rockets, for bombs, and demolition weapons. A nuclear warhead on a tactical weapon does increase the probability that a given military target can be destroyed. If the enemy cooperates by massing his forces – his tanks, for example – tactical nuclear weapons would be very effective. If tactical nuclear weapons were used to attack bridges or airfields near cities, the bridges and airfields would be destroyed. But so, in all probability, would the cities, unless very small warheads and very accurate delivery systems were used, in which case there would be much less need to go to nuclear fire power.

 

“The devastating argument against the use of tactical nuclear weapons is that those which both the United States and the Soviet Union now have in place would create vast destruction of civilian population and non-military installations, and the destruction would be very severe in NATO countries, although there would also be much damage in the Warsaw Pact area, particularly those countries close to the front. If both sides agreed to limit themselves to very small nuclear warheads with accurate delivery systems, and agreed there would be no escalation to strategic weapons, tactical nuclear weapons could have some utility. These are, clearly, improbable conditions to postulate.”

 

“Packard says he has never heard a satisfactory description as to how tactical nuclear weapons might be used. “Probably the very uncertainty about their use makes them somewhat effective as an element of deterrence.” He says “they should be maintained and taken seriously if they are to remain an element of deterrence.” But in his view he says, “They should not… be considered simply as an extension of non-nuclear military capability.

 

Packard does not agree with the argument some people advance that tactical nuclear weapons can act as a coupling between conventional forces and strategic nuclear weapons. “If ever this were ever the case it is less so now, and a conventional force will be a more realistic deterrent if it can be adequate to control a confrontation without the need for tactical nuclear weapons.”

 

“The Role of Conventional Forces”

 

Packard feels that the nuclear stalemate that exists between the Soviet Union and the United States must be maintained. “Fortunately,” he says, “it can be preserved without much, if any, higher cost and probably at a lower cost through tough and realistic negotiations in SALT. This essential stand-off cannot be preserved under any course of unilateral disarmament. Tactical nuclear weapons must, in my view, be considered an important part of the nuclear stalemate. These weapons cannot be neglected, although as I have pointed out, they cannot be thought of as simply a useful extension of conventional theatre forces.

 

“The result of this situation is that the essential national security priority for the Alliance is to maintain an acceptable balance of conventional military force in Europe, and a superior naval force in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic – and preferable worldwide. This security priority must be addressed in the atmosphere of the growing détente and in the environment of discussions to limit or reduce the level of military forces. One goal is to reduce the burden of military arms on the member states on both sides. This is not the only goal, nor even the most important goal of arms control. If the stability of mutual deterrence is lost in the course of arms control or n the core of détente, both will have failed. I am convinced there can be smaller forces on both sides in a stable balance, and to the extent the smaller forces are strong force, stability will be enhanced. I have said on a number of occasions the United States can safely have smaller forces, but it cannot safely have both smaller forces and inferior weapons. The same applies to NATO, and this brings me to the role of technology.”

 

The Contribution of Technology

 

Packard says “It is not necessary to match forces man-for-man, tank-for-tank, plane-for-plane to maintain an effective military balance. Some of the so-called ‘smart’ weapons which have been used recently in Vietnam are from ten to a hundred times more effective than the weapons now in the inventory of either the Pact or NATO. It is probable that modern anti-tank weapons can, to a large degree, neutralize the effectiveness of a massive tank force. Air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles now in the inventory of both sides are primitive in terms of what can be done with the latest technology.”

 

“This means that the military balance of the future will be determined even less by the number of men, planes or ships on each side. It will be determined by how effectively each side applies the latest technology to the weapons those men, planes or ships carry”

 

“To maximize the potential of technology will require understanding by both military and political leaders. Weapons involving advanced technology often appear to be very expensive. It may be difficult to convince both the political and the military leaders that a ‘smart’ bomb which might cost $50,000 is more desirable because it is much more effective in destroying a military target than 100 ‘dumb’ bombs costing $500 each. There is uncertainty about the new; there is safety in numbers. But in the end, it is relative effectiveness that must determine the choice. With the ‘smart’ weapons comes a very great bonus – as the probability that these kinds of weapons will destroy a military target goes up, the probability that they will kill civilians and destroy non-military targets goes down.”

 

Packard also points out that “Research and development on military equipment has great potential for fallout of technology useful in non-military fields….I would go so far as to say that the great progress made by the United States in technology since World War II is to a very large degree the result of the extensive military research and development programs during this period. This is clearly the case in my field of electronics, as well as the more obvious ones of aeronautics and space.”

 

“The Atlantic Community can more than match the Warsaw Pact in economic strength. The Atlantic Community has a tremendous advantage in technology and in the ability to put technology into practical use. This is where the effort must be directed. This is both the least costly and the most certain way to maintain an adequate military balance in the future.”

 

Packard warns against letting the Soviet Union take the initiative in the area of technological warfare and says, “We are standing on the threshold of a major breakthrough in military capability through technology. this will be the factor second in importance in determining whether the Free World can maintain a viable military balance into the years ahead. I say second because the most important factor is the desire and determination of the Free World States to do so.

 

“There are, of course, many problems involved in doing what will be needed to meet the future security requirements of the Atlantic Community and its member nations. There will even be problems in reaching a consensus as to what should be done. There are conflicting interests of the member States – but only to the extent the member States perceive and maintain a common purpose will it be possible to agree on a common security plan. The United States alone has the capability of providing a substantial share of the security of the Alliance without requiring the full effort of the other member States. It is not reasonable to expect the United States to do this in the future. The United States will maintain the nuclear stalemate which, of course it must do in its own self interest. At the same time, no individual European nation can alone match the military might of the Soviet Union. This, then, is the national security imperative that must continue to help cement the Atlantic Community into a viable organization in the decades ahead.”

 

Packard says statistical data on NATO-Warsaw Pact forces is available for those who wish to study it. “Some of these considerations tend to weigh on the side of the Warsaw Pact , some on the side of NATO. In my view, the most important intangible factor of all is one hard to define and impossible to qualify. That factor is the resolve of one side versus the resolve of the other. It is the territorial imperative that strengthens the defense of the homeland. To the extent the Atlantic Community can continue to progress toward common goals and develop strong common interests, it can and will maintain the resolve to defend itself. That is the essential ingredient of military strength. To the extent the Atlantic Community deteriorates into a loose coalition of nations with cross purposes and without a unifying spirit, to the extent the Community is carried away on the euphoria of détente, it will be very difficult to achieve and maintain an adequate balance of conventional military forces and unrealistic to expect the United States nuclear commitment to remain firm. In these terms, and adequate military balance is essential for the survival of the Atlantic Community and a strong and cohesive Atlantic Community is essential to build and support a military balance adequate to assure the generation of peace which is now finally within reach of this troubled world.”

 

Packard’s notes, written at the end of the text are as follows:

 

“Key Elements of Nixon Doctrine

 

First – The United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.

 

Second – We shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.

 

Third – In cases of other types of aggression we will help as appropriate but look to the nation directly threatened to provide primary responsibility.”

 

“National Security Strategy for the 70s

 

Preserve adequate nuclear capability as cornerstone of Free World’s nuclear deterrent.

 

Develop Free World forces that are effective and that minimize the likelihood of requiring the employment of strategic nuclear forces.”

 

 

3/26-28/73,  Copy of typewritten Programme for the Europe-America Conference

3/26-28/73,  Copy  of typewritten list of delegates to the conference

3/26-28/73, Copy of typewritten list of members of the United States delegation

1/20/73 Letter to Packard from Albert Wohlstetter, University of Chicago, giving a critique of a draft of Packard’s address that Packard had sent to him

1/22/73, Letter to Packard from Theodore C. Achilles, the Atlantic Council, thanking Packard for his donation of $5000 to help with the budget of the conference

1/29/73, Letter to Packard from Eugene Rostow, Yale University, thanking him for his support and saying he believes the conference is urgently needed

2/26/73, Letter to Packard from Caroline de Courcy Ireland of the Europe-America staff asking Packard’s wishes for a car and hotel

2/26/73, Note to Packard from Gene Rostow saying he had read the draft of Packard’s address and was much pleased. He enclosed a copy of a letter he has sent to delegates giving conference plans, also a copy of a letter to Rostow from Henry Kissenger accepting the invitation to speak at the conference

 

3/3/73, Letter to Packard from John H. Morse, Assistant Secretary of Defense, giving his very comprehensive comments on the draft of Packard’s speech

3/7/73, Typewritten accounting, on Packard’s letterhead, of contributions received for the conference budget

3/9/73, Copy of teletype to Mrs. Caroline Ireland from Margaret Paull giving Packard’s arrival time in Amsterdam and asking that she reserve a chauffeur driven car and hotel

3/10/73, Letter to Packard from Elliiot L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, commenting on the draft of his address Packard had sent him

3/15/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Eugene Rostow talking about contributions he had received

3/21/73, Copy of a letter to John Morse from Packard thanking him for his comments of Packard’s speech draft

3/28/73, Copy of a Report by Group B – Changes in the Field of Security, highlighting the major issues identified by this group

3/28/73, Copy of a ‘Draft Resolution’ giving conclusions reached by the delegates to the conference

3/29/73, Letter to Packard from Constant van Eeghen saying he was sorry not to have been able to say goodbye to Packard when he left Amsterdam, and enclosing a copy of his report of a trip to China

6/13/73, Letter to Packard from Constant van Eeghen saying he had recently visited the eastern U.S and he encloses his notes on the trip

6/20/73, Copy of a letter to Mr. E. H. van Eeghen  from Packard saying he enjoyed meeting in Amsterdam and thanking him for the report of his trip to China

8/20/73, Copy of a memo from Eugene Rostow to members of the U.S. delegation giving plans for further follow-up meetings to discuss Conference agreements

11/23/73, Letter to Packard from Constant van Eeghen giving another ‘follow-up’ of his notes on the aforementioned U. S. trip

11/29/73, Letter to Packard from Richard Mayne, Commission of European Communities, asking for a two line description of his contribution to the Conference in Amsterdam which will appear in a forthcoming book, A New Atlantic Challenge

12/11/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Richard Mayne saying that the description of his contribution in the book could be: “Neither the US nor the USSR can now risk a nuclear war. Future NATO defense strategy must therefore be built around non-nuclear forces. NATO has both the resources and the capability to do so if it has the will.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 39 – General Speeches

 

May 1, 1973, Business Statesman of the Year Award, The Harvard Business School Club of Northern California

 

5/1/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s address on receiving this award

 

Packard says he was thinking of possible subjects for his comments and got to thinking about why he was here tonight. And he felt “…it probably had something to do with the fact that I have spent 30 of the last 33 years of my life in a very exciting period of history and in a very exciting business. That took me back to 1940.

 

“In 1940 the United States was just one of the modestly important nations of the world, teetering on the brink of isolationism. We had decided not to become involved in Europe and the Japanese thought they could attack Pearl Harbor with impunity. December 7, 1941 changed all that and in the period from then until this year, 1973, our country has become the greatest nation this world has ever seen.”

 

“We have made unbelievable progress in science and technology since 1940. So much that we forget what things were like just three decades ago. Then the DC-3 was the best flying machine we had. Aircraft like the 747 were only a dream in the realm of science fiction.”

 

Packard reviews other signs of great progress: landing on the moon, computers, education, plentiful food production at reasonable prices, conquering diseases, transplanting organs. He says the support from the federal government has resulted in fallout benefiting such activities as space travel and jet aircraft travel; but in other areas such as computers, education, medicine, agriculture, as well as others,  it has been private enterprise that was responsible “for the great and exciting progress we have seen.”

 

“The three years I spent in Washington has greatly reinforced my conviction that the federal government is not equipped to deal effectively with many of our domestic problems. And I believe the record of the past three decades amply supports this view.

 

“The problems and opportunities of the future will be no less challenging and exciting than those of the past.” And Packard gives several examples of these future challenges: inflation, balance of payments, international monetary values, potential energy shortages, health, education, environment, poverty, and innumerous domestic problems.

 

“If we are to accellerate [sic] our progress in solving these crucial problems, as indeed we must, perhaps the most important step we can take is to safeguard the freedom and strengthen the integrity and capability of private business and industry.

 

“These great challenges which lie ahead will not be solved by you taxpayers sending more of your money to Washington, or for that matter to Sacramento, so the people there can take their cut and send some of it back to you with instructions as to how it is to be spent.

 

“The federal government has a number of important jobs to do that can only be done in Washington. One of these is national security. With our continuing responsibility for world leadership it is essential that we remain the strongest, most powerful nation in the world. As I said here in San Francisco just a few weeks ago, this will be a better world if the United States is the strongest, most powerful and, therefore, the most influential nation in the world than it will be if the Soviet Union is the strongest, most powerful and, therefore, the most influential nation.

 

“The resources that we can allocate to national security are not unlimited and these funds must be managed wisely.

 

“The members of the Congress, both the Senate and the House, agree with this principle – until it comes to an expenditure in the individual Senator’s or Representative’s State of district.”

 

Packard gives the example of Hunters Point shipyard which should, he says, be shut down. “Our sixth fleet is based in European waters and our seventh fleet is based in Asian waters. That is where they need to be to support our foreign policy, at least at this time. It is much less costly to provide repairs and support in areas where our ships operate. Some politicians have proposed to introduce legislation to keep Hunters Point open so long as we are spending money for naval support overseas.

 

“I would like to remind those politicians that the charter of the Navy is national security – not domestic welfare. I believe business and industry working with the local community can find appropriate jobs elsewhere for these fine people who are working at Hunters Point.

 

“There are areas where only the federal government can do what needs to be done. There are also areas where the federal government can not do effectively what needs to be done. I hope the private sector and local and regional governments will continue to step up and join forces to accept responsibility for those things which in fact they can do best.

 

“Both the private sector and local governments are represented in the Harvard Business School Club of Northern California. You, who are members of this fine club, have a great opportunity to show the way here in the Bay Area. I hope you will do so.”

 

5/11/73, Copy of the printed program for the Award dinner

5/11/73, Copy of the printed invitation to the dinner

4/25/73, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle saying Packard will receive the Award

5/5/73, Letter to Packard from Jeanne C. Robinson, Club President, thanking Packard for accepting the Award and speaking to them

5/8/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mrs. Robinson saying the affair was a pleasure for both he and Mrs. Packard

 

 

Box 3, Folder 40 – General speeches

 

May 30, 1973, Testimony on Behalf of WEMA  before the Committee on Ways and Means, on H.R. 6767, The Trade Reform Act of 1973, Washington D. C.

 

5/30/73, Copy of the text of Packard’s presentation to the Committee

 

Packard introduces himself and explains he is here on behalf of the members of WEMA. He describes the technical products made and the markets served by WEMA companies including the high portion of international sales by most of them. He makes the point that at HP, as an example, “one of out every three U.S. manufacturing jobs exists to support our exports.”

 

As further background he tells the Committee that for “several years, the sale of high technology products abroad, such as those manufactured by WEMA  member companies, has been one of the prime areas in which the U.S. has continued to hold its own in the world marketplace.” And he quotes some figures from the Department of Commerce showing the favorable balance of high technology exports over imports.

“Our industry’s involvement in international trade,” he says, “has made WEMA member companies acutely aware of the need for a cohesive national trade policy which will improve our ability to compete abroad with U.S. exports and, when required, by local production. To accomplish this, we believe that legislation should be enacted which would permit the United States to; (1)  negotiate reductions of tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers; (2) take strong action against inequitable foreign trade practices; (3) respond to serious difficulties caused by imports, and (4) increase trade with the developing countries and with those areas of the world which presently lack Most-Favored-Nation status.

 

“The future of U.S. trade is one of the most important matters currently before the Congress. We are well aware that the recommendations of this Committee will have a great effect on U.S. foreign trade activities for many years to come”

 

“WEMA supports the concept and most of the specific provisions of H.R. 6767…as introduced. In our view, enactment of this legislation will improve the ability of companies within the high technology, electronics and information technology industries to sell their products in existing and in new markets abroad, while, at the same time, permit the government to deal effectively with inequitable foreign trade practices and serious import problems.”

 

Packard then goes through a detailed review of the bill with their recommendations in several areas. He concludes with this summary: “In conclusion, Mr. Chairman,

I would simply say that WEMA supports the concept and most of the provisions contained in H.R. 6767. We believe that this legislation will put the United States on much the same footing as our major competitors and thus enable the President to deal more effectively with our trading partners around the world. We have offered a number of suggestions—additional advice, hearings, retention of Tariff Items 806.30 and 807.00, adjustment assistance for firms, etc.—which we believe will strengthen the bill. We hope you will consider these suggestions carefully in executive session.

 

“With respect to the various tax proposals before your committee, WEMA urges the Congress not  to enact tax rules and regulations which would handicap U.S. firms operating abroad, and permit our foreign competitors to seize market opportunities to the ultimate detriment of U.S. industry and labor. The United States has a responsibility to the developing countries of the world. It is in this context that I particularly object to the ‘tax holiday’ provisions of the Treasury Department’s proposals.

 

“WEMA believes that any changes in our tax laws affecting U.S. trade and U.S. firms operating abroad should be made with the objectives of increasing the export of U.S.-made products, parts and components and permitting U.S. companies to operate abroad on the same basis as their foreign competitors. Action along these lines in the tax area would be consistent with the objectives of H.R. 6767.

 

“This concludes our formal presentation, we will be pleased to respond to any questions the committee may have.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 41 – General Speeches

 

June 8, 1973, Commencement Address, Southern Colorado State College, Pueblo, CO

 

6/8/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard tells his audience a short story about his trip back to Pueblo after he graduated from Stanford in 1934. He describes driving alone through Reno, Nevada about two in the morning and getting stopped for speeding. He says the policeman took him back to the station where Packard explained he had only a couple of dollars with him to get to Pueblo. So the police let him go without a fine, but with a warning to drive a little slower. He says he tells them this story “to suggest that my financial situation…was not much different from the financial situation of a great many young men and young women in the graduating classes across America in 1973, probably, on a relative basis, not as good as most of you in this class here today.

 

“It was almost forty years ago when I was a member of a graduating class, listening as you are here today to a commencement speaker.

 

“ I do not even remember who my commencement speaker was – much less what he said. And I don’t really expect any more of you.”

 

Packard says that “Had my commencement speaker been able to predict accurately and describe to my graduating class what was to happen in this world from 1934 until 1973 no one would have believed him.”

 

And he runs through several of the things this hypothetical commencement speaker would have had to describe happening in the next forty years:  color TV, satellites, nuclear power and bombs, antibiotics, organ transplants, increase in life expectancy, jet aircraft, moon walks.

 

So Packard says that even if he could accurately predict what was going to happen in the next forty years no one would believe him – so he won’t  attempt it.

 

“What I can say with great assurance is that there will be at least as much exciting progress in all aspects of human affairs in the next forty years as there has been in the past. In all probability there will be more.

 

“There will probably be more because it is a basic law of nature that the rate of change is proportional to the level of activity. As the base from which change is generated grows larger, there is a higher likelihood of change becoming even more rapid and more significant.”

 

However Packard says “…some thoughtful people are beginning to question the value of the kind of progress we have seen in the world since 1934. There are clearly limits to the physical growth of our civilization at some point. This has been recognized already in the aspect of population growth in relation to economic growth. Population control is essential if we want to assure real material progress for the individual in the future. We can at some time run out of raw materials and of energy, and to an increasing degree changes which are in the nature of growth will have to be constrained by concerted effort.”

 

Packard says there can be progress and change in the area of ideas too, and “Perhaps as we find that we must consciously restrain physical growth in some areas, we will find ways to accellerate [sic] growth in areas which will contribute to the quality of our civilization – not just to the growth of its physical aspects..

 

Whatever the changes ahead Packard predicts “…they will be, whatever their nature, just as challenging and just as exciting for your generation as they have been for mine.

 

“There are also some important things which will remain the same. The essential stabilizing influence in our society, of a high moral law, expressed most often through religion or a widespread personal commitment to a common code of ethics or morality, is no less important today than it has been for centuries in the past. When this commitment is strong and widespread the society as a whole is strong and healthy. When there is a reduction in the commitment to high moral standards, whether expressed through formal religion or commonly accepted personal standards, the society as a whole suffers. There have been many examples of such lapses throughout history, and that is what our country is suffering from today in the Watergate affair.

 

“Fortunately, the reaction of the society to a lapse in morality can be in the form of a recommitment to high moral standards, and I am convinced that is the way Watergate must come out.”

 

“I am convinced that Watergate is a last aberration of the decade of the 1960s and our nation will rebound with a stronger commitment to the need for a high level of moral law.

 

“The importance of knowledge is another invariant in a world of change. You men and women in this graduation class are being honored today because you have completed a significant step in acquiring the knowledge that will turn out to be one of your most valuable possessions.

 

“You will come to realize that it is not the degree or certificate you have received that is important. What is important is whether you have, in fact, acquired useful knowledge during your course of study and whether you have learned that it is essential to continue to acquire knowledge throughout your lifetime. Some of you may become scholars and the pursuit of knowledge will be the objective of your life work. Others, perhaps most, will use their knowledge to accomplish their life work in practical ways.

 

“A very important ingredient of success and satisfaction in life has, for me at least, been in being able to do something useful. The pursuit of knowledge for me has always been to be able to do something useful. I am sure many of you will have the same experience – and it will bring you much satisfaction, if in whatever you do you do it well. That requires that you know as much as possible about your field of endeavor, whatever it may be. This community is indeed fortunate to have this fine College here, not only because of the broad range of courses available for the full time students, but also because of the excellent opportunity this school provides for a continuing education in a great variety of important subjects.

 

“As each of you step on in your life adventure you will find the same kind of an exciting, rapidly changing world that I found after my graduation in 1934. You will find the knowledge you have acquired will serve you well and you must add to it whenever you can.

 

“I would like to leave you with a thought of David Starr Jordan that made a great impression on me when I was a college student. Dr. Jordan expressed it this way – ‘the most important commitment that every young person can have is to the person he or she will become in the future’, in the next ten, twenty, thirty, forty or more years.

 

“Thank you again for asking me to be with you today. Good luck and God bless you, each and every one.”

 

6/8/73, audio tape recording of Packard giving this speech

6/8/73, Printed program of the Commencement exercise

Fall 1973, Publication of SCSC with picture of Packard on the cover and a review of his speech inside along with other articles related to the school

 

 

Box 3, Folder 42 – General Speeches

 

August 25, 1973, Silver Helmet Defense Award, AMVETS 29^th National Convention, St. Louis, MO

 

8/25/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard’s speech is about Watergate. He calls it “this terrible problem we’re having here in America….Our government in Washington has been almost at a standstill because of Watergate. Our great country is being paralyzed by the emotional, irrational response to this tragic event.

 

“It is most unfortunate that this trouble has come at a time when the leadership of the United States is sorely needed throughout the world – in Europe, in the Mid-East, and in Asia. No country in the world except the United States is able to provide the strong enlightened leadership so necessary to assure a generation of peace, prosperity and progress throughout the world, for the remainder of the twentieth century and on into the twenty-first.,

 

“President Nixon, in his first four years, moved our country into this great opportunity, and he has already taken the first bold and important steps into the future. The United States has never in recent decades commanded the respect throughout the world it holds today – we have never had a better opportunity to lead the way – we may never have it again if we fail to grasp this opportunity.”

 

Calling Watergate a “tragedy,” Packard says “It is, indeed, a sad drama to see this attempt on the part of so many to discredit and even destroy President Nixon – and for what? To satisfy a pang of personal vanity before a TV camera? To develop a political image for the future? To openly vent, to a mass audience, personal feelings, personal bitterness – all disguised under a thin veneer of political courtesy?”

 

Granting that some may be operating under well meaning intentions, “…it is not good for America. The sooner we bring this tragicomedy to an end, the better it will be for our country. I do not deny that there are lessons to be learned from Watergate, and people to be punished – but we do not need to destroy the United States in the process. And that is what I believe can happen if we don’t stop these nonsensical hearings and self-dealing recriminations, and get on with the important jobs that need to be done.”

 

Packard urges everyone in his audience to write or wire Senator Ervin and his committee members and tell them you believe that no good will be served by continuing these hearings – that there are sufficient and capable judicial avenues to conduct the investigation and dispense justice. Tell them that you feel there is much more important Senate work to occupy their time and efforts….And encourage your friends to do the same.

 

“The future of America is in jeopardy. You who have dedicated your lives to the security of America have a great stake in this issue. You must step out and be heard. You who have built the strength and respect that makes the United States the greatest, the most powerful, and the most influential country the world has ever seen must not let politics and propaganda and bias in some elements of the press destroy your President and your country.”

 

“Strength means military strength as well as economic and moral strength. It will be no small task to maintain the military strength we must have for the future with the continuing anti-military bias in many segments of the country. The practical problems of all volunteer forces, and limited funds for procurement, will make the job difficult. It will require new thinking to achieve more effective use of personnel and money. It will require that we maintain our lead in military technology. But it can be done. I am convinced that none of the problems involved maintaining the military strength we need to assure world leadership of the United States are insurmountable.

 

“But, we must put Watergate aside if we are to direct our energies to the critical foreign and domestic issues that face our nation. Let’s bring the select Senate committee hearings nonsense to an end. Let’s put America first, and politics last.

 

“Thank you for this opportunity to be with you tonight – and thank you for the Silver Helmet Award.”

 

 

8/25/73, Printed program for the Awards Banquet

3/27/71, Printed copy of the program for the 26^th National Convention in 1971

10/30/72, Letter to Packard from Joseph R. Sanson, National Commander, Amvets, saying they would like to present Packard with the Silver Helmet Award

11/6/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Joseph Sanson saying he will accept the award

2/2/73, Letter to Packard from Joseph Sanson giving details of the Banquet and asking for biographical information

6/28/73, Letter to Packard from Lean Sanchez, Amvets, giving details of the Award Banquet

8/27/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Joseph Sanson  saying it was a pleasure for he and Mrs. Packard to attend the Award Banquet and thanking them for the Award

Undated, Copy of printed page from unnamed publication covering Packard’s speech

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 43 – General Speeches

 

Oct. 17, 1973, Corporate Support of the Private Universities, University Club, New York City

 

10/17/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says he is pleased to be here and to talk about corporations and private universities – a subject with which he has been involved, both as a corporate giver and as a university trustee, for nearly two decades. He adds that he would like to point out that his views on the subject of corporate support of private universities have been somewhat modified since those he held in the 1950s. And it is this change that he talks about in this speech.

 

Packard tells of his first joining the Committee for Corporate Support of American Universities during its formative years some fifteen years prior. “I must say I was more than a slightly awed to be asked to join the distinguished group of founding members. I knew most of the men by name and reputation only. They had wanted another member from the W3st Coast, and they were willing to accept me on the recommendation of one of their members, Mr. James B. Black, chairman of PG&E, and a Stanford trustee with me at the time.”

 

“Each member [of the committee] had two essential qualifications – a strong personal interest in one or more of the major private universities, and a personal acquaintanceship with many of the directors and officers of the major corporations of America.

 

“I think it is a great tribute to the work that was done by those founding members that the committee is still very much alive, active, and effective.”

 

Packard says he is not sure how the committee got started. He presumes the private universities were facing “a major financial crisis. This was not a difficult situation to establish, for there has been no time in the last three decades when the private universities could not claim a major financial crisis –and they will probably continue to do so throughout the foreseeable future.

 

“ In addition, each member was well aware of the very many ways in which the universities, both public and private, had contributed to the growth and prosperity of American business and industry over the years – and they all believed a special case could be made for increased support of private universities by American companies.”

 

Packard suspects that a third reason for the formation of the committee might have been the thought that “…it just might be more effective working for the cause of the private universities together, rather than each working only for his own alma mater….Just because the Chairman of Corporation X was a Harvard man did not necessarily make a good case [to contribute only to Harvard]. A better case was needed, and that was what the committee set out to develop.”

 

“By the late 1950s …corporate support of education – in one form or another – had become reasonably common, reasonably well accepted by stockholders, and generally expected by the general public – at least by those who were college and university graduates. Estimates of the amount of corporate money going to colleges and universities throughout America in 1958 was in the range of $10 million.

 

“Thus, there was broad and increasing corporate support for higher education, but could a special case be made for the major private universities? This was the challenge that faced the committee.

 

“It was quickly apparent that one of the first problems to be encountered would be to decide which universities should be included on the recommended list. Deliberations on this questions brought about some guidelines which were carefully thought out. With one exception, which I will discuss in more detail, the guidelines have stood the test of time very well.”

 

Packard reviews these guidelines – the first being that the university to be supported should be a private university. “It was recognized that many state universities met the same standards of excellence as the leading private universities, but corporations were already doing their part through payment of taxes and should not be expected to provide additional support.”

 

“Second, the private university to be supported should have graduate schools of distinction covering a broad range of studies. Graduate schools were considered especially important to corporations for four reasons:

 

“They were a major source of professional people who would be needed by the corporation.

“They were the centers of important research.

“They were a major source of the PhDs and professors for all levels of higher education in America and their influence was thus greatly magnified.

“[The] major private universities gave important leadership to all of higher education in America in terms of educational policy and behavior as well as in knowledge and in men and women to fill the professorial chairs. These were the ‘bell cow’ universities, and the lesser institutions all across the country would do well to follow the lead of these distinguished institutions. Corporations then, by supporting these ‘bell cow’ universities, could help raise the standards of all the colleges and universities in America, a role clearly well justified for the corporate dollar.”

 

Packard says the committee added three other stipulations to these guidelines:

 

“…the aid to these select private universities should be over and above what the corporation was already doing for education.

 

“…the corporation should select the recipients for support, and [thirdly] give the money directly to the universities, not through the committee.

 

“The committee recommended that the amount given to any of the universities should be substantial, and that it should be continuous over a period of years.”

 

And another recommendation was that “the corporate gifts to these universities should have no restriction on the use of the funds.”

 

Packard says these policies and guidelines are still in effect and he can recommend them – with one exception. “The only exception I would make,” he says, “is the guideline stating that corporate funds given to private universities should be unrestricted in their use by the university.

 

“I supported that proposition ten years ago because I, like the other members of the committee, was a university trustee – and I thought trustees knew best how a corporate contribution should be used and that trustees had substantial control over how funds were used. In retrospect, that point was probably debatable then It seems to me that it is even more so today.

 

“I recognize that for the university, unrestricted money is most valuable. It allows the trustees, or the administration, or the faculty to undertake programs which might otherwise not attract financial support from the outside. It does not necessarily follow, however, that unrestricted money, used as it has been used, is always in the interest of the corporation.

 

“That, however, is precisely what the corporate officer considering a contribution to a university should be thinking about. Should our corporation make an unrestricted contribution and leave it to the trustees or the administration or the faculty to decide how the money should be used, or do we have a responsibility to our stockholders to be sure the money contributed will, in some defensible way, benefit our corporation? “

 

Packard say that “Fifteen or twenty years ago the trustees of the major private universities could and did play a role in university policy. Most trustees were also corporate officers. It is quite understandable then that we all felt comfortable in recommending that corporate funds be unrestricted.

 

“The situation is vastly different today. Almost every board of trustees must have its members selected from a wide array of constituents: students, faculty, alumni, various ethnic groups, etc. Moreover, much of the power has gone to the faculty, and too often faculty decisions are determined by a militant minority of the faculty.

 

“All this may be good for our private universities. I do not believe so, but that is not the point I want to make with you today. I believe the case for a corporation giving unrestricted funds to a private university can no longer be supported.

 

Packard goes back to the committee’s guidelines to see how they are applied in practice. “First we have said these universities are a major source of the professional people our corporations will need for their future growth and progress. The problem with the unrestricted gift here is that it is not likely to be used to help a professional school.” Packard says the Graduate School of Business at Stanford gets no funds from unrestricted gifts – and he believes the same situation exists at Harvard Business School.

 

“To the extent a corporate contribution is to be justified on the basis that it helps assure a continuing supply of professional people, the funds must be designated specifically for the professional schools you want to support if you want to be certain.

 

“A second premise to justify corporate support for universities is that they are in the business of generating new knowledge through research. Here again, very little unrestricted money is directed to support the many excellent research programs one finds at our private universities. Most of the research at these universities is supported by the government or by large foundations. I happen to believe these universities would be better off if more of their research was supported by business and less by the government. If you should happen to agree, take time to find an area of research you believe to be important to your company, and support it on a specific basis.

 

“The third guideline has to do with the fact that these major universities are an important source of professors for all of higher education. This is of courses true, and this greatly magnifies the impact of these great private schools.

 

“Because of this magnifying factor I believe the corporation executive has a double responsibility to make sure his dollars are constructive rather than destructive – and there is no way to do this with unrestricted money.”

 

Packard cites a 1969 statement by a professor Richard Flacks, who he says is“…a top intellectual figure in the Students for a Democratic Society.” Packard says the professor describes how the distribution of the student protest movement started with the ‘prestigious private universities’ and then trickled on down to ‘schools of lower prestige and quality.’

 

Packard advises the “If  you want to be sure your funds do not have this kind of multiplying effect, restrict them to those areas you believe are educating the right kind of professors.

 

“The fourth premise, and the only one so far which might possibly be used to justify unrestricted corporate gifts, is that the great private universities give distinctive leadership to all of higher education in America – the ‘bell cow’ theory. This premise sounded very convincing to me in 1959. In 1973 I’m much less sure.

 

“Is kicking ROTC programs off the campus the kind of leadership we need?

“Is prohibiting business from recruiting on the campus the kind of leadership we need?

“Should these universities serve as haven for radicals who want to destroy the free enterprise system?

“Should students be taught that American corporations are evil and deserve to be brought under government control?

“Should a board of trustees sit as sole judge of the social responsibility of each American corporation – and use this as a basis for deciding whether its stock should be held in the university portfolio?”

 

“I say to you today, thank God most of the colleges and universities over this great country of ours have not blindly followed the lead of some of the ‘bell cows’ we touted ten or fifteen years ago.

 

“Clearly then, unrestricted corporate contributions cannot be supported on the basis of the other guidelines this committee has adopted. I do not believe there is any way they can be justified.”

 

Packard recognizes that some of those who argue for unrestricted grants say that universities should be ‘ivory towers’ outside the affairs of the world. He examines this point:

 

“These same people like to call a university a community of scholars which, of course, it should be. In a university these scholars are grouped together in Schools and Departments. Sometimes we find groupings of scholars with the university who are hostile to business and the free enterprise system. All too often these groupings tend to perpetuate themselves because they attract professors in the same mold. Departments of Economics are particularly vulnerable, as are Departments of Religion and other areas of Humanities. I happen to believe that such hostile groups of scholars are, to a large degree, responsible for the anti-business bias of many of our young people today. And I do not believe it is in the corporate interest to support them – which is what we do to a greater or a lesser degreed with unrestricted funds.

 

“I believe we will do more in the interest of our corporations and just as much for the universities by being specific in designating where our funds go.

 

“A university is strong to the extent its schools and departments are strong. In the future, let’s focus our m0jey and our energy on those schools and departments which are strong and which also contribute in some specific way to our individual companies, or to the general welfare of our free enterprise system. On this basis I believe more corporate support for these great private universities can be justified 8n the future. I commend this to you as a wise and productive basis for future corporate policy in relation to the major private universities of America.”

 

10/17/73, Printed copy of Packard’s speech in pamphlet format

5/25/73, Copy of a letter to Roger Lewis, President of AMTRAK from Alfred Blum, University of Chicago, giving him some materials to talk to Packard about in preparation of his forthcoming speech

5/31/73, Letter to Packard from Roger Lewis giving him some background material and urging him to agree to give the speech

 

Copy of list of nominees for the CCSAU membership

Copy of description of CCSAU history and purpose

Copy of list of some Students for a Democratic Society leaders

 

August 1970, Copy of printed pamphlet from the Committee for Corporate Support of American Universities giving their philosophy

2/25-27/73, Copy of typewritten paper titled “Highlights from the 1973 Business & society Seminar at the California State University, San Francisco

10/25/73, Copy of a letter and article by Calvin Wood supporting Packard

10/25/73, Letter to Packard from Jon Sheehan saying he agrees with Packard

October 1973, Copy of printed booklet titled, The Management and Financing of Colleges

Nov/Dec 1973, Copy of page from Pacific Business with an editorial by Packard giving some guidelines for management’s role in protecting our free enterprise system

March 1974, Reprint of article in Financial Executive covering Packard’s speech. Also included is an article by McGeorge Bundy disagreeing with Packard’s conclusions

 

Press Clippings

10/17/73, Clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’ speech

10/18/73, Clipping from unnamed paper covering speech

10/18/73, Copy of clipping from New York Times covering speech

10/26/73, Letter to Packard from Glenn Campbell enclosing a clipping from the 10/23/73 issue of the New York Times covering Packard’s speech

10/30/73, Letter to Margaret Paull from Wallace Bates sending a copy of an article in the 10/29/73 issue of the New York times covering Packard’s speech

11/5/73, Letter to Packard from William Decker enclosing a clipping from the Pittsburgh Press of 11/4/73 referencing Packard’s speech

11/14/73, Letter to Packard from Mack Braly, enclosing a copy of the publication Editorial Projects for Education which covers the speech

11/17/73, Copy of page from Human Events containing excerpts from Packard’s speech

11/19/73, Note from Dick Capen to Packard sending a page from the San Diego Union of 11/18/73 covering speech

11/20/73, Copy of page from Palo Alto Times with article by James J. Kilpatrick discussing Packard’s ideas on the question of management and society

 

 

Box 3, Folder 44 – General Speeches

 

Nov. 12, 1973, Scientific Apparatus Makers Association, Litchfield Park, AZ

 

This is a speech about protecting the free enterprise system against those who would sponsor the incursions of more and more government control.

 

11/12/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

Packard says he recently read again the “sage comments of that great poet-philosopher Robert Frost in which he said ‘there are only two things which are certain in this world – there will be conflict and there will be change.’

 

Continuing with this aphorism Packard says “We are members of an industry based on technology, and change is an important part of our business….We in this industry are doing things which would have been unbelievable a decade or two ago.”

 

He tells his audience that during the three years he was with the Department of Defense he scrupulously avoided contact with the Hewlett-Packard Company – not even stepping into his old office. “When I did return to the company in 1972 I was tremendously impressed with the progress – with the change – which had occurred in this span of three years.”

 

And he specifically mentions integrated circuit technology which “has made it possible to have computational capability in a package you can hold in your hand – a capability that would have required a room full of equipment and kilowatts of power only a decade ago.”

 

In a similar vein he mentions the accuracy of measurement and computational power; and he says, “As I have thought about the enormity of these achievements – this impressive record of performance of our industry – it came home clearly to me that change is the result of a kind of conflict which we call competition.

 

“The progress of the Hewlett-Packard Company has been brought about because we have been striving with all our might to get ahead of each of your companies. And the converse is also true.”

 

“This is what this competitive free enterprise system of ours is all about. Its driving force is the conflict of competition, in an environment of freedom of action. It has produced greater scientific progress than any other economic system. It has produced more benefits for more people than any other economic system. I do not believe a better economic system can be devised. Yet this free enterprise economic system is under pressure, under criticism and attack here in America despite its demonstrated record of performance.

 

“The criticism and pressure for change comes from a substantial number of people, in and out of the government, who sincerely believe the government should have a larger role in managing the economy – people who sincerely believe socialism is preferable to private free enterprise. In another form the attack comes from people who believe in the system but want to add constraint after constraint seemingly with no end.”

 

Packard refers to a thought expressed by Paul McCracken, a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors. Packard says McCracken pointed out the “economic philosophy of America is moving rapidly from one based on equality of opportunity to one based on equality of results “ And he gives a quote from McCracken: saying he pointed out that there is ‘a growing conviction on the part of some that differences in the material emoluments of life may not after all, as the Protestant Ethic assured us, reflect the rewards for different degrees of diligence and effort and virtue.’

 

Still referring to comments by McCracken, Packard says “He points out that in the minds of many that race and religion, instead of being irrelevant, have come to be quite relevant. This has resulted in quotas for employment and for entrance to our universities and for our clubs.

 

“We see pressures on pricing and tax policy because of the ‘presumed perverse effect on lower-income people.”

 

Packard says that when he and Bill Hewlett started their company all they expected was “an equality of opportunity. We worked hard to do a better job than our competitors, just as our competitors worked hard to do a better job than we could do. I can think of no instance in which governmental intervention, whether Federal, State or Local, contributed one iota to the progress of our company over the past three decades. I can think of no way in which governmental intervention has contributed to either the security, or the opportunity, of any of the 28,000 of our employees I believe governmental intervention into your business and mine has greatly reduced the probability that the next three decades will produce anywhere near the economic progress that America has enjoyed since the 1940s.”

 

Advocating a return “as quickly as possible to a full, free market economy,” Packard says “There are… strong forces against this course. There are those in the Congress who do not believe that equality of opportunity is enough. They believe that all people should be assured equality of results – that the wealth of this nation should be spread equally among its citizens.

 

“We all see a drift from a true free enterprise economy in a never ending increase of government rules and regulations – more and more people looking over our shoulders.”

 

And he mentions bills requiring reports to the FTC by product line, federal regulation on pension plans; environmental regulations which have “tied up our atomic energy programs and forced the worst kind of a smog control… on the automotive industry. Wage and price controls have been in place for some time now, and a significant number of our Congressmen believe the income tax should serve to redistribute the wealth.”

 

Saying that business has already lost considerable freedom of action, Packard sees some things which can be done to help reverse the trend.

 

“Much of the drive which is behind the stream of anti-business actions which come from the Congress stems from some ultra liberal staff members, encouraged by a few ultra liberal Congressmen. Those congressmen who are generally sympathetic to business and free enterprise do not realize the dangers in a proposed piece of legislature unless someone explains the situation to them.

 

“This is what congressional hearings are for. I am convinced you and I can and should do more than we have in the past in communicating our wishes on pending legislation which may affect our business.”

 

Packard gives an example of a trade bill “which would have been very troublesome for a large sector of American business. A number of businessmen, including myself, testified and the final bill, while not yet passed, is much better. All too often our Congressmen simply do not understand the problems they are creating and they will almost all listen if we only take the time to talk to them.”

 

Packard quotes himself from an editorial he wrote. In part it reads: ‘The need for greatly expanded political action is now so self-evident that I earnestly believe it is time to end the debate about whether businessmen belong in politics and turn our attention to how to effectively participate in order to maximize the benefits such participation will bring to society.’

 

Packard quotes some guidelines from the editorial:

‘Develop effective good citizenship programs that encourage informed and effective political participation by every member of your employee body.’

 

‘Extensive programs to involve our employees in politics are not an extracurricular job of management; they go to the very heart of the question of whether or not our businesses will survive in a form that will continue to serve the best interests of the American people.

 

‘We must expand programs of economic education. As we should know by now, economic decisions of government are more often determined by what is politic rather than what is right. We must improve the economic understanding of our entire citizenry so that good economics also becomes good politics, with the electorate responding to those candidates whole economic judgments make sense.

 

‘Improve our lobbying efforts. Elective politics will never fully supplant our need for legislative action where our positions can be more fully and rationally presented away from the emotionalism of the stump where slogans are remembered and complex explanations go unheard.

 

‘Yet, even these efforts can measurably be improved if we begin delegating more of our political responsibility to the rank and file of our employee bodies.’

 

‘The challenge before is no easy task. American business leadership has traditionally shared an instinctive desire ‘to be left alone.’

 

‘But. Today, our society will not let us alone and, like it or not, we must respond.

 

‘If we are truly right in our belief that the way we want business to operate is in the long-term best interests of all our nation’s people; if we then do our job in educating the majority of the people to the correctness of our position; and if we finally assure that the opinion of all people is expressed and heard by those who hold the reins of government’s power, we cannot fail.

 

‘If, however, we fail to do these things, we will surly reap the whirlwind and rightfully be condemned by generations to come for our failure to pass on intact the American enterprise system which we have been given as our heritage and charged with the responsibility to preserve.’

 

11/11/73, Copy of the program for the SAMA meeting

7/31/73, SAMA announcement of the meeting sent to members

9/4/73, Letter to N. E. Porter of  HP from Paul F. Peters of SAMA asking for the title of Packard’s speech. He also asks Porter’s help in continuing HP participation in a SAMA program.

9/7/73, Letter to Margaret Paull, from Paul F. Peters of SAMA discussing the speech title and asking for biographical information

11/19/73, Letter to Packard from Paul F. Peters thanking him for participating in their meeting

Oct. 1972, Notice from hotel giving information of interest for those who fly in

Box, Folder 12 – General Speeches

 

February 8, 1972, R & D Programs in Defense, Von Neumann Lecture Panel, IEEE Wincon, Los Angeles, CA

 

2/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says “…defense R&D has provided about half of the federal government’s R&D support….I think if one looks back over the years a very good case can be made that defense R&D dollars have made a significant contribution to the progress of science and technology, and resulting commercial application in this country.”

 

“Now, while defense R&D contributions have had this important impact, the prime purpose of the R&D program is to support the national security policy of the country. I would like to talk with you about that for a minute or two, because I believe that some of the problems that have been troubling this country are in large part a result of foreign policies we followed prior to 1969.”

 

Packard says that some “very basic” changes have been made in America’s international security policy. “Actually, I don’t think this country yet recognizes what bold and imaginative leadership President Nixon has given this matter. The new course he has charted will have a significant impact on defense R&D directions and trends because these should be tailored to meet the defense requirement of the future.”

 

Packard recalls that since WW II the U.S., being the dominant economic power in the world, provided security for our NATO allies and well as for Japan and other countries in Asia. “In addition,” he says “we provided the countries in Europe, and Japan, economic aid and many other forms of assistance. In total I think that to a very large degree the troubles we have been experiencing result from the fact that this policy – while very effective and desirable and correct in perhaps the first two decades after World War II – reached the end of its usefulness in the 1960s. I believe we are fortunate to have a President who recognized this and who has been able to take some very significant steps to make a change.”

 

 

 

 

Packard explains that President Nixon initiated a study to assess just “what federal resources are likely to be available for all of our national goals, and how these resources might appropriately be reallocated between defense and the nation’s other priorities. From these studies, what has become known as the Nixon doctrine began to emerge.”

 

“First, the President said we will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or to our allies.”  Packard emphasizes that the President said “adequate nuclear deterrent,” not the “substantial nuclear superiority” he says we have had. “That is no longer possible in any real sense. Because it is not, it is absolutely necessary that we maintain an adequate nuclear deterrent, and the defense programs are designed to do that. The President also said that we will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves. This simply says that in the future we will not take the full responsibility for the security of all our friends around the world. They should take a larger share of this load. The President also said we will honor all of our treaty commitments; we will act to defend our interests whenever or wherever they are threatened – but where our interests are not involved, our role will be limited. We will not intervene militarily.”

 

Along with the changes in the international security policies of the country, Packard says “The changes made in the defense policy including defense research and development programs, have been designed to implement this new overall policy.” He gives an example: “In 1968 the defense budget was 9.5 % of our gross national product. In 1973 the defense budget will be 6.5% of the GNP.” And he points out that this drop of three percentage points represents over $30 billion.

 

“This reduction in expenditures , and the reductions in manpower, make it imperative that we maintain an adequate nuclear deterrent. The President has also expressed this in saying that we should put more reliance on negotiation and more reliance on partnership, both based on a position of strength.”

 

Packard says negotiations are proceeding with the Soviets on reduction of strategic arms; and while he sees it likely that “some agreement” will be reached, he doesn’t think a substantial reduction in strategic nuclear forces on the part of either nation will result.

 

“It is going to be very important that this country maintain a strong effort in research and development relating to the strategic nuclear area, and that is recognized in the 1973 budget. We are continuing some important programs – MIRV [Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle]for example. This program received considerable criticism, but thank God we have it. If we did not, we would be in a very serious situation today with relation to the Soviet Union’s buildup of forces. We are also adding some money to increase and improve the command and control capability of our strategic forces And, we are recommending the development of the long range underwater missile….”

 

Packard says “We have reduced manpower in the military services by a substantial amount….We can afford the future lower level of forces, but we cannot afford to have lower level of forces with inferior weapons….Much has been accomplished already [to improve the capability of our armed forces], but I am convinced that significant improvements in the capability of these forces in the future can be had by further application of technology – a continued high level of research and development.”

 

“As you all well know, there are several facets to research and development. I want to say a word or two about the basic research program of the Defense Department, and then I want to talk about the problems of development – because a great deal of time and energy has been spent in determining how the country can get more for its dollars in new weapons development.”

 

“A few figures might help put this in context. The defense budget contains a significant element for what we call basic research. That number in 1973 will be $350 million. In 1965 it was $380 million.” When the effect of inflation is taken into account Packard says the actual reduction has been about 30%.

 

“In the area of exploratory development – here we find there has been some increase, but very little. In 1965 the figure was $1.099 billion, and in 1973 it will be $1.145 billion. This is slightly more, but in terms of level of effort and in terms of what it will buy – significantly less.

 

“Finally, I want to say a word about the management of research and development in the Defense Department. There are really two  basic problems, that I think you recognize. The first is in deciding what is going to be developed, and these decisions must be made in terms of designing the forces for our future requirements. The decisions cannot be made in isolation, in any sense of the word. There are tremendous diversionary pressures at work. The Army very seldom steps up and agrees to reduce its manpower so that the Navy can have more ships and the Air force can have more airplanes – and vice versa. There are pressures by the industrial people for their pet programs, and these pressures come not only directly to the Services or the Pentagon, they also are directed to a considerable extent to members of the Congress.

 

“There are very difficult problems in making good decisions, and then problems in getting those decisions accepted. Generally speaking, if an organization doesn’t accept a program or a policy, it is not going to make it work. We found it was necessary to spend quite a bit of time getting programs accepted by the

Services. I feel we made good progress in this procedure because we tried hard to bring into this decision making process a combination of military experience, military judgments, and good objective analysis.”

 

“Another thing that was important to make sure that each of the Services had just as much voice in court as any one of the OSD offices. That had not been the case before….We tried very carefully to make it clear that Service recommendations carried just as much weight with us as did the recommendations of systems analysis or any other of the OSD offices. I hope this policy will be continued, because I think it was conducive to better decisions.

 

“The second problem that we have in all R&D is how to implement the programs that have been approved….One of the things that became evident to me early in the game was that there had been to much reliance on paperwork in these studies. One of the most important reasons I wanted to see the Services go to prototype programs is because I think it will help them develop some better habits and better approaches to these important development jobs.”

 

“We tried to cut back on directives. I made a check before I left Washington, and found that we were spending $135 million less on paper work in 1971 than we did in 1969. As far as I can see, nobody missed a bit of it. So at least some progress has been made.

 

“I believe there has been some improvement in the approach to the management of research and development in the defense Department during these past three years. I think most important of all, however, is the matter that I touched on at the beginning. There has been a significant change in the direction of our foreign policy – our international security policy – and this has provided a better base for future planning. In the long run, this new assessment of American foreign policy may turn out to be the most significant contribution of this period.”

 

“Now on some specific policies, I think one of the things that has happened during the past decade in the defense department is that there has been too much emphasis on systems analysis. There has been a trend to try and cost out the programs too precisely, and to try and make industry pay in one way or another for any benefit they might achieve in translating defense research and development into commercial programs. This attitude came to a head in 1969 when the general disillusionment with Vietnam – the anti-defense attitude – was at its peak. Senator Mansfield, as you know, said we couldn’t have any research programs unless they had a direct relevance to military requirements. He essentially said, you can’t do those things which would tend to enable research and development to be useful for other purposes than defense. The policies on independent research and development also have been poor. The attitude has tended to require that independent research and development , supported by companies, be directed only to defense requirements. Here again it will be much better if companies are encouraged to use some of their independent research and development funding  to try and translate some of their defense technology into non-defense products. I hope this policy can be changed. I don’t think anything very specific is necessary except some expression at the higher levels that this is appropriate, and I would encourage that to be done.

 

“While the defense has, as I have said, supported the largest individual share of federal research and development , there are a great many areas where I believe better cooperation between the defense Department and other agencies of the government would be helpful. We tried to work together and I think that we did make some progress in better cooperation.

 

“There are many areas where development within NASA’s field also was useful in defense programs. We tried to get together on programs, for example on short takeoff aircraft, which would have both commercial and defense requirements. I hope that programs like these can move ahead.”

 

“So, in summary ladies and gentlemen, you might conclude that I believe we have had some very interesting problems to address these past three years. I think that some significant progress has been made, particularly in the all important area of recognizing that this country needed a new approach and a new policy for both its international affairs and also the way in which it handles some of its defense programs, including research and development. I am very encouraged to see the interest in this subject here, and I am sure that with the support and continued of people in industry and the continued fine work by your representatives here from the government, there can be some real progress made toward better solutions and better outcomes for these very important problems.”

 

2/8/72, Printed program for the Convention

1/26/72, HP memo from Dave Kirby to Dave Packard giving some information about press interest

1/26/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon, General Chairman, Wincon ’72 thanking him for agreeing to participate in their Convention, and giving some details about the schedule

1/31/72, Letter to Packard and two other principal speakers from Edward E. David Jr., from The White House, discussing speaking subject material

2/1/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon, discussing arrangements for breakfast on Feb. 8, 1972

2/11/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon thanking him for participating in the Convention

2/8/72, Copy of a speech given at the Convention by Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, titled Environment for Innovation

 

 

Box 3, Folder 13 – General Speeches

 

February 15, 1972,  Measurement Managers Symposium, Palo Alto, CA

 

Packard is just returning from his service with the Department of Defense, and was asked to speak at this Symposium  on metrology sponsored by HP.

 

2/15/72, Copy of text of Packard’s speech handwritten, often in outline form, by Packard

 

Packard says that the three years in DOD was a “great experience – worked closely with White House in development of President Nixon’s foreign policy – development of plans for military forces to support strategy.

 

He says Nixon’s policies will provide a “strong military defense and not the enemy of peace – the guardian of peace.”

 

“Forces provided for in 1973 budget: Lower levels of manpower , more capable weapons.

 

“America can not afford both lower levels of manpower and inferior weapons.”

 

Packard gives many line by line budget figures and totals it up as

“Budget authority – 83.4 B, 6.3 B over FY 1972

Expenditures – 76.5 B, up 700 M from 1972

6.4 % of GNP vs 9.5% in 1972 – lowest drain on economy in 22 years

 

He says the budget puts “more reliance on technology, much attention to improving management of development and procurement.

”More reliance on testing hardware and less reliance on paperwork

 

“The procedures that have been followed in past have not given us reliable equipment.

 

“Equipment is more complex – F4 – mean time before failure a few hours, barely time of one mission.

 

“Reliability must be designed into equipment – rigid adherence to mil specs does not assure reliability – Hardware must be built and tested and the results fed back to correct problems. The lessons we have learned here at HP – do not sell it until you have tested production prototypes is the lesson the military people have not yet learned.

 

“We made some progress – prototype program – on smaller equipment. Will be hard to convince bureaucracy that a commercial product not built to mil spec may be more reliable than  a mil spec product simply because all the bugs have been shaken out and fixed.

 

“New office of operational testing established – make sure every new program has adequate testing built in and is done before too much money spent on production.

 

“Contract procedures:  Competitive bidding not always good – mC5A worst possible kind of contract. Cost incentive and sole source often gets best value for money.

 

“This has been a difficult three years for DOD. Criticism has been loud and bitter and often distorted and unfair.

 

[There are] “fine capable people in DOD and all services – just as you will find anywhere in our society. They are dedicated, capable, and they deserve our support. When we find it frustrating remember they are under great pressure from criticism, we should help when we can.

 

“Measurement has been my first love since the late 1930s when I used to drool over the General Radio catalog. It has been an exciting field and will continue to grow in importance. You have each made an important contribution to the great progress – there is no end to the opportunity ahead.”

 

2/14-16/72, Copy of printed program for the Symposium

2/14/72 Typewritten program with comments on intent of sessions

2/14/72, Typewritten list of attendees

 

 

Box 3, Folder 14 – General Speeches

 

February 17, 1972, Strong Defense-Guardian of Peace, The Union League Club of Chicago

 

3/17/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says that he was “fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve during the first three years of President Nixon’s administration. I say that for many reasons, but foremost because these have been three years of bold and imaginative leadership by our President.

 

“If anyone doubts that bold and imaginative leadership was needed, just recall for yourselves the state of this nation in 1968. And he enumerates several items:

 

Rioting and burning on the streets

Universities in shambles

Over half a million servicemen and women in Vietnam with no plan to bring them home

In the second quarter of 1968 an average of 360 American killed in Vietnam each week – hundreds more injured

Domestically, inflation destroying all previous economic progress

 

“In short,” Packard says, “America was in deep trouble at home and abroad.”

 

“If anyone doubts the effectiveness of President Nixon’s bold and imaginative leadership during these three years, compare those dark days of 1968 with the spring of 1972.” And he ticks off several points:

 

Peaceful and legal protest has replaced rioting and burning on the streets

Universities are back in the business of education

Our forces in Vietnam have been reduced by 418,000

By the fourth quarter of 1971 average number of Americans killed each week reduced to six

Bold steps taken to control inflation

Confidence in American leadership at home and abroad rising”

 

Packard says there is something “even more important about these three years. When the history of the 20^th Century is recorded, 1968 will be recognized as the end of one era and the beginning of a new one. The end of the old era came when American military and economic commitments finally overextended our nation’s resources to the breaking point.

 

“By 1968 most people in Washington and throughout the country recognized we were in serious trouble. In the Senate the liberals were making the most critical noises, although their past policies were the very ones which had caused the disastrous situation. Even Senator Fulbright, Dean of the Senate in foreign affairs and chairman of the foreign Affairs Committee, had no particular plan except to withdraw from the world. He wanted troops withdrawn from everywhere and all aid stopped. Others wanted substantial cuts in defense. Many advocated immediate withdrawal from Vietnam even though at that time it would have been unconditional surrender by the United States. There was no plan, no usable policy suggested by the Senate majority. They were simply wailing and flailing.”

 

Packard says it was fortunate that President Nixon had the courage to seek a new course. “It is President’s Nixon’s courage and vision that has made his leadership possible. It is because he charted a bold and positive course for America that his leadership has been effective.”

 

“[The] extensive planning for President Nixon’s new course toward a generation of peace was of great importance to our planning and budgeting work in the Defense Department. We had an important part in helping to develop these policies and they, in turn, provided the foundation for our planning of future military forces.

 

“The new policies were first delineated in Guam in 1969 by the President and have come to be known as the Nixon Doctrine. The President in his address to the nation on January 20 of this year restated this new course for our foreign policy in the following terms:

 

• We will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or of our allies.
• We will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves.
• We will faithfully honor all of our treaty commitments.
• We will act to defend our interests whenever and wherever they are threatened any place in the world.
• But where our interests or our treaty commitments are not involved our role will be limited.
• We will not intervene militarily.
• But we will use our influence to prevent war.
• If war comes we will use our influence to try to stop it.
• Once war is over we will do our share in helping to bind up the wounds of those who have participated in it.

 

“This is a decisive change from the American foreign policy which prevailed from 1945 to 1968. During that period we were undisputed in military and economic strength everywhere in the world, and we thought we could act accordingly. President John F. Kennedy set the stage to carry the same foreign policy into the decade of the 1960s. In his inaugural address in 1961 he said:

 

‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support  any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’

 

Neither President Kennedy nor other leaders of the Democratic Party foresaw that this policy would commit us to Vietnam and bring America to the brink of disaster before the end of the decade.”

 

Packard says President Nixon’s policy is “designed to deter major conflict, limit minor conflict, and accommodate to change. It is based on three pillars – negotiation, partnership, and strength. Important steps have already been taken building on these pillars.

 

“We have already made considerable progress in negotiating a better understanding with the Soviet Union on a number of issues which will have a major impact on the future peace and security of the world. A treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons on the ocean seabeds has been concluded. A new treaty on Berlin, and a treaty on germ warfare, are two other important steps. Negotiations are underway with the Soviet Union directed at strategic nuclear arms limitations. These talks, which are identified as SALT, have been serious and constructive. At least limited agreement is likely to be achieved in the near future.

 

“As a result of the President’s leadership, fighting has stopped in the Middle East, replaced with discussions moving toward serious negotiations. Every conceivable effort has been made to find a way to negotiate an acceptable solution to the Indochina problem. These have been important first steps from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation.

 

“Partnership has always been an important element of foreign policy. Nations have joined together to improve their security where they have a common interest. When we say that partnership is one of the three pillars of our new foreign policy, what is meant is that in the future our friends and allies, as our partners, will be expected to bear a larger share of the burden for their own security. They will be expected, as our partners, to take a more responsible role in international monetary policy and international trade as well. Parallel with this, as they carry a larger share of the burden, it is appropriate that they have a larger voice in determining the course of the partnership in areas relating to their national interests.

 

“This new course in American foreign policy, involving as it does a readjustment of responsibilities among the free nations of the world, and a readjustment of American commitments around the world, has a substantial influence on the level and kind of military forces this nation will need in the decades ahead. Reduced commitments, in general, can allow for reduced levels of military forces. In deciding whether there can be an absolute reduction or only a relative reduction, we must not forget that realism is essential in military force planning. Our military strength combined with that of our allies must always be adequate to deter war, both nuclear and conventional, and that deterrence must be realistic and responsive to changing world conditions.

 

“An adequate nuclear deterrent is an absolutely essential requirement of President Nixon’s new foreign policy. Without an adequate nuclear deterrent, any significant contribution to world leadership would be impossible. Negotiations would fail and our partners would desert us. If we survived at all as a nation without an adequate nuclear deterrent, it would not be as a great nation.”

 

Packard says the U. S. now has an adequate nuclear deterrent, in spite of a Soviet buildup of nuclear weapons, largely due to the MIRV program. “The MIRV program,” he says, “had considerable opposition, but it has improved the capability of the Minuteman and Poseidon missiles.

 

“We have planned our nuclear forces to be consistent with possible outcomes of the strategic arms limitation talks. We also have taken action to assure that we will have an adequate strategic nuclear deterrent, in case the arms limitation talks fail and the soviet buildup of nuclear weapons continues.

 

“There are two important actions, within these guidelines, which were taken in preparing the 1973 budget. One was to provide for substantial improvements in the responsiveness and survivability of the command and control of our strategic nuclear forces. This is so urgent, that the President has requested a supplemental appropriation to the fiscal 1972 budget so that this program can be accelerated.”

 

“During these past three years Secretary Laird and I undertook very extensive studies to make sure that our strategic nuclear forces will provide an adequate nuclear deterrent – not only for today, but also into the foreseeable future. These forces include land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and manned bombers. This is the so-called triad. By maintaining these three different types of forces, each with a very substantial capability, we make it impossible for an enemy to avoid unacceptable damage in retaliation to any conceivable attack he can mount. This ability must be assured for the 1970s, the 1980s and beyond, until and unless some other way is found to eliminate the possibility of nuclear war”

 

“The FY 1973 budget provides for a strong Navy to counter the rapid Soviet naval buildup, and a strong Air force as well. These forces have smaller numbers of ships and planes than they had in previous years, but they are better ships and better planes, and therefore the forces are more capable. The budget provides for fewer men and women in uniform than in previous years, particularly in the Army. The Army, too, has better weapons. The 1973 budget has a substantial increase in research and development as did the 1972 budget.” And Packard repeats the admonition he has stated before: “I have said many times during these past three years – the realities of the situation indicate that we can have adequate forces for the future with lower levels of military manpower. However, America cannot afford to have both lower force levels and inferior weapons. Military research and development must receive increasing support as we reduce our force levels.”

 

In answer to critics who feel they have not cut back the Defense Budget far enough, Packard points out that “In real dollars, adjusted for inflation, there has been a substantial reduction – over twenty-five billion dollars. The more important criterion is the effect of the Defense Budget on our economy and our federal resources. In 1968 Defense took 9.5% of this nation’s GNP. The 1973 budget will take only 6.6% — the lowest drain on the economy in twenty years….36 billion dollars less in 1973 than in 1968.”

 

“This new course President Nixon has charted for us is designed to bring to American and the world a generation of peace. To achieve this goal will require strong leadership along the course. There will be difficult negotiations to resolve areas of conflict without confrontation that could lead to war. There will be difficult negotiations ahead with our friends and allies to get them to accept a fair share of the burden of partnership. Above all, success toward our goal of a generation of peace requires that we maintain strong military forces -–strong to back up the sincerity of negotiations with our enemies; strong to insure the confidence and support of our friends.

 

“America must lead the nations of this world in the attainment of this exciting goal in the decade of the 1970s. America can take this lead only so long as she remains strong.

 

“In the words of our President – ‘Strong military defenses are not the enemy of peace. They are the guardian of peace.”

 

 

1/11/7, Letter to Packard from Robert W. Bergstrom, President, Union League Club of Chicago, inviting Packard to speak at their annual Presidents Dinner.

3/17/72, Copy of the program for the dinner.

2/18/72, Letter to Packard from Colonel Raymond B. Furlong of the Department of Defense. Col. Furlong says he was delighted at how well Packard’s speech was received. He also encloses a newsclip wherein Packard is quoted as saying “We are at the point now where we could take all American troops out of South Vietnam and the South Vietnamese would be fairly capable of defending themselves.” The Colonel says “Dan, Jerry and I wanted to take this opportunity to suggest that should you be faced with a similar question in the future, you might want to use something like. ’We have provided the South Vietnamese with the time and the equipment that will permit them to become able to defend their country. Their success in this defense now rests upon their own will and determination. As far as US troop levels in Vietnam are concerned, we have made it very clear that UDS troops have not had an active ground combat responsibility since last July and that since that time our men have had the primary mission of defending our own installations and personnel. The President has made it clear that some US troops will remain in Vietnam until all US POWs have been released and the MIA accounted for. Meantime, the President continues to bring Americans home.”

 

2/22/72, Letter to Packard from Robert Bergstrom, thanking him for speaking at the Club’s dinner.

2/23/72, Letter to Packard from Kenneth Block thanking him for speaking at the Club’s dinner.

3/1/72, Letter to Packard from Roger E. Henn enclosing a “small” check to cover expenses and offering to add more if this is not adequate.

4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Robert Bergstrom, enclosing a copy of the Club’s publication which covered Packard’s speech, plus a pamphlet containing a speech Bergstrom had made in June of 1971.

2/29/72, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paull [Packard’s secretary] to Roger Henn of the Union League Club listing air fare expenses for Mr. and Mrs. Packard of $539.00.

3/6/72, A note to Packard from Roger Henn enclosing a check “for the rest of your expenses”

Undated, A copy of an expense report listing expenses of $300 for Mr. and Mrs. Packard’s visit to Chicago.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 15 – General Speeches

 

February 23, 1972, Improving R&D Management through Prototyping, NSIA Prototyping Seminar, St. Louis, MO

 

The program for this meeting contains this lead paragraph:  “The services are presently formulating prototype activities and implementation policies. NSIA [National Security Industrial Association] recognizes the appropriateness of this time to exchange ideas and to develop a greater understanding of prototyping within industry and the military services. A day and a half symposium  has been designed to present, question, and thoroughly examine prototyping concepts and policies based upon real experiences. In addition to the program participants listed below, program managers, chief engineers, contracting officers, and RFP writers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force will be invited to attend.” Those “listed below” as speakers include several Generals from the military, and top R&D managers from industry.

 

2/23/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.

 

Packard calls this seminar an “historic conference on prototyping;” saying, “This is the kind of a meeting which should make a real contribution to what has been my favorite subject during these past three years.”

 

Packard says that “As I joined Mel Laird in the Spring of 1969 to help in the management of the Department of Defense, one of the most serious problems we faced was the unsatisfactory record over the last decade of the Department, the Military Services, and the industry, in the job of the development and procurement of new weapons systems.”

 

Packard says that during the past three years he “had the opportunity to work on this problem in an extensive and detailed way.” He refers to policy changes which were covered in memorandums, new directives and other written statements; and says that while these have been in the right direction “it will take a great deal more time and effort to correct the disastrous practices which have been developed by this so-called military industrial complex over the past decade.

 

“Cost over-runs were the most visible symptom of the troubled new weapons development situation, but there were other problems, too. Most programs took far too long from original conception until weapons were delivered to the forces. As a result many weapons, particularly those involving electronics and other fast moving technology, were out of date by the time they were made available.” And he cites an example of seeing “air-to air missiles using 1950 vintage vacuum tube circuitry – still in the forces in 1970.”

 

In addition to high cost and long development time, Packard says “many of the new devices did not have the reliability that is needed for military use.”

 

“”I believe we have learned a great deal during the past three years in understanding the causes of these difficulties. We were able to take a number of specific steps which point the way to major improvement. As I have said many times, however, only if the people in the Defense Department and in the Services find new and better ways to work with industry will these serious deficiencies be corrected. Major changes are absolutely necessary by both industry and the government if we are to have the military capability adequate for the future security of America and the free world.” And Packard expresses the hope that the audience will “address the subject as one which can and must be a big step forward in making major changes in this development and procurement business.”

 

“One of the major factors in cost over-runs has been irresponsible low estimates at the beginning of a program. ‘Buy-ins’ by contractors has been a big element of this irresponsibility. Another contributing factor has been the attempt to price out a full program before the new weapon is developed.” Packard refers to tools, such as “parametric costing” which “can help in making reasonably accurate cost estimates of a new product before it is developed, but apparently those in authority preferred to rely on wishful thinking. The record is nothing anyone can be proud of.”

 

Packard describes how prototyping “can help in this matter because this approach will allow a new weapon development to be undertaken without having to make a commitment to production or to use in the forces before the development is complete.”

 

“…projecting the program cost including the production cost can be delayed until the prototype is complete and tested. With a hardware model, better cost estimates are possible and there will be much less excuse for gross errors in projecting a program cost.

 

“Buy-ins can also be reduced with the prototype approach if the people in the Defense Department have the guts to go to sole source negotiated contracts with the firm that demonstrates it can do the job by producing a prototype which is proven by testing.

 

“These false cost estimates and ‘buy-ins’ are not cost overruns that necessarily represent real waste, but they insure that a program will look like money has been wasted. They are in the nature of conspicuous waste. They give the ‘Proxmires’ and the press the opportunity to make you people look stupid. I can assure you that you will continue to look stupid until and unless you correct this situation of absurdly low cost estimates and buy-ins.

 

In addition to this conspicuous waste, Packard says “There has been real waste of both time and money in almost every program in which production was started before development and testing was complete – and that includes almost every program.

 

“Engineering changes that are made on the production line are costly and wasteful. They generate waste, real waste, as you all know, right down through the sub-contract structure.

 

“Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted buying spare parts before the final design is settled and before the real requirements for spares have been confirmed.” Packard refers to a recent finding by the GAO that said over a hundred million dollars had been wasted on spares on one program alone. Packard says he knows the GAO was right.”

 

“It will be helpful to consider the prototype approach in two separate phases, each of which can serve to correct some of the serious failings we have had in this business. The advanced development prototype is one kind of a prototype program. The production prototype is another kind of a prototype program. Each has its place – each can contribute to a better job in the future.

 

“The advanced development prototype can serve to verify and reduce the technology to hardware…[It] should be administered whenever possible to provide alternate choices for the force requirement. In the past alternate choices for a force requirement have been evaluated by paper studies, system analysis procedures, and they have been influenced by the divisive forces between the Services and often within a Service.

 

“By the time the fighting is over and a particular program is selected, the whole issue is set in concrete and can hardly be changed by an act of Congress. This process has often resulted in a poor decision with no possibility that it can be corrected later.

 

“If the decision as to which way to go can be kept open until several alternate routes have been evaluated by building and testing prototypes, I am sure we will have better decisions on the question of what weapons to develop for our future forces.

 

“Once an advanced development prototype has been selected as the basis for a major program there will be much yet to be done in engineering before a commitment to production is made. Here is the place for more reliance on production prototypes. These should be built to a production design on production tooling and with production methods. It is only when you in government and you in industry face up to the fact that production prototypes must be built and tested before major investment in production, before deciding on and ordering spares, before taking actions for training and deployment, that you will solve the problem that has been plaguing you.

 

“I know you will claim that waiting for the production prototype to be tested before taking corollary actions on a major program will result in delays. Let me emphasize, during the three years I spent in the Pentagon I found hardly a program that was not delayed anyway.” Packard gives an example he recently saw at an air field “…where there were hundreds of students and instructors and extensive investments to train pilots for C-5As. They had three C-5As all right, but none had engines, and none could fly….Judicious use of prototypes can help avoid such stupid performance in the future.

 

“The third serious problem that troubles all of our recent major programs is reliability. Numerous directives, specifications, and other requirements have been placed on all major development programs to attempt to improve the reliability of new weapons. Very little improvement, if any, has come from this effort and very large sums of money have been spent.

 

“Reliability cannot be achieved by adhering to detailed specifications. Reliability cannot be achieved by formula or by analysts. Some of these may help to some extent, but there is only one road to reliability. Build it, test it and fix the things that go wrong. Repeat the process until the desired reliability is achieved. It is a feedback process and there is no other way. Prototypes are an important key to this procedure.”

 

“A few months ago at a meeting of military project managers, someone objected to extensive testing because it would delay the program. He complained that testing showed up things that needed to be fixed and it took time to fix them, and this would delay the IOC. Unless we get rid of that kind of thinking there will be no hope.

 

“Prototyping must be backed with testing, and schedules must not be fixed until we have a hardware model that meets the requirement of the job and which has demonstrated reliability.”

 

“Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. I believe we have made real and important progress in improving the management of the development and production of new weapons during these last three years. What has been done is only a beginning – your critics are far from satisfied.

 

“Senator Stennis, who is one of your best and most powerful friends in the Senate, has told me personally he is not satisfied with what has been done. He expects better performance in the future and if better performance is not forthcoming, he will find it harder and harder to defend your cause in the Congress.

 

“Even such a consistent advocate of strong defense as Senator Goldwater has accused me of throwing up my hands and saying the whole thing is hopeless. I will admit there have been times during these past three years when I felt that way, but I want to assure you here, and every one else, I did not leave that Department for any disillusionment I might have had from time to time on this, or any other subject. I am, in many ways, sorry my personal circumstances were such that I could not stay longer.

 

“I am, in fact, very encouraged by the great progress we made during these past three years. The most encouraging fact of all is that the majority of people in the Department, industry, and in the Congress, seemed to agree with what we did and gave me excellent support the entire time I was in the Pentagon.

 

“I have often said that the new policies we established, and the improvements we tried to make, will be effective only to the extent they are accepted and implemented by people throughout the Department and throughout industry. I also recognized that it would take considerable time for these new policies to become effective, even if they are correct and proper.

 

“I am especially pleased that you are holding this conference for it is at this level that the real improvement must come. You people in the Department of Defense and in the Services, who are responsible for making decisions and working with your counterparts in industry on specific programs and specific projects, are the ones – in fact, the only ones who can bring about the improvement we must have.

 

“Let me make this point very clear. We can convert our critics in only one way – by doing a better job. That is the sole purpose of the prototype approach – the opportunity to demonstrate that you know what you are doing before vast sums of money are committed to a new major program.

 

“I believe the prototype approach can contribute to better thinking, better habits, if you will, on the entire spectrum of Defense contracting.

 

“In conclusion, let me say I am delighted to see such a fine representation here, The defense department – the Military Services – and Defense industry – have an awesome responsibility,. It is your responsibility to provide the weapons this country needs to assure realistic capability to deter war for the future. It is your responsibility to provide these weapons with resources which will not weaken our economy, for in today’s world economic strength is a most important adjunct to military strength.

 

“American industry has been the most productive and the most innovative of any industry in the world. American industry has been the arsenal of democracy and the savior of the free world on at least five separate occasions in our history, going clear back to the 19^th Century.

 

“America looks to the Defense industry and the Defense Department to live up to this great tradition of service to the nation. I am confident enough to say we have steered these great resources back on the right track during these past three years. I know each of you here at this conference will do your part to keep this great talent of our country on the right track in the future Good luck in this great endeavor.”

 

 

2/23/72, Copy of the Seminar program

2/23/72, Copy of the list of speakers at the Seminar

1/21/72, Copy of NSIA Announcement for the Seminar.

1/11/72, Letter to Packard from Brent A. Hardesty, Program Chairman for the Seminar, discussing topic details.

1/31/72, Letter to Packard from Stouffer’s hotel confirming reservation

2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Brent Hardesty, NSIA Program Chairman, enclosing a draft copy of the keynote speech to be given by Ed Ball. Also enclosed is a copy of an invitation to Packard’s replacement as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kenneth Rush.

2/8/72, Copy of letter to Brent Hardesty from Julian Levine saying Deputy Secretary of Defense Designate Rush will not be able to attend.

2/11/72, Copy of letter to Packard from Sanford N. McDonnell, President McDonnell Douglas, saying he is looking forward to hearing Packard’s talk.

3/1/72, Letter from Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, saying he had read, “with pleasure” Packard’s talk.

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle of NSIA, thanking him for his participation in the Prototyping Seminar, and confirming details for the March 9^th Award Dinner where NSIA will present Packard with the Forrestal Award

3/6/72, Letter to Packard from Investment Banker W. N. Fangio saying he agrees with Packard’s comments

3/6/72, Copy of an article in the Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine covering Packard’s speech

4/18/72, Letter to Packard from W. H. Johnston, complimenting Packard on the address.

4/27/72, Letter to Packard from V/Adm. Eli T. Reich, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, asking for permission to print Packard’s speech in an upcoming Journal.

4/28/72, Note to Margaret Paull from Brent Hardesty thanking her for her help.

4/28/72, Letter to Packard from Brent Hardesty complimenting him on his address. Photos enclosed. .[see Packard photo file, folder, HP 1970-1979]

5/2/72, Copy of letter to Hardesty from Packard thanking him for the photos5/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to V/Adm. Eli Reich giving permission to use his speech

2/23/72, Copy of speech given by David S. Lewis, Chairman of the Board and CEO, General Dynamics Corp.

Undated, Copy of speech titled, Through Prototyping – speaker not identified

Undated, Copies of overhead slides, titled, Skunk Works Projects.

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 16 – General speeches

 

February 29, 1972, Accepting Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Distinguished Citizen Award

 

2/29/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments, with handwritten notes by him

 

“Lu and I want to thank you for the warm and friendly welcome home from Washington. [The following five italicized paragraphs were handwritten by Packard on the back of the first page of the text of his speech. From his editorial marks it appears he intended to insert these comments at this point.]

 

“It was [a] great satisfaction to serve in President Nixon’s administration during these past three years.

 

“I can say that for many reasons , but particularly because I had the opportunity to participate in a number of areas in which great progress was made.

 

“In the Department [we formed?] new and better policies for the development and procurement of weapons – More defense for the dollars provided by taxpayers.

 

“Major reductions in the Defense Budget in its demands on our economy, [going] from 9.5% of GNP in 1968 to 6.5% of GNP in 1973 – 36 billion dollars less drain on federal resources – lowest in percent of GNP in over 20 years.

 

“Opportunity to participate in the development of President Nixon’s new foreign policy toward a Generation of Peace – from [an] era of confrontation to [an era] of negotiation.”

 

“You do me a great and undeserved honor to place me in the company of the nine persons previously named Distinguished citizens of the Palo Alto chamber of Commerce. And tonight, in these brief remarks, I’d like to recall some words of one of those past recipients of the award, the late President Herbert Hoover.

 

“Fifty years ago Mr. Hoover published a slim little volume titled American Individualism. In it was a sentence which should be written on these walls tonight:

 

‘We cannot ever afford,’ said Herbert Hoover, ‘to rest at ease in the comfortable assumption that right ideas always prevail by some virtue of their own.’

 

‘There have been periods of centuries,’ Mr. Hoover wrote, ‘when the world slumped back toward darkness merely because great masses of men became impregnated with wrong ideas…’

 

“Surely,” Packard says, “he must have had in mind the great power of government propaganda, which had been so evident on both sides during World War I. And certainly all of us, as individual American citizens, must continue to evaluate critically the official explanations of any public authority.

 

“But there is another sort of propaganda about which I presently am even more concerned: Call it the anti-government line, or – if you dare to be as vague as the peddlers of the line – call it ‘anti Establishment.’

 

“Probably most of the businessmen and industrialists in this audience have been targets of such propaganda attacks. You have been told that your profits are excessive and your products shoddy. If you engage in commercial operations beyond the borders of this country, you are automatically labeled ‘imperialists.’

 

“None of you have received the great honor from these anti-American propagandists and hate mongers that I have. If there are mad bombers in this country, they are probably in front of Rickey’s tonight.

 

“There is, of course, more noise than substance in such charges, but the cumulative effect of their constant repetition can be very persuasive.

 

“There is an old adage which says ‘For evil to triumph, good men need only do nothing.” This can also be stated in this way – For evil ideas to prevail, good men need only to remain silent.”

 

“Fortunately, good men and women of the Stanford community did not remain silent, and the purveyors of evil ideas have been exposed at the University.

“Unfortunately, some of these purveyors of evil ideas have moved into your high schools and it is high time for at least a few good men and women in Palo Alto to speak out.

 

“And nowhere, during the past three years, have the assaults been more vicious and less deserved than in the campaigns against the military profession. The fate of the ROTC and the recruiting officers on many of our most prestigious university campuses, including Stanford, is one unfortunate result of this anti-military campaign.

 

“Because I’ve had the opportunity, over the past three years, to become acquainted with a good many professional soldiers, I’d like to use my remaining time to speak out on their behalf.

 

“I’ll start at the top with the Joint chiefs of Staff. They are not only outstanding American citizens – professionals of the highest ability – but at the same time knowledgeable about, and sensitive to, the problems of our society.

 

“As I worked with the men and women in the Defense Department over these three years, I became greatly impressed with the high caliber of people who serve their nation in defense. I worked closely with the Joint Chiefs, the other top officers in each Service, and I had many occasions to visit with men and women in units large and small all over the world. You will find no more capable, dedicated, fine American men and women in any business organization, any city or county government, and school or University, than you will find in American military units and bases wherever they may be. This country can be proud of the military people who provide its security. It has been especially disturbing to me to witness the bitter, often vicious, criticism of the military in the press, on TV, in many of our more liberal universities, and even by Congressmen – who, of all people, should know better. I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve criticism for the policy – it was dictated and completely directed from 1964 on by the civilians in the Administration and in the Department at that time. The officers and servicemen and women in the Army, the Navy, the Air force, and Marines simply did what they were asked to do. They were asked to do an almost impossible job, and they did it well.

 

We asked our military people in the spring of 1969 to reorient the emphasis to Vietnamization – to help the South Vietnamese develop their own defense capability so American forces could come home. The Vietnamization policy has been successful beyond everyone’s expectation – most of our forces, over 400,000 have been brought home – South Vietnam can now defend itself from the Communist invaders without help from American forces. When the emotion on this issue dies down this will be recognized as a great accomplishment by American military people.

 

“One point that is often overlooked is that the role of our military services has not been just to defend America. It has also been to develop America. One of the earliest examples of this is the part the Army played in the western movement in American history – in winning of the West.

 

“One of the most exciting things I was able to do while I was in the pentagon was to encourage a renewal of involvement by military people in attacking some of the serious social problems of America. Early in 1969 Secretary Laird and I set forth a statement of Human Goals for the Defense Department. These goals were stated as follows:

 

“To attract to the defense service people with ability, dedication, and capacity for growth;

 

“To provide opportunity for every one, military and civilian, to rise to as high a level of responsibility as his talent and diligence will take him;

 

”To make military and civilian service in the Department of defense a model of equal opportunity for all regardless of race or creed or national origin, and to hold those who do business with the Department to full compliance with the policy of equal employment opportunity;

 

“To help each serviceman at the end of his service in his adjustment to civilian life; and to contribute to the improvement of our society, including its disadvantaged members, by greater utilization of our human and physical resources while maintaining full effectiveness in the performance of our primary mission.

 

“Let me cite the results of just two examples of the application of these Human Goals to defense affairs.

 

“We established a Domestic Action Program to provide a substantial portion of jobs for disadvantaged [youths]. In 1971 the Department hired 46,000 young people, 76% of whom were disadvantaged youths.

 

“In addition, we asked every military base and every military activity in the country to use their resources to support educational, recreational, and cultural programs for disadvantaged youths. Over 2.4 million young people participated in these programs across the country last year. In 1969, the year I came to the Department, there were only 250,000 young people involved. I am kind of proud that ten times as may youngsters had a better summer in 1971 than in 1969 because of what we could do in the Defense Department. This was possible only because the professional military people made the program work.

 

“People all over the country including you people in Palo Alto are being exposed to a largely distorted story about many aspects of your government – in particular about the military – about the fine men and women in the Defense Department who make it possible for you to sleep safely and soundly in your homes, and who make other important contributions to the quality of life in America, your country. Don’t let them down,

 

“Mrs. Packard and I are pleased to be back in this great community, and I am deeply grateful for this award. Thank you very much.”

 

3/8/72, Pages from the Congressional Record, placed there by Rep. Charles Gubser, containing the prepared text of Packard’s comments

1/20/72, Letter to Packard from Richard B. Kluzek of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, discussing the Award ceremony.

2/7/72, Letter to Packard from Wayne Miller saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner, but congratulating Packard for the fine job in Washington.

2/14/72, Letter to Packard from Lyle M. Nelson saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner, but saying he feels Packard has done a great job for the community and for Stanford.

2/18/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Pettit sending regrets.

2/22/72, Letter to Packard from William E. Kratt, saying he cannot make the award dinner, but adding that he is grateful for Packard’s “friendship and kindnesses” in the past.

3/1/72,   Handwritten note from Lee and Evelyn Webel saying “our country is very fortunate to have a citizen like you.”

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from Kathleen and Merrill Vanderpool  saying they will be unable to attend the dinner.

3/2/72, Letter form Oleg Sherby and G. M. Pound, Stanford Professors, saying they concur with his remarks at the PACC dinner, and adding that they agree with the actions taken against some of the hate mongers at Stanford

3/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to James Zurcher, Palo Alto Chief of Police, thanking members of the Police Department for conducting Lu and he to Rickey’s, and for their “control of events”

3/13/72, Letter to Margaret Paull from Ralph Rogers, United California Bank, thanking her for her assistance in preparations for the award dinner

2/2/72, Copy of a clipping from the Stanford Daily with an article about the bomb placed at Professor Dornbusch’s house.

2/10/72, Copy of large “ad” from the Stanford Daily signed by many members of the Academic Council, denouncing the personal attacks on members of the Advisory Board, and offering a reward for apprehension of the those responsible for placing a bomb at a Professor Sandy Dornbusch’s house.

2/21/72, Complete copy of the “newspaper” Pamoja Venceremos, discussing events as they see them.

3/1/72, Copy of clipping from the San Jose Mercury covering events at the award dinner.

3/1/72, Copy of page from the Stanford Daily describing events at the dinner, with disruptions both inside and outside Rickeys

3/3/72, Copy of newsclip from the Stanford Daily containing an anti-Packard article written by a student, Don Zweig.. Also attached is a copy of a typewritten letter to the editor from an Al Kirkman (?) effectively rebutting Zweig

 

 

Box 3, Folder 17 – General Speeches

 

March 6, 1972, Toward a Generation of Peace – Bohemian Club

 

Packard was newly returned from his assignment with the Department of Defense.

 

3/6/72, Packard’s  notes  which are handwritten on 3×5” cards and are brief and in outline form

 

Packard says he worked very closely with the President on foreign policy toward a generation of peace.

 

“1968 – a major turning point: Viet Nam a symbol, but not only cause  – burning in streets, universities in shambles, 549,000 in Viet Nam &n no plan

 

“Real Cause

Two decades of  [?]

US 9.5% of GNP

UK 5.6%, West Germany 2.9%, Japan 1%

USSR about the same as US and continues

 

“US share of GNP:

40% in 1950, Japan 1.5%

30% in 1970, Japan 6.2%

 

“US Reserves

50% in 1950 – 10% in 1970

“Vast sums for aid, inflation at home

 

”Real progress from era of confrontation to era of negotiation

Reduced defense, from 9.5% of GNP to 6.5%

 

“Negotiations: SALT, Seabeds, Berlin, China

 

“Partnerships

More NATO support

Korea

Japan

Viet Nam

 

“Two courses for Viet Nam

Surrender

Vietnamization

 

“South Viet Nam can now defend itself

 

“Will not turn South Viet Nam over to criminals

 

“President Nixon has provided great leadership. I left for personal reasons, I am going to do whatever I can to keep him in office.

 

Undated, note to Packard from Margaret Paull saying the Bohemian Club would like him to confirm speaking date

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 18 – General speeches

 

March 9, 1972,  Acceptance Speech, James Forrestal Memorial Award, NSIA, Washington D.C.

 

3/9/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with some  handwritten notations by Packard.

 

Saying that he had given considerable thought as to what he might say and he ticks off several subjects that crossed his mind: the vast buildup of the Soviet Union, the FY-73 budget, the virtues of the military-industrial complex – but sets these aside as things he has talked about many times.

 

Going on with his review of possible subjects he, rather tongue in cheek, says he “could tell you how the defense industries always complete their jobs on time — meet the specs – and control their costs….

 

“Or, I could talk about the marvelous spirit of cooperation among the Services – how the Army  was always willing to give up some more men so the Air Force could have more planes and the Navy more ships.”  Continuing in this vein with similar comments he gets to the more serious comments he wants to make.

 

He recalls that “National Defense was not in high repute while I was in the Pentagon….In many respects these were traumatic years for one who has faith in the future of his country. They were traumatic when some members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, took great delight in seizing on any fact or figure which could be used…to discredit the military and all those who supported the Defense Department.

 

“They were traumatic when scientists used their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs – particularly the all-important strategic nuclear programs upon which the security, in fact the very survival, of our country depends.

 

“They were traumatic when former friends in distinguished universities supported ideologies contrary to the democratic concepts of this great nation.

 

“They were traumatic when distinguished members of the news media were, in their reporting, sometimes more favorable to Hanoi, or to Russia, or even toward India than to their own country.

 

“This great nation of ours was indeed in a state of shock in 1968 and in the spring of 1969 when I came to Washington. There was rioting and burning in the streets. Some of our great universities were in shambles. Inflation was rampant and had already eaten away at the economic progress of the previous decade. We had 540,000 men and women in Vietnam, and no plan to bring them home – no course to end U.S. involvement in Indochina other than unconditional surrender at the negotiating table in Paris.”

 

Having had the time for some reflection on the events of this era, Packard says “…it has become evident to me there is nothing so unusual about this period if it is viewed in the long course of history. Our great country had, to a large degree, lost its commitment to a common goal – to a unifying purpose that is so necessary to keep people working together, whether it be in small organizations within the society, or whether it be as a nation.” Without this “common goal”, Packard says “nations decline, decay and eventual death starts….It makes no difference that we had the most powerful military establishment in the history of the world…or the  largest and most efficient research and development capability. It is not what a nation is, but what it wants to be that determines its future.”

 

Packard says he has been very troubled by the divisive nature of the debate as to what our nation’s future goals should be. He sees a “serious lack of understanding of what kind of goals will sustain the vitality of our country in the future. Senator Fulbright is pushing for a fortress Arkansas policy for our future foreign policy. Senator church would prefer that it be fortress Idaho. I can think of no better way to assure the demise of America to the status of a second rate world power by the decade of the 1980s than to follow this line of thinking.

 

“Fortunately, new and exciting goals for America have been established during these past three years under the leadership of President Nixon. I am very proud to have had at least some small part in helping to develop this new and exciting course for our future foreign policy. This new direction has already excited the imagination of the American people, and set the stage for the commitment and purpose which is so necessary if our country is to maintain its position of world leadership into the decade of the 1980s and beyond.”

 

“There is no need to defend the President’s leadership during these three years. Just look at the facts. Peaceful and legal protest has largely replaced rioting and burning in the streets. The great universities and colleges are back in the business of education. More than 400,000 of our servicemen and women have been brought home from Vietnam. U.S. casualties have been reduced nearly a hundred-fold. Our military units that remain are all but out of ground combat, and substantial reductions have been made in air combat activity. The South Vietnamese are now able to defend their country from the Communist invaders, and North Vietnam has no hope whatever of a military victory.

 

“American self confidence at home and American leadership abroad are again on a rising course.”

 

“Whether American will move forward to the challenge of leadership in the decades ahead will depend on what the people of our great nation perceive their role to be….it is well to remember that the desires and commitments of the American people, and the institutions to which they belong will determine the eventual course and outline of history.

 

Packard says the Defense Department reflects the attitude of the nation. If the nation is not united in its goals then the Defense Department will not be strong and effective.

 

“When we came to the Department in 1969, people were not working together effectively. James Forrestal, when he became the first Secretary of Defense, tackled a momentous job. He had the great vision that our military strength would be enhanced under a unified Department.

 

“However, unification is easier said than done. There are strong diverse forces in and around the Department of Defense. It is hard work to keep them headed in a common direction in times of peace. When Secretary Laird and I took on this job in 1969, that was our most important goal. I believe we succeeded to some degree in bringing these diverse forces more nearly together.”

 

Packard says “This country can be proud of the military people who provide its security. It has been especially disturbing to me to witness the bitter, often vicious, criticism of the military in the press, on TV, in many of our more liberal universities, and even by some elected public officials – who, of all people, should know better. I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve criticism for the policy – it was dictated and completely directed from the very beginning by the civilians in the Administration and in the Department at that time. The officers and other servicemen and women in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and Marines simply did what they were asked to do. They were asked to do an almost impossible job, and they did it well.”

 

“The Department’s first and foremost commitment is to the security, the strength, and the world leadership of the United States. This commitment comes before any well-intentioned individual loyalty to the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Marines.”

 

“As I indicated earlier, while some progress has been made, there are still those – both in the Defense Department, and in industry – who have not accepted the larger commitment.

 

“Within the Defense Department, for example, there continues to be a degree of competition between the Services – and frequently between parts of a Service – that is unacceptable because it is inconsistent with the common commitment. Some competition is healthy, but not when it begins to affect such major matters as funding, missions, and roles. Jealousies and in-fighting will only serve to drain our nation’s energies.

 

“In the same vein, I am not much impressed by what I have seen in the attitudes of some of our great corporations in the so-called military industrial complex. You are, of course, aware of the problems we have had with the C-5A, the Mark 48, and other programs which have had much publicity. In many ways, the problems are deeper than they appear to be.

 

“I visited one plant last year that was running a year behind its project schedule. After a couple of hours it was apparent the company knew on the day it signed the contract it would be at least a year off schedule. I asked the manager why he offered to do the job in one year less than was possible. The essence of his reply was – yes, we knew we could not meet the terms of the contract, but there was no way to get the contract if we told the truth.

 

“One serious impediment to good defense management is that defense contractors can appeal directly to the Congress. On one occasion, about two years ago, a company tried to reverse a decision I had made by appealing to one of our Congressional committees. The company’s recommendation was purely one of self-interest and it was wrong. The company knew it, and I knew it, and so I called the management of the company and told them so.

 

“What is the solution? We are going to have to stop this problem of people playing games with each other. Games that will destroy us, if we do not bring them to a halt.

 

“Let’s take the case of the F-14. The only sensible course is to hold the contractor [see also Undated UP news release at end of the text of this speech which names Grumman as the contractor in question]  to his contract. Although some companies may be forced to suffer financially because of this concept, it will not be a major disaster to the country. It will be a very major disaster to the country if we cannot get the military industrial complex to play the game straight. Until and unless we can stop this attitude, we are going to continue to waste the taxpayer’s dollars – [and] get less defense for the dollars we spend.

 

“Quite simply. It means the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines must put the welfare of America ahead of the welfare of their respective Service, in peacetime as well as in war. It means the great industrial corporations that forge the seams of our military strength must put the long term gains of America ahead of the short term gains of their respective organizations. It means that Congress should address America’ security policy, stay out of day-to-day administrative problems, and discourage game-playing between the Services and the business community.”

 

“The critics will say – yes, we agree, but power does not necessarily mean military power. There is economic power, the power of moral persuasion, the power of ideas – power beyond that which comes from the barrel of a gun.

 

“We all want to believe this, but the record is not all that persuasive. If there is a case to be made, it is that a united commitment, whether or not backed with military force, is the most commanding factor available to influence the course of human events.

 

“Only if all of us – in Congress, in the Administration, and in the private sector – rise above our  personal biases and our personal interests, will the future course of America and the well-being of the world be secure.

 

“Only if all of us – particularly those who are charged with, or who have the opportunity for leadership -–wipe this blurring film of self-interest from our eyes, will we be able to see the sharply defined images of opportunity and accomplishment that await us in the future.

 

“I have had the opportunity to get acquainted with many fine people in the Services, in the Department , in industry, and in the Congress during my three years in Washington. I know from first-hand experience that you who shoulder the responsibility for the defense of our country have the desire and the ability to do the best possible job. I know we made great progress in working together better. I know that you will carry on with your efforts of working together. As you do, you will demonstrate convincingly to the critics that you have the welfare of the country as your first priority  — and that you deserve their wholehearted support and confidence.

 

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

 

3/9/72, Printed program for the NSIA Forrestal Memorial Award Dinner.

12/17/71, Copy of a letter from Packard to Admiral J. M. Lyle saying he would be honored to accept the 1971 Forrestal Memorial Award

12/20/71, Copy of NSIA press release announcing that Packard will be the recipient of the 1971 James Forrestal Award

12/29/71, Letter to Packard from Edwin H. Gott congratulating him on being named the recipient of the 1971 Forrestal Award

1/4/72, Letter to Packard from Robert B. Chapman III, Chairman of the NSIA Forrestal Award Committee, congratulating Packard and offering assistance in preparing his address.

1/7/72, Letter to Robert B. Chapman III from Packard thanking him for his note of 1/4/72

1/10/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle enclosing [not here] the announcement of the Award to NSIA members

1/21/72, Letter to Margaret M. Paull [Packard’s secretary] enclosing information about the award dinner and about NSIA

1/28/72, Letter to Packard from Mansfield Sprague, VP AMF Co., saying he would like to meet with Packard for a half hour or so on 3/9 or 3/10 to discuss how defense procurement might be improved.

2/2/72,  Copy of letter to J. M. Lyle from Louris Norstad, Chairman of the Board, Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp., saying he will be unable to attend the Award Dinner for Packard.

2/8/72, Letter to Margaret Paull from J. M. Lyle inviting her to the Award Dinner.

2/18/72, Letter to Packard from Charles F. Adams, Chairman of the Board, Raytheon Co.,

saying “If ever a man deserved this award to the full it is you…Your grasp of the problems involved, your dedication in the job, and the wisdom of your judgments evoked the admiration of all concerned. We already have reason to miss you.”

2/25/72, Letter to Packard from Spencer J. Schedler,  Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, saying he will not be able to attend the Award Dinner, but offering his congratulations

2/29/72, Letter to Packard from Under Secretary of Transportation James M. Beggs, sending regrets and congratulations

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle discussing details of the forthcoming dinner and offering congratulations on Packard’s participation at the NSIA Prototyping Seminar on Feb. 23, 1972; [see coverage of this speech above]

3/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Mel Laird, Secretary of Defense, sending an advance copy of the speech he plans to give at the Forrestal Award Dinner, asking for any comments Laird may have

3/10/72, Letter to Packard from Donald B. Rice, Assistant Director, Office of Management and Budget saying he had attended the dinner and congratulating Packard on the Award, and saying his speech was a “masterpiece”

3/10/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from W. F. “Red” Raborn, apologizing “for interrupting your dinner with some of my personal views on how to improve the Defense Department”

3/10/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle thanking him for “a memorable evening,” and saying the NSIA has received “a flood of enthusiastic approval from our members and guests, and many requests for copies”

3/12/72, Letter to Packard from Peter N. Sherrill,  requesting a copy of Packard’s address

3/23/72, Letter to Packard from Harvey M. Sapolsky, University of Michigan, asking for a copy of his speech

3/28/72, Letter to Packard from Samuel A. Scharff, asking for a copy of his speech

4/20/72, Letter to Packard from F. A. Long, Cornell University, asking for a copy of his speech

4/26/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle inviting Packard to attend a ceremony presenting a bust of James Forrestal to the government for the new James Forrestal Building in Washington.

4/29/72, Copy of letter to J. M. Lyle saying he will be unable to attend the presentation of the bust of Forrestal

6/29/72, Letter from Richard L. Garvin asking for a copy of Packard’s Forrestal Award speech

Undated UP news release, covers Packard’s Forrestal speech and adds this comment, :  “Packard had special criticism for Grumman Aerospace Corp., which says it will not honor future Navy options to order more F 14 fighters unless the contract is rewritten to provide more money.” UP adds this quote from Packard’s speech: “The only sensible course is to hold the contractor to his contract. Although some companies may be forced to suffer financially because of this concept, it will not be a major disaster to the country It will be a very major disaster to the country if we cannot get the military industrial complex to play game straight.”

3/10/72, Clipping from Washing D. C. Evening Star, covering the speech

Dec./Jan. Issue of NSIA News covering the Forrestal Award with Biographical information about Packard

Mar./April Issue of NSIA News which includes some photos of the Award ceremony and background on the Award itself

 

1/22/73, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle inviting Packard to the Forrestal Award Dinner on March 15, 1973, where the 1972 Award will be given to James S. McDonnell

2/5/73, Copy of letter from Packard to J. M. Lyle sending regrets

 

 

Box 3, Folder 19 – General Speeches

 

March 13, 1972, Fremont Republican Assembly, Fremont CA

 

3/13/72, There are two almost identical drafts of a speech for Packard to use in Fremont. However, Packard has attached a note to one saying “I did not use this last night, but instead talked off the cuff.” The draft doesn’t sound like a typical Packard speech, and perhaps was written by a staff person at HP. Since there was no transcript of what he actually said, the description of his comments below is based on a report in the News-Register newspaper.

 

3/14/72,  Article in Tri-City newspaper News-Register covered Packard’s speech and the following is based on their article.

 

Packard referred to this as his “first political speech ever made,” adding that “There are a few facts about politics which I am gradually learning, and one of them is that you people in this community have a very big political wallop.”

 

The newspaper  says “Packard took issue with reports that the President may have an easy time winning re-election. He labeled California as a key state in Nixon’s bid for a second term”

 

The newspaper says “Packard itemized what he viewed as the achievements of the Nixon administration’s four years in  power. Packard said President Nixon has made the world safer and the United States more secure through a combination of ‘negotiation, partnership and strength.’

 

Packard predicted, the article says, that the important Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) now underway between the U. S. and Russia will soon reach a preliminary agreement.

 

Packard clarified, the paper reports, that a prime objective in the talks has been to maintain a ‘realistic and effective nuclear deterrent.’

 

On the policy of strength, the paper quotes Packard saying “It is not possible to negotiate with communist nations except from a position of strength…The ABM system has been a strong bargaining card in the SALT talks. If the MIRV [Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle] program had [not]been adopted we would not have a creditable nuclear deterrent today.”

 

On partnership, the paper says Packard said Vietnamization has allowed 400,000 United States military personnel to return home; and they quote Packard as saying the North Vietnamese have been unsuccessful because “they will stop talking only if the president agrees to turn South Vietnam over to them.”

 

The paper says Packard also said that defense spending amounted to 9.5 percent of gross national product in 1968, compared to 6.5 percent in 1972.

 

2/16/72, Note to Packard from Dick Arey saying that “the Fremont Republican Assembly would be honored to sponsor a talk by you in March,” and discussing scheduling.

3/6/72, Clipping from the Fremont News-Register speaking of Packard’s forthcoming talk to the Fremont Republican Assembly”

3/6/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mr. and Mrs. Warren Townsend inviting them to dinner to discuss campaign plans.

3/15/72, Copy of a letter to Ralph Fairchild, Editor, The Argus newspaper correcting their quote of Packard saying Senator Henry Jackson tried to stop the ABM system. Packard says he actually said “the Democratic Senators who are candidates with the exception of Senator Jackson tried to stop the ABM and the MIRV programs”

3/15/72, Letter to Packard from Kenneth Castle of the Argus enclosing a clipping correcting the statement

Undated Two papers of notes on background information about the California Republican Assembly and the Fremont area.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 20 – General Speeches

 

March 16, 1972, Accepting the Federal City Club’s Award for Very Distinguished Public Service, Washington D.C.

 

3/16/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with notations by him

 

Packard draws on the writings of Walter Lippman and Plato to the effect that “we human beings frequently act not upon substance but upon shadow, not on the basis of things as they really are, but on the basis of …‘The pictures in our heads.’

 

“Mr. Lippman spoke further of ‘The triangular relationship between the scene of action, the human picture of that scene and the Human response to that picture working itself out upon the scene of action.’

 

“What Walter Lippman visualized with his triangular image, is that when the pictures in our heads become distorted, those distortions  — because we act on them – also infect the reality of the situation. Thus when distortions occur it is important not to waste time wasting blame, but to correct them as quickly as possible before they multiply.

 

“And that is partly what I shall attempt to do this evening,. When I came to Washington, the military increasingly was being portrayed as incompetent and uncontrollable, inefficient and wasteful. Those with an anti-military disposition delighted in quoting a great former general, Dwight Eisenhower, usually out of context, on the dangers of the so-called ‘military-industrial complex’. We heard time and again that our historic tradition of civilian supremacy was in grave jeopardy.”

 

With this background Packard says he wants to review some subjects that fell within his area of responsibility as Deputy Secretary of Defense – starting with management.

“Many people have asked did I enjoy the job, and as many of you know, my answer to that question was I found it very interesting. It was difficult in the sense that there was a great deal to be done, and you felt a  considerable sense of responsibility on your shoulders – which in fact there was.”

 

Packard says, in terms of day-to-day management there was not much difference from management in business – except with the magnitude of the problems and the sums involved. “The same basic management principles that work well in a business organization seemed to work well in the Defense Department, and there is, of course, no reason why they shouldn’t. One of the things I liked best about the job was working with the military. You cannot help but be very impressed with the great dedication of all of the men and women in uniform – and there is something kind of impressive about military discipline. When you are in the chain of command, as I was, and you tell somebody to get something done, it gets done and it gets done well.

 

“The military discipline showed up most effectively and in a most important way during these past three years in the implementation of our Vietnamization program.

Secretary Laird, after his first visit to Vietnam, made Vietnamization the first priority. His instructions were that all commanders were to do everything possible to help the South Vietnamese military build their own capability to do the job. The second priority was to achieve pacification of the countryside, and help the people of South Vietnam start rebuilding their country. The third priority was to fight the enemy. Those were the orders that were followed to the letter from that time on, and I am convinced that when all of the current fussing is over and this period is seen in the right perspective, this Vietnamization program will be recorded as one of the great accomplishments of our men and women in uniform. The picture of the Vietnamization operation has, of course, been distorted by the great emotional furor over the war, by the My Lai trials and by many other problems of this period. But I continually marveled as Mel and I made recommendations of additional things that ought to be done, these were carried out with the greatest precision and efficiency. A clear case I believe where the picture is different from the reality.”

 

Packard points to the Military Airlift Command and the Corps of Engineers  as due particular praise, saying there are many other good examples.

 

“The area, of course, where the services received the most criticism during these past three years was in their management of the development and procurement of major weapons systems. Much of the criticism was justified. I speculated then and since on why the services did such a poor job in handling major procurement programs when they could do such a superb job in other areas. I think we assessed this matter correctly, at least as far as one major factor is concerned, when we concluded that none of the services really considered the development and procurement of major weapon systems to be a recognized profession in the military organization. We directed a number of steps, including training, selection, and recognition of people for these key jobs. We established a new school in this profession. All of these steps I think are in the right direction, but until and unless all three services recognize this job to be as important as commanding a field army or an aircraft carrier, we will continue to be plagued with poor performance.”

 

Packard says civilian involvement in the military can be a problem too. “We must have civilians making overall policy decisions, such as Vietnamization. When it comes, however, to considering specific military actions from Washington – which targets to bomb, what specific constraints are to be put on the forces involved – this kind of civilian involvement in detail military activities tends to be…counter-productive. There is a parallel in the civilian involvement in other cases, particularly this matter of major weapon system development and procurement. The Services have the responsibility for the management of these programs, and for the civilians in the secretary’s office to get involved in any detail is counter-productive. During the last decade there was an increase in involvement of civilians, particularly the Systems Analysis office, but also DDR&E [?] and other offices, in the day-to-day details of these programs. It is hard to find a case where such involvement did not make matters worse rather than better. This kind of involvement violates a basic management principle that is known and applied wherever good management is desired. That principle says: give the manager the responsibility and the authority to do the job, make sure he understands what is expected, and if he can’t get the job done, don’t try to do it for him, but find someone else who can. I was continually amazed to find that this principle was fully accepted by the services in their main mission – that of military operations – yet failed to be accepted in those other areas of great importance that supported this prime mission.

 

“There was also the question of Congressional involvement in the details of these major weapons systems development and procurement programs, as well as in military construction and base operations. No representative of the Congress, for example, would think of telling a field commander how many tanks, how many guns, how many helicopters he should have for a particular military operation. Yet there are self-styled experts  in the Congress on almost every major procurement program. People who know, for example, that the F-14 is not the right kind of an airplane for an aircraft carrier. Or, that the main battle tank is no good, or that the Cheyenne helicopter should not be procured because it can not survive in a hostile environment.

 

“There is a parallel situation in determining how far civilians in the office of the Secretary, in the office of the Bureau of the Budget, and in the General Accounting Office can make useful contributions to some of these kinds of details. I could sometimes say what was on my mind to these fellows. Every time I have gone through this issue to think about what might be done to improve performance, I always arrived back at the same answer: Professional competence in the military services must be developed to manage these major weapon systems procurement programs and we must get as many of the Monday morning quarterbacks as possible out of the game. There just is no other way.

 

“Going back to Mr. Lippmam’s theme of the triangular relationship between the scene of action, the human picture of that scene and to the human response acting on the scene, there are many cases where the human picture is substantially different from the reality of the scene. It may be the human picture held by the public – the human picture held by the Congress – or even by people within the department. Defense issues are complex as well as immensely important. The closer the human picture can be brought to the reality of the scene the better the human response will be. More professionalism and less interference by amateurs will help. Those of you who influence public opinion can also help to the extent you are able to keep the human picture close to the reality of the scene.

 

“ Let me repeat –

 

“I am greatly honored to receive this award tonight. Thank you all very much.”

 

12/13/71, Handwritten letter to Packard from Charles Bartlett, a Washington newsman,  suggesting Packard meet with several newsmen sometime in January

12/15/71, Copy of letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett saying he is going to California for the Christmas holidays and will contact Bartlett when he gets back

12/15/71, Note from Margaret Paull to Dan Henkin sending him a copy of Bartlett’s letter and saying Packard would be interested in what he thought of Bartlett’s suggestion that Packard meet with some newsmen

12/17/71, Memorandum from Daniel Z. Henkin to Packard saying recommending he not meet with the newsmen as Bartlett suggested

1/5/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett, Declining the opportunity to meet with Bartlett and other newsmen.

2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Charles Bartlett saying he is pleased that Packard can be present on March 16 to receive the award for Distinguished Public Service from the Federal City Club

2/10/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett confirming the date and time for the Federal City Club award

3/16/72, Copy of the program for The Federal City Club award dinner.

3/20/72, Copy of memorandum from Packard to Charles Bartlett saying he and Mrs. Packard enjoyed to Award Dinner

3/22/72, Letter to Packard from Senator Stuart Symington asking for a copy of Packard’s speech at the Federal City Club

 

 

Box 3, Folder 21 – General Speeches

 

March 24, 1972, Our New Foreign Policy for a Generation of Peace, San Jose Chamber of Commerce, San Jose CA

 

3/24/72,  Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with some handwritten notations by him

 

Contrasting San Jose, where “economic and social change can be measured over a fairly short period of time,” Packard feels, as far as foreign policy goes, “we are at an historical vantage point – an illuminated intersection from which we can look both backward and forward.”

 

Packard explains that, even though he was in the Defense Department “my job, in addition to being involved in the day-to-day management problems [of the Defense Department], was to plan for the military forces required for the future. American military forces have two responsibilities. First, they must provide for the security and safety of our country, and this includes the important function of our strategic nuclear forces. Second, they must support American foreign policy and American interests around the world.”

 

Packard says he spent nearly half his time in Washington helping to develop the President’s “exciting” new foreign policy.

 

Taking a backward look at American foreign policy from World War II to the beginning of 1969 Packard says that “By 1968 the traumatic condition of our country – violence in our universities, bitter dissent throughout society, and uncontrolled inflation – was to a very large degree testimony to the underlying failure of American foreign policy in the decade of the 1960s. That policy which had served us and the world so well from 1947 until 1960 was continued in the following decade and had nearly destroyed the country by 1969.”

 

Packard says that President Nixon, who took office in 1969, found it essential to find a new path. “The developments during the three years I was in Washington have provided our country with a new path – a path which will lead us from an era of Confrontation to an era of Negotiation: a path which, as President Nixon has said, will lead the world to a full generation of peace.”

 

Packard describes the “Theory of Containment” designed to hold back Communist Aggression. This was implemented via “The Truman Doctrine” and, in 1947, helped “preserve the governments of Greece and Turkey against the assaults of Communist-led or Communist-inspired revolutionaries.”

 

Packard also tells how the theory “was applied against North Korea and Communist China, between 1950 and 1954, with the help of the United Nations. It produced such alliance systems as NATO in Western Europe, SEATO in southeast Asia and CENTO in the Middle East. The policy of containment reached a peak of drama and danger during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. This was a confrontation in the most deadly sense and only because we had a great superiority of strategic nuclear weapons did the Soviets back down.

 

“In the early stages of the post-war period, America had the resources to be the dominant military and economic power in the world. In 1950 the U.S. had 40% of the world’s GNP,  produced 76% of the world’s motor vehicles and 48% of the world’s steel….This dominant economic position enabled us to support in the 1950’s a defense establishment adequate to protect the entire free world.

 

“Prior to Korea we spent 5.6% of our GNP on defense. In perspective, this was too little, for the North Koreans misjudged our will and attacked the South. For this error in judgment about the need for strength in world affairs, we paid dearly. We had to commit men and resources to Korea, which in addition to the tragic human toll, brought our defense budget up to 13% of our GNP Along with the massive foreign aid we were providing, the cost of the war began to draw down our economic strength.

 

“By 1960 there had been a considerable stabilization in most areas where interests of the free world were involved. Most of our friends and allies, including former enemies, had largely recovered from the devastation of World War II and were in fact competing with America for world markets and economic gains.

 

“At the same time our continued outlays for defense and foreign aid were beginning to be a serious drain on our economy. The drain continued to increase – statistics tell this story more dramatically than could any amount of rhetoric. Let’s look at a couple of key industries. In 1950, we produced 76 percent of motor vehicles; in 1970, 31 percent. In 1950 we produced 46 percent of the world’s steel, in 1970, 20 percent. As recently as 1967 we produced more steel than the total European community. Today we produce less steel than Europe and less than the Soviet Union….We had simply given away so much and spent so much on defense that we were nearly bankrupt.”

 

“This overall deterioration of our world economic standing was felt, naturally enough, in our international trade position. In the early 1960’s we maintained a trade surplus of more than $5 billion annually. By 1968 the surplus was down to $1 billion….”

 

“As I joined Mel Laird in the Defense Department in January of 1969, our most important job was to help develop a new course which would bring our commitments in line with our resources, both domestically and internationally. World-wide military commitments had placed an unacceptable demand on our resources. And these had to be brought in line with our real national interests. Domestic problems needed a larger share of federal resources and, in a very real sense a reorientation of this country’s priorities was of the highest urgency.”

 

“I had the good fortune to be personally involved in the studies which were undertaken to assess what changes might be appropriate. This assessment considered what federal resources were likely to be available for all of our national goals, and how these resources might appropriately be reallocated between defense and the nation’s other priorities”

Packard describes “The Nixon Doctrine” which emerged from the study of national priorities: “First, the President said we will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or to our allies.”

 

“The President also said that we will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves. This simply says that in the future we will not take the full responsibility for the security of all our friends around the world. They should take a larger share of this load. The President also said we will honor all of our treaty commitments; we will act to defend our interests whenever or wherever they are threatened – but where our interests are not involved, our role will be limited. We will not intervene militarily.

 

“The cornerstones of the Nixon doctrine in foreign policy are negotiation, partnership and strength.”

 

To illustrate the progress made in negotiation Packard points to agreements with the Soviet Union on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on seabeds.  He adds that negotiations are taking place in the Middle East and in Indochina.

 

“Partnership is vital to the Nixon Doctrine because, as we call upon our allies to bear a larger share of the common defense, we must naturally expect them to want a larger voice in formulating  policy.

 

The most important pillar of the Nixon Doctrine, Packard says, is strength. Important, he says,  because a nation can only negotiate successfully and keep strong partners from a position of strength. Without military strength our enemies would hold us in contempt and our allies would desert us.”

 

Packard describes how they used the principles of the Nixon Doctrine to develop military force planning and prepared the defense budgets. “These budgets were prepared to provide forces to support the President’s new foreign policy – to assure that our nuclear forces were adequate for the security and safety of our country and our conventional forces were adequate to support the President’s new foreign policy.”

 

Packard outlines how  the military forces have been changed since 1968. “In 1968 our defense forces included 3.5 million military personnel and 1.3 million civilians. In 1972, we had reduced these forces to 2.4 military personnel and1.0 million civilians.

 

“At the same time that we were making these personnel cuts, we were also moving towards an inherently more expensive all-volunteer armed forces. As a result, the overall military pay bill has gone up even as forces have been reduced.”

 

“In 1968 a 3.5 million man force cost $20 billion for pay and personnel costs; in 1972, a 2.4 million man force is costing nearly $24 billion.

 

“As we addressed the problems of the future with lower levels of manpower, we reached the obvious conclusion. America cannot afford to gamble on the future with lower military force levels and also inferior weapons. We accordingly requested and obtained a higher R&D budget in 1972. R&D was about $7 billion in 1971; it will be $7.7 billion in 1972; and we have requested $8.5 billion for fiscal year 1973.”

 

Packard compares trends in spending, looking at defense vs. other areas:  “In the period 1964-1968 defense increased $27 billion, other federal spending increased $34 billion, and state and local, $33 billion. In the period 1969-1973, expressed in constant dollars, defense declined $32 billion; other federal spending increased $35 billion; and state and local spending increased $43 billion.”

 

Packard also gives some figures on the effect of Defense Department budget reductions on the overall economy. “In 1968 Defense took 9.5 percent of this nation’s GNP. The 1973 budget will take only 6.5 percent – the lowest drain on the economy in twenty years….The GNP should grow to 1 trillion 200 billion next year at the end of fiscal 1973. In these terms the reductions that have been made will be a drain on our resources of 36 billion dollars less in 1973 than in 1968. This is the real measure of the substantial reduction that has been made.”

 

Packard says he understands these reductions have had a serious impact on the economy of many sections of the country, including Santa Clara County. He tells his audience, however, that the downtrend is over and expenses will be level to slightly rising in the future. He says he is “convinced the actions we have taken will be positive and beneficial to America and the world – and also Santa Clara County – in the long run.

 

[At this point the text refers to an “optional” McGovern insert.] This insert reads as follows:

 

“Let me say parenthetically this is assuming the President is re-elected. If McGovern should happen to be elected, the economic problems you have experienced here in the last three years would seem mild indeed. He proposed to reduce the defense budget by $30 billion,. That would cost the defense industry three million jobs, twice the reduction there has been here since 1969. His proposed defense forces would also leave this country wide open to a nuclear attack by the Soviets.”

 

Continuing with the regular text, Packard says “In conclusion, I would like to say that the past three years I have spent in Washington have been an exciting experience; for the insights I have gained into how the process of government functions at the highest level, but much more important, for the chance I have had to watch the activity of a great man, Richard Nixon, and the way in which he has taken hold of the helm of our nation at a crucial time and guided us through the turbulence of a basic reorientation of our national objectives. When historians view our period three or four decades down the road, it is my firm conviction that the past three years will be viewed as a turning point in our nation’s history.”

 

2/9/72, Letter to Packard from Fred La Cosse, inviting him to speak to the Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Mar. 24.

2/23/72, Copy of letter to Fred La Cosse from Packard accepting the invitation.

2/29/72, Letter to Packard from Fred La Cosse acknowledging Packard’s acceptance and saying that agenda details will be forthcoming.

3/25/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury Newspaper covering Packard’s speech. The headline reads “Packard Blisters Demo Candidates” and includes some comments that were not in the text of his speech. “a proposal by McGovern would take $30 billion out of the defense budget. This would scrap the ABM, cancel the F-111, and halt the MIRV program.” After quoting further from Packard’s speech, the article concludes “His hour-long speech was neither interrupted by applause nor protesters who have plagued him at three prior Bay Area appearances.”

3/27/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Fred La Crosse [sic], saying it was a pleasure to speak before the San Jose Chamber of Commerce and thanking him for the service award certificate and cuff links.

3/27/72, Letter from Fred La Cosse to Packard saying the Chamber of Commerce appreciated Packard’s speech – which “was informative and a delight to hear.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 22 – General Speeches

 

March 31, 1972, National Defense in the New American Foreign Policy, Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco CA

 

3/31/72, Text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard explains why he, a former member of the Defense Department, is going to talk about foreign policy. “American military forces have two important functions to perform. First, they must provide for the security and safety of our country and its people. Second, they must be adequate to support American foreign policy and protect American interests around the world.

 

“It is in this second category that the Defense Department must be closely involved with American foreign policy. I estimate that I spent nearly half of my time in Washington in discussions relating to the development of the President’s exciting new foreign policy and its impact on future military force requirements. That is what I want to tell you about today , for there has been a major change in American foreign policy since 1969.”

 

Packard says 1968 was the end of the post-war era and the beginning of a new era. The post-war era brought the United Nations as well as the expansionary aims of the Soviet Union. Confrontation began with the Truman Doctrine, Greece and Turkey, NATO, CENTO in the Middle East, and SEATO in Southeast Asia. Korea came in the mid-1950s.

 

“In the early years of this era of confrontation , America had the resources to be the dominant military power and the dominant economic power in the world. We were able to support through the decade of the 1950 a defense establishment adequate to protect the entire free world We were able to provide economic aid for Europe, Japan, and most of the developing countries of the world.”

 

“We began the decade of the 1950s with 50 percent of the world’s monetary reserves. We produced 76 percent of the world’s motor vehicles, 46 percent of the world’s steel, nearly all of the world’s sophisticated electronic equipment, and we produced a vast surplus of food.”

 

“As President Kennedy took office in 1961 there were signs that our economy was being overtaxed and that we were carrying a disproportionate share of the burden of the free world. Yet, he boldly stated, ‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’ The course was set to continue the policy of confrontation into the decade of the 1960s. Indeed, the confrontation intensified – the Berlin wall, the Cuban missile crisis, and then Vietnam.

 

“By 1968, the pressures generated to a large degree by our foreign policy had created an intolerable strain on all segments of our society. There was rioting and burning in the streets, our great Universities were in shambles, inflation was rampant. Our international monetary reserves had shrunk from 50 percent to 16 percent of the world’s total. We had 549,000 men and women in Vietnam, and no plan to bring them home short of unconditional surrender to the North Vietnamese communists.”

 

While agreeing that “It would have taken a wise man and a strong man indeed to have led America on a different course in 1961….Nevertheless, the fact remains that the disastrous situation America faced in 1968 was to a very large degree caused by the failure of our foreign policy in the decade of the 1960s. The foreign policy-defense picture was not rosy as I joined President Nixon’s administration in the spring of 1969.”

 

“One of my first assignments in Washington was to chair a joint study group to prepare…an evaluation of the options available to reset the course of American foreign policy for the decade of the 1970s and beyond.”

 

Packard says this study group approached the problem from the stanPackardoint of – “what military capability would be required to support various foreign policy options and what military capability could we provide if larger shares of federal resources were allocated to the domestic needs of the country.”

 

“It was clear to all that our country needed a new foreign policy, but it was equally clear to those of us who were examining the alternatives in detail that the extremes of an arms build-up or unilateral disarmament would not do. The course adopted – and enunciated by the President in Guam in 1969 – was a shifting in the philosophy of our foreign policy from a policy based on confrontation to a policy based on negotiation. No longer would we assume the overwhelming responsibility we had born in the previous two and-one-half decades. No longer would we pay any price and bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty anywhere in the world.

 

“On the other hand, we did not intend to withdraw from the world. We were not going to withdraw from the important responsibilities and contributions we could make as a great world power. In sum, we were going to tailor our commitments to our real interests and limit our commitments to those we could realistically support within our resources.”

 

“This new foreign policy boils down to two important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation which might lead to war in the future.”

 

Packard says the new foreign policy requires, “while abjuring the principle of nuclear supremacy, we insist on ‘assured deterrence.’ He says by that we mean “a nuclear force adequate to deter nuclear war under all possible conditions. We do today have assured deterrence, but only because we went ahead with the MIRV program. Incidentally, I should point out that this program was opposed while I was in Washington by Senators Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie, Kennedy, and by other liberals in the Senate. And if this opposition had prevailed we would not today have a ‘strategic sufficiency.’

 

On the subject of conventional forces Packard says “…the Nixon Doctrine permits us to handle the military requirements of our national interest with a smaller conventional force than we have maintained in the past, in terms of the specific problems in specific areas of the world.

 

“The most obvious example of this facet of the Nixon doctrine is Vietnam. In 1968 we had over 540,000 troops in Vietnam, were spending nearly $30 billion per year, and had no intelligent plan for the withdrawal of American forces from that theater. Today our troop level is under 100,000, we are spending less than $10 billion per year, and we are well along in an intelligently planned program for withdrawal. And yet, despite this enormous cutback in our military commitment we are leaving the people of South Vietnam with a very strong capability of defending their country from the communist invaders as long as they have the will to do so.

 

“Throughout Asia our ability to maintain peace with fewer conventional military forces has been engaged by the opening up of relations with the People’s Republic of China. To be sure, Washington-Peking conversations offer no guarantee that North Vietnam and North Korea and insurgency movements elsewhere will all of a sudden turn into lambs. But our new relations with the Chinese do make realistic the expectation that we need not become embroiled in a land war with Chinese troops: a development which clearly would place severe strains, perhaps unacceptable strains, on our great resources and on our society.

 

“The Middle East is another trouble spot where, with the judicious use of a minimal amount of American military presence we are achieving very significant results. Where once full-scale fighting raged, now we see the possibility of serious negotiations.”

 

“ I should point out here that two of President Nixon’s highly criticized foreign policy actions – namely, America’s support of Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistan war, and our continued working relations with the Greek government – have both contributed significantly to American ability to maintain peace in the Middle East. The support of Pakistan enhanced our credibility with the Arab countries, and continued good relations with Greece are absolutely essential if we are to be able to operate our sixth fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is irony in the fact that some of the most vociferous opponents of our support for Pakistan and Greece are also some of the most vociferous pro-Israeli voices in the country.”

 

“Beginning in 1969 we made substantial reductions in procurement, and leveled off R and D expenditures. These reductions were possible because of our Vietnamization program and because we could begin to move toward lower force levels as we began to implement the president’s new foreign policy.
“I am happy to report that the impact of Defense reductions on the economy has now leveled out. From now on there will be some increases, particularly in research and development….These increases were made on the basic proposition that, while the security of America and our new foreign policy can be supported with lower force levels, they cannot be supported with inferior weapons.

 

“One area of expenditure in which costs have gone up sharply bears special mention: namely the cost of military personnel. The FY 1973 Defense Budget, which was submitted to the congress in January, provides for 2.4 million military personnel and 1.0 million civilians. This is down from 3.5 million military personnel, and 1.3 million civilians in FY 1968 – 1.4 million fewer people on the Defense payroll. This has been possible because we have withdrawn 450,000 people from Vietnam, and many thousands from other overseas areas – all because our friends and allies have been able to accept a larger share of the burden.

 

“As we have reduced the number of men and women in uniform, we have taken steps toward an all-volunteer Army. Among these steps is a correction of the gross inequality between what men in uniform and civilians in our society earn.”

 

Packard gives some examples of these pay changes: “In 1964 a first year recruit earned $78 per month. Starting January 1973, he will earn $332 per month – four times as much….A Colonel or Navy Captain earned just under a thousand dollars a month in 1964. In 1973 this will increase to over two thousand.”

 

“Despite the special costs associated with R and D and with the move to a volunteer Army, there has been a real and substantial reordering of the application  of federal resources in these past three years….The real impact is best expressed in purchasing power – in constant dollars. From the spring of 1969 to the fiscal 1973 budget, Defense cost in constant dollars has declined $32 billion, while other Federal spending has increased $35 billion, and at the same time State and Local spending has increased some $43 billion. Defense spending in the year beginning July 1, 1972 as a percentage of GNP will be at its lowest level in 10 years.

 

“There is no room for further reductions of substance in Defense spending. Those who propose further reductions of 10 – 15 – or 30 billion – and all of these figures have been mentioned – just do not understand what has happened in these past three years. Further reductions in the Defense Budget will commit America to withdraw from the world, to embark on a certain course to the status of a second rate world power in the decade of the 1980s – a course that America need not, cannot, take.”

 

Packard  says that in spite of all that has been done, there is no room for complacency. “ In the area of foreign affairs, there remains a great deal to be done. The initial steps we have taken to begin a dialog with the People’s Republic of China and to tie down some concrete points of agreement between the Soviet Union and ourselves must be carried forward. A solution to the foreign aid problem must be found: despite all the pitfalls, errors, and domestic disenchantment with foreign aid, our wealth, our humanitarian traditions, and our interest dictate that we have an active foreign assistance program. We need to finish the construction with our partners of a reformed trade and monetary system. And we must continue to build an international system – including a strong concern for the United Nations – which all members of the international community will work to preserve because they recognize their stake in its preservation.

 

“While I hope no one leaves this luncheon with a sense of complacency about our foreign policy achievements, I also hope no one leaves this luncheon without fully realizing the dramatic reorientation brought to our foreign policy by the Nixon administration. The continuing stream of criticism against the President’s foreign policy – much of it the result of political self-interest; much of it the result of plain old narrow-minded isolationism – has all too often dominated the media. It is critically important that an influential a group such as the Commonwealth Club understand that what has been accomplished during the past three years represents the most fundamental change in American foreign policy in two-and-one-half decades. It is the foundation for a new era in our foreign policy. While we cannot predict the infinite and intricate variations of this new foreign policy during the next decades, I am convinced that the Nixon Doctrine will remain the guiding concept until the end of this century.

 

“In conclusion, I submit to you that during the last three years we have lived through an epoch-making formative period, equivalent in importance to the period between the end of World War II and our entry into the Korean War. I am proud to have been associated, in however small measure, with this momentous endeavor, and I am proud that you invited me here today to share some of my thoughts and my concerns with you. Thank you.”

 

3/31/72,  Reference numbers Packard had written for himself

3/13/72, Letter to Packard from Durward Riggs, Executive Secretary, Commonwealth Club of California, saying he is pleased Packard has accepted the date to speak to the Club. Some background data is attached

3/21/72, Letter to Packard from J. K. Gustafson, Chairman of the Board, Homestake Mining Company, complimenting him on his speech.

3/27/72, Copy of the Club publication

4/3/72,  Letter to Packard from Durward Riggs, thanking for speaking to their group. He comments “I’m sure that the heart of any speaker would have been warmed by the response you elicited from your audience.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 23 – General Speeches

 

April 6, 1972, Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, New York, NY

 

4/6/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments, with handwritten notations by him. Packard acted as Co-Chairman, introducing other speakers and award presenters.

 

Packard says all in attendance have a common interest: “that is to do all that we can to help alleviate the problems faced by the minority groups within our society. This is an interest of long –standing for me personally, and I hope that it is reflected to some degree by the efforts we have made in a number of communities around the country where Hewlett-Packard plants are located, and by some of the things we were able to do in the Department of Defense were I spent my last three years.

 

“When Secretary and I joined the Department in 1969, both of us resolved that the Department had the responsibility to utilize its resources and people to help with the problems of the minoriti3es both within and outside of the armed forces. Because we felt strongly about this, we initiated a number of Department programs and activities designed to contribute to the improvement of society, particularly the disadvantaged.”

 

Packard tells of some of the programs the DOD initiated: in 1971 they hired 46,000 young people, 76% of whom were disadvantaged; they asked every military base in the country to use their resources to support educational, recreational and cultural programs for disadvantaged youths He says, “Over 2.4 million young people participated in these programs in 1971, as compared with 250,000 in 1969.

 

“We set up a school to train officers to better understand the problems faced by minorities within the Armed Services. We made it clear that we expected an atmosphere of true equal opportunity for all of the servicemen and women in the armed forces, as will as the civilians within the department.”

 

“ I was very pleased by the response of Military leaders from the Joint Chiefs on down. They are well aware of their responsibilities in this area.

 

“I believe that a great many people, in both the public and private sectors, have contributed to the progress that has been made in solving the problems of the minorities.”

 

Packard says he is “pleased to Secretary Stans here tonight,” adding that he “was a great leader in a number of activities to improve economic opportunities for minorities before he joined President Nixon’s administration in Washington in 1969.”

 

The private sector “has an important and a continuing role. I am delighted to see you are here tonight – because I know it means you – as representatives of a large portion of the private sector – share my interest and concern for solving these problems, and because I know that it is an indication of your continuing support of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity.”

 

Packard then introduces Mr. William R. Hudgins “who will present the first award tonight.” In his introductory comments Packard describes Hudgins as the “man who has served as the National Co-Chairman of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity for the past three years, and who is President of the Harlem-based Freedom National of New York – the largest black-owned banking institution in the country.”

 

After Mr. Hudgins’ comments, Packard introduces the next speaker – Mr. Darwin W. Bolden. He describes Mr. Bolden as “the National Executive Director of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, and a member of President Nixon’s Advisory Committee on Minority enterprise.”

 

To make the second award of the evening, Packard introduces Mr. Rodman C. Rockefeller, “President of the International Basic Economy Corporation – a private sector development company which initiates and operates corporate ventures responsive to basic human needs and the economies of developing nations.” He says Rockefeller has been a Co-Chairman of ICBO since its inception in 1963.

 

4/3/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross, Dinner Coordinator, enclosing biographical material o William Hudgins, Maurice Stans, Darwin Bolden and Rodman Rockefeller, asking that he introduce these people. Biographical material on Leonard Evans, Jr. also Co-Chairman for the dinner is also attached

4/6/72, Printed program for the ICBO Ninth Annual Dinner Program

4/6/72, List of guests at the dinner and list of  “prospects”

7/1/69,  Six page history of the ICBO

12/16/71, Letter to Packard from William R. Hudgins, Rodman C. Rockefeller, and Darwin W. Bolden asking Packard to be the Co-Chairman at their Ninth Annual National ICBO Dinner. Background material on the ICBO is enclosed, as well as a copy of a letter to Packard from Mr. Rockefeller dated Sept. 18, 1969 asking Packard to be the speaker at the ICBO Major Industries luncheon on October 15, 1969. {There is no indication in the file of speeches made by Packard that he accepted this invitation]

12/21/71, Letter to Packard from Rodman C. Rockefeller saying that he has been involved with the ICBO since its inception, and expressing the hope that Packard will accept the invitation to be Co-Chair at their dinner

1/5/72, Copy of a letter to Rodman Rockefeller form Packard accepting the invitation to be Co-Chair at the ICBO dinner

1/12/72, Letter to Packard from Darwin W. Bolden thanking him for agreeing to be Co-Chair at the dinner and enclosing a draft of a letter they wish to send over the signature of Packard and the other Co-Chair, Leonard Evans, Jr., to various company people.

Letter to Packard from Rodman Rockefeller saying he is delighted he has accepted the invitation to be Co-Chair

1/19/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Darwin W. Bolden saying the draft is satisfactory to him

2/15/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross asking for a photograph of Packard and a biographical sketch

2/23/72, Copy of a letter to Edith Ross from David Kirby enclosing  the requested photo and biographical material

3/13/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross saying they have sold only 214 tickets to the dinner and hope to sell 1500 more. She asks Packard’s help in sending out more personal letters

3/20/72, Copy of the “personal letter” Packard sent to people in industry, and the list of people who received it

3/21/72, Letter to Packard from Harold Wheeler, Chairman of the Board, Hazeltine Corp., declining the invitation

March, 1972, Copy of a  sample letter from the ICBO Dinner Committee sending tickets to those having purchased them

4/5/72, Letter to Packard from Gordon Metcalf, Chairman of the Board, Sears, Roebuck and Co., saying ICBO is not on the list of organizations Sears will be able to help

4/6/72, Letter to Packard from W. W. Morison, President, Foremost-McKesson, Inc., sending regrets.

4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Darwin Bolden, extending appreciation for Packard’s participation at the ICBO dinner and expressing the hope that Packard will be able to help in the future

4/18/72, Letter to Packard from Rodman C. Rockefeller expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation .

 

 

Box 3, Folder 24 – General Speeches

 

April 8, 1972, California Republican Assembly, Palo Alto, CA

 

4/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with handwritten notations by him.

 

Saying that he has just returned from a three year tour in Washington, Packard calls these “the most interesting years of my life.” He admits “they were not the most enjoyable by any means, for among other things Washington is a rough, often mean and vicious league.”

 

“Throughout my three years in Washington, time and time again I say examples of irresponsible behavior – irresponsible behavior with the gravest implications.

 

“I heard scientists use their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs  – particularly the all-important strategic nuclear programs upon which the security of our country depends.

 

“I heard distinguished newsmen favor Hanoi, Moscow, and New Delhi over America in their reporting.”

 

Packard is particularly disturbed by criticism of the military which he sees “in the press, on TV, in many of our liberal universities, and even by some elected public officials – who, of all people, should know better,” He says, “I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve the criticism. The policy was dictated and directed by Administration civilians. Particularly disturbing has been the manner in which some members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, took great delight in seizing on any fact or figure which could be used – usually magnified, distorted, and out of context – to discredit the military and all those who supported the Defense Department.”

 

In spite of these experiences Packard says he found many “inspiring experiences,” particularly coming from his work with the military.

 

“You cannot help but be very impressed with the great dedication of all of the men and women in uniform – and with the way they function with military discipline.” He is also complimentary of Dr. Henry Kissinger. “We in Defense worked closely with Dr. Kissinger, and I can tell you that all the talk about Dr. Kissinger’s being some sort of a tyrant is inaccurate. The study groups he chaired were open to all kinds of input. Every relevant department, including State, had ample opportunity to contribute. No one was reticent about expressing his personal opinion.”

 

Packard calls Melvin Laird “an outstanding colleague,” and says working with President Nixon was “an exceptional experience.”

 

“…in 1968 a man able to act with both calmness and courage was exactly what this country needed. There was rioting and burning in the streets, our great universities were in shambles, inflation was rampant, and we had 549,000 men and women embroiled in a seemingly endless war in Vietnam.

 

“There was clearly a pressing need for a new foreign policy, and so in the spring of 1969 we began to reevaluate our system of worldwide commitments. After much analysis and evaluation of options, a new foreign policy began to evolve, and it boils down to three important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation. Third, it demands we remain strong, since only from strength is it possible to have useful negotiations with Communists. These pillars form the core of the Nixon doctrine.”

 

Packard looks at “burden sharing,” saying “America has been carrying too large a share of the free world’s burdens for too long.

 

“For example, the United States spent in 1968 9.5% of its gross national products on defense; West Germany 2.9%; Japan less that 1%.

 

“Such disproportion may have been appropriate when the United States had the overwhelming economic power that it did immediately following world War II. But the situation has changed drastically. The best indicator is that in 1950, we held 50% of the international monetary reserves; in 1970, only 16%.”

 

Packard looks at the cuts which have been made in the military budget over the past three years. “Naturally, these cuts created short-term hardships in some sections of the country, and the President was always aware of these problems. But cuts in procurement have now leveled off, and I would like to ask if anyone in this room imagines that Mr. Humphrey, if elected in 1968, would have shown nearly the concern for adequate defense spending that this Administration has shown. Let me ask you if you think any of the likely Democratic candidates in 1972, Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie or Kennedy would support adequate defense spending during the next four years.”

 

Packard looks next at “Negotiation,”  the second pillar of the Nixon doctrine. “Let me make clear that negotiation is not a codeword for capitulation. It does not suppose that all communist states have metamorphosed into lambs. Clearly, communism is still fundamentally an aggressive movement and must be treated accordingly.

 

“But the fact is that dramatic changes in the structure of world politics have taken place recently and that these changes permit us, in deed require us, to approach the international area with greater flexibility. We no longer live in a bipolar world.”

 

Citing the “remarkable” economic progress of the free world, and the Sino-soviet split, he says a “greater flexibility in world politics” has created “more opportunities for negotiation. Negotiation seeks to…minimize the possibility of nuclear war. It does not, however, pretend that freedom and Communism are not still basically opposing forces.”

 

Packard then tu4ns to the matter of “military strength.” He asks, “How do we measure military strength? I mentioned to you earlier that our defense expenditures have gone down.” He says this does not mean military effectiveness has gone down as well. Superior, more effective weapons are the answer and he gives an example where “smart bombs were able destroy a target with 20 sorties and $600,000, versus 1,000 sorties and $15 million in expense for conventional bombs.

 

Packard says, “There are areas where reduction is not acceptable, particularly with strategic weapons. So when Secretary Laird and I moved into office, we immediately began extensive studies to see what new systems might be necessary to insure that our strategic nuclear forces sill provide an adequate nuclear deterrent – not only for today, but also into the foreseeable future.”

 

“One very important specific program we moved forward in MIRV (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle). The purpose of MIRV in our Minutemen forces is to offset the Soviet’s increasing stock of land-based weapons, and in the Poseidon program, to offset the recent rapid growth of the Soviet submarine forces. MIRV, incidentally, was opposed by Senators Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie, and Kennedy, among other senate liberals.

“The ABM is another program for which President Nixon fought valiantly against his Congressional critics, and I trust I need not spell out for you the significance of this program. The politics of this fight is interesting, and I would like to share one sidelight with you. Senator Humphrey is now saying that he supported the ABM, but, if so, it is news to me. I recall an official dinner one evening in the spring of 1969 when he was the featured speaker. I happened to be at the some table with the Soviet Ambassador, Mr. Dobrynin. Mr. Humphrey was roasting the ABM program royally, and Mr. Dobrynin was enjoying it greatly, smiling broadly throughout the whole show.”

 

“The Nixon Administration has also been moving head on conventional forces. The F 15, the AX, the F 14, the Harrier and the Agile missile – all important developments we supported and accelerated – will provide greatly improved air power for our Air force, Navy and Marines. We increased the Navy shipbuilding budget by some $2 billion, which increases the production of nuclear attack submarines, modern destroyers and frigates. We have two nuclear carriers under construction and have requested funds for the third in the FY-1973 budget.”

 

“Our forces have much greater and more effective fire power today, and I know of no attractive research and development program that is not adequately provided for in the FY 1973 budget.”

 

“Military pay scales have been dramatically upgrades – providing a long overdue correction to the gross inequality of pay between men in the military services and those in the civil service.”

 

“And research and development has been increased. We increased it from $7 billion in 1971 to $7.7 billion this year, and we requested $8.5 billion for fiscal 1973.”

 

“We can afford lower conventional force levels because our friends and allies are carrying a larger share of the burden of their own defense. We have a dramatic example in Vietnam today – the South Vietnamese are defending their own country and they have the capability of doing so if the have the will. You can be mighty thankful those are not American boys fighting on the ground tonight in Vietnam on the DMZ [Demilitarized Zone].

 

“The President has reduced our worldwide interests. He has said we will honor our treaty commitment, but that does not require that we provide American ground forces in every case.

 

“Naturally, with all the recent banner headlines about North Vietnamese offensives, I cannot stand up here and offer complacent generalizations about the situation in Vietnam. Nor can I guarantee you that the South Vietnamese will-t0-win, something no foreign power can instill, will bring victory after victory. But I can say that the Nixon Administration has taken and is taking all necessary steps to provide South Vietnam with the equipment and training necessary for the defense of that country. I say that is discharging our obligation to the people of South Vietnam.

 

“Elsewhere in Asia our ability to maintain peace with fewer conventional military forces will be, we believe, enhances by the opening up of relations with the People’s Republic of China. To be sure, Washington-Peking conversations offer n9o guarantee that China, North Korea, North Vietnam, or any of the indigenous communist movements. Will turn their swords into plowshares. But our new relations with the Chinese do make realistic the expectation that we need not become embroiled in a land war with Chinese troops.

 

“The Middle East is another trouble spot where, with the judicious use of a minimal amount of military force, we have seen some encouraging programs. Where once full-scale fighting raged, now we see negotiations being pursued with strong hopes of continuing the current cease-fire and moderately good hopes of bringing some sort of long-term accommodation between Jews and Arabs.

 

“On a closing note, I would like to come right out and make some political statements, just in case you feel up to now I have been too apolitical. I have watched with interest the development of the Democratic primary, and I was particularly interested, as I am sure we all were, by the results of the Wisconsin race. The one Democratic candidate whose position on defense and national security issues was realistic seems to have been knocked out of the race. And, at the other end of the spectrum, the democratic candidate whose views on national defense are clearly the most irresponsible – he would start out by cutting $30 billion from the defense budget – received a dramatic boost. What once seemed unthinkable, that this candidate actually has a serious chance to take command of our armed services and our strategic arsenal, is now very far from unthinkable.

 

“It is becoming increasingly evident that the gulf between the Republicans and the democrats on national security is perilously large. The need for active volunteer Republican organizations has, therefore, become a national imperative. If ever there was any doubt that organizations such as the California Republican Assembly are vital to the security of our country, it is now dispelled. I am working to re-elect the President because I have full confidence in him. For three years he gave Secretary Laird and me complete support on every issue involving our national security. We have absolutely no possibility of a stronger, more capable man at the head of this great nation of ours than Richard Nixon. Let’s keep him there.”

 

4/8/72, Typed, single-spaced copy of Packard’s speech

4/8/72, Typed draft of Packard’s speech. Appears to have been given to someone other than Packard for comment. Some handwritten notations by Packard and by another person are evident as well

1/24/72, Letter to Packard from Allyn c. Miller inviting him to speak at the California Republican Assemble State Convention in Palo Alto on April 8, 1972

2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford, of the CRA. Confirming the arrangements

3/7/72, Copy of letter to E. A. Herron [of CRA it would appear], from Max Larsen of North American Rockwell, discussing the need to avoid duplication of Packard’s comments and those of Bob Anderson from Rockwell

3/14/72, Letter to Packard from E. A. Herron, giving Packard the gist of Bob Anderson’s remarks

3/27/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford giving details of the luncheon

4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation and forbearance in the face of program difficulties

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 25 – General speeches

 

April 12, 1972, Accepting the Business Statesman Award, Harvard Business School Club, New York, NY

 

4/12/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with extensive handwritten additions by him

 

Packard says it was a “great experience to spend three years with President Nixon’s Administration in Washington” He speaks of frustrations and hard work, but says they got some things done – “even some important changes….” He points to one big difference from the business world – no profit and loss statement to test decisions. “Whether some of the things Mel Laird and I were able to do in the Defense department will result in real improvement – and even if so whether they will last – only time will tell.”

 

Packard says his job in the Defense Department had two facets. “One was to work on the management problems of the Pentagon – and I say that advisedly – I don’t believe anyone can manage the Pentagon.”

 

“he other facet of my job there was to work with the State Department and Dr. Kissinger’s staff for the National Security Council on many very interesting and important international issues – Vietnam, NATO, the Middle East, south Asia – and of course, the most important issue of all, strategic nuclear arms.

 

“Our strategic nuclear policy is the most important defense issue, for unless our country maintains strategic nuclear forces and a strategic nuclear policy adequate to absolutely deter nuclear war – not only for today but forever – none of the other issues will matter very much. We have adequate forces today – we will have adequate strategic nuclear forces in the future – regardless of the outcome of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the Soviets – if the programs we have requested in the fiscal 1973 budget are approved.

 

“President Nixon’s leadership in foreign policy has been the most enlightened and the most important America has had for may decades. Indeed, in the first three years of this administration he has moved our country’s foreign policy from one which had nearly bankrupted our economy and destroyed our society by 1968, to one that holds not only the hope – but the real promise – of a generation of peace.”

 

Packard describes “some interesting management problems in the Pentagon….With some 3.5 million people on the payroll and a budget that calls for spending $200 million a day, 365 days a year, it is a credit to the thousands of capable men and women – in uniform and civilians – that the department runs as well as it does.”

 

Packard says he was “greatly impressed with the dedicated and capable people in the department of defense – both military and civilian….I often thought as I worked with the people in the Defense Department – and the Military Services – I had as fine a team of dedicated, capable people as could be found in the private business world.”

 

Packard says “It would be great if every businessman could spend some time in Washington – at least once in a position of responsibility. One thing you would learn is that businessmen, and good business management practice alone cannot solve all of the complex problems of big government. At the same time, there are a great many areas where sound business management can, and does, contribute to better government.”

 

There is a great difference between the political world and the business world. One cannot be in Washington for long without learning that political skill is just as necessary – perhaps more necessary – than skill in business management to get something useful done. I had a great mentor while I was there in Mel Laird. He is a professional politician in the best sense of the word. He was, and is, highly respected by the congress as well as by his peers in the Administration. I can think of no one who could have done a better job as secretary of defense than Mel Laird has done during these turbulent three years I spent working with him. In fact, despite all the criticism of the defense department, since 1969 we were the only department that did not lose a major issue in the congress. A real tribute to Secretary Laird’s political skill.

 

“One thing troubles me greatly as a result of my experience in Washington. It is very difficult for the public to really know what the true situation is on any issue. Many times while I was there, an issue which I knew about was wrongly reported by the news media. Sometimes it was because fragmentary information from a leak was used. Sometimes it was poor communication from the Administration. Sometimes it appeared to e wantonly vicious reporting. It seldom did any good to try to correct the story later – the first release covered the news on the front page – a correction was among the want ads.” Packard says he doesn’t want to indite all reporters and commentators – “the vast majority are smart, dedicated and honest men and women. The only way to deal with the problem was to ignore it and get on with the job – by the time you worried about the case of today, there would be another one tomorrow anyway.”

 

Packard says that in spite of “the many trials and frustrations, I am glad that I was able to spend three years in Washington. I often thought I was at a great disadvantage for…I have neither the ambition nor temperment [sic] of a politician or a bureaucrat.

 

“I developed a great respect for the men and women in Washington – in the Congress, in the Administration, and in the thousands of offices that do the day to day work. When one measures what they do against the complex and important problems they face they deserve our respect and appreciation.

 

“And I want to thank you for the honor you have given me tonight. I appreciate your recognition, especially from this distinguished Club representing the management profession.

 

“Thank you very much.”

 

4/12/72, Printed program for The International dinner of The Harvard business School club of New York

1/18/72, Letter to Packard from Albert H. Gordon, chairman, Kidder, Peabody & Co., saying HBS members are delighted that Packard is willing to accept the Business Statesman Award

4/3/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon going over details of the dinner

4/18/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon thanking Packard for accepting the Award.

4/26/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Albert Gordon saying he and Mrs. Packard enjoyed the dinner, and he thanks Gordon for the “beautiful Steuben Bowl…”

7/17/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon enclosing a copy of the Harvard Business School International Dinner booklet.

7/28/72, Letter to Packard from Ray N. Peterson, enclosing a copy of the Harvard Bulletin which covers the Award Dinner.

7/28/72, Note from Carl Franklin also enclosing a copy of the HBS Bulletin

 

 

Box 3, Folder 26 – General Speeches

 

April 20, 1972, Republican Central committee, San Mateo, CA

 

4/20/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

“I am pleased to be here tonight,” Packard says, “we have enthusiasm….we have unity….we are going to win this year….We have unity because of our commonly held principles. And the most basic of these is that individuals, not large organizations or blocks of special interests, are the great strength of our country.”

 

Packard says he is reminded of Herbert Hoover’s statement on the Uncommon Man and he reads a quote from this statement – which is to the effect that Hoover feels there has been too much talk about the common man – becoming almost a cult. Hoover says we need more uncommon men – an uncommon doctor when we are sick, an uncommon mechanic when our car breaks down….parents always want their children to be uncommon achievers.

 

Packard points to the growth of government: government forms to fill out, applying for permits, paying taxes, welfare, social security, Medicare, environmental controls. “There is no such thing as the Uncommon Man in this scheme of things – we are all rapidly becoming modern common men – each a number in a computer.”

 

“This all began,” Packard says, “under the Democratic Party – Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. It has grown over these past three decades through a patchwork of appeals to minority interests under the sponsorship of the Democratic Party, ….”

 

Packard refers to the “cantankerous” Democratic Congress and says it is “important…not  only to re-elect the President, but also to change some faces in the House and the Senate, too.”

 

“Look at the current fuss from the Democrats about ‘closing tax loopholes.’ While this sounds very nice, it boils down to just another plan to tax the individuals and companies who are the economic mainstay of this country. Of course, the Democrats invoke the sacred name of the ‘common man’ whenever they come through with these new tax schemes. But it’s a funny thing: the eloquent Democratic politicians never give this ‘common man’ the one thing he really wants; lower taxes. Quite the contrary, as a result of pressure from ultra-liberal Congressmen, tax rates for all Americans go up and up and up.”

 

Packard asks where all this increased tax revenue goes. And he answers by saying “a big hunk goes simply to keep up with the cost of inflation – inflation fueled by deficit government spending.” He adds wasted experimental programs, urban renewal, increases for social security and the “enormous” welfare system.

 

“Often the Democrats’ pet special-interest projects are not so politically appealing, and then more devious techniques need to be developed. One such is appointing judges who will use the courts to push special interest programs the Democrats could never hope to get through congress or a State legislature. An example of this arrogance is the California Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate local property taxes as the sole source of school revenues.

 

“Not only does this decision bring yet another redistribution of income whose morality is far from clear, it also raises the serious danger of increased control of local education by state bureaucrats. And it may set a precedence for statewide financing, and therefore control, of all our other public services.

 

“Or take the busing issue, where a string of Democrat-appointed judges have attempted, and on several cases succeeded, in ordering a drastic change in our whole educational system – and all without the benefit of a single law.

 

“President Nixon has taken a strong hand against this relentless pressure by the Democratic party to make everyone a common man. He has proposed revenue sharing – to give the people a more effective voice in how their money will be spent. The Democrats want to keep a tight control of your money in Washington. He has taken action on taxes to close loopholes of abuse, yet to encourage private incentive to economic progress. The Democrats are proposing a so-called ‘tax reform’ which, if enacted, would be virtually the final step from private enterprise to socialism in America.

 

“President Nixon has strongly supported opening  the doors of opportunity to the minority people – black capitalism, self help and personal encouragement and that is what these people want and deserve – a piece of the action. The Democrats would take care of them by raising the level of relief – by making them totally dependent on and therefore submissive to the Federal Government.  With the  hope, of course, that this will further insure their vote for the Democratic party.

 

“If the policies of the democratic party are pursued in the name of the common man, we will most certainly have more common men and women in America, more common black men and women – more common Chicanos – more common American Indians – all glorified with the honor of an immortal place in the memories of the computers in Washington.”

 

Packard says “Democrats have been going out of their way to exploit national defense issues for political gain. In the 1968 Presidential campaign, Nixon simply stated he had a plan to get us out of Vietnam with honor.

 

“By contrast , what do we hear today from the Democrats about the way President  Nixon is trying to phase out their war? We hear sharp attacks on both the conduct of the war and the strategy of Vietnamization. We hear attacks made solely for political gain. What statesmanlike motives, I ask you, led Senator Muskie to blast an Administration peace plan before even the North Vietnamese had responded to it?  What statesmanlike moves led the Senate Foreign Relations committee to vote this week to cut off all money for the protection of American troops in Vietnam by the end to this year? What statesmanlike thinking causes elected officials of this country to give more support and sympathy to Hanoi than to their own country?”

 

Regarding Vietnam Packard tells of two things he says Nixon’s plan does not include. “It does not include delivering the people of South Vietnam against their will to the Communists. It does not include crawling on our knees either out of Vietnam, nor crawling on our knees to the negotiating table.”

 

Packard says Nixon’s plan does include: stopping all fighting and withdrawing all American troops – followed by elections. He has agreed to assist in the “economic rehabilitation” of North Vietnam as well, Packard says. “I do not know how any American who wants to understand the situation could fail to support the President’s position on negotiation. Those who do not support the President’s position on negotiation are saying in effect that they want to sell the people of South Vietnam down the river to the Communists.”

 

Nixon’s second course, Packard explains, was to provide an alternative in case negotiations failed. “This is what is called ‘Vietnamization.’ – “The plan to help the South Vietnamese learn to defend themselves. The first phase of Vietnamization was building South Vietnam’s ground forces and accelerating pacification and economic development. That phase is now nearly completed and has been very successful. So successful that we will have 480,000 fewer men and women in Vietnam on May 1^st than we had on January 20, 1969 when President Nixon took office….If the programs Secretary Laird and I have established are supported by the Congress, the South Vietnamese will soon have adequate air capability as well as adequate ground capability to defend themselves.”

 

Packard mentions the recent North Vietnam offensive. He says “This new offensive was made possible because [the] Soviets supplied North Vietnam with heavy equipment, tanks, large field guns, heavy anti-aircraft equipment of the type needed to mount an invasion of the South.”

 

“There is one thing about this whole situation that never seems to be understood– yet it is so elementary – if the North Vietnamese would simply go home from South Vietnam, from Cambodia and Laos, this whole war would be ended tomorrow. Yet the opponents of President Nixon’s policies encourage them to stay and thereby encourage the war to continue.”

 

Leaving Vietnam, Packard talks about  the President’s “important and exciting new foreign policy.”

 

“In 1969, when the Nixon Administration took office, there was clearly a pressing need for a new foreign policy. We immediately began to re-evaluate our system of worldwide commitments, and after much analysis and evaluation of options, a new foreign policy began to evolve. It boils down to three important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation. Third, it demands we remain strong, since only from strength can we negotiate effectively. These three pillars form the core of the Nixon doctrine.”

 

 

Packard talks about each of these pillars. In defense of asking our friends and allies to share the burden of defense he says that “America has been carrying an unreasonable share of the free world’s defense. In 1968 the United States spent 9.5% of its GNP on defense. The same year Germany spent 2.9% and Japan spent less than 1%.”

 

“Our allies in both Europe and the Far East have made remarkable economic progress, and they should bear a larger share of the free world’s defense.”

 

“Next, let’s look at negotiation, the second pillar of the Nixon doctrine. Let me make clear that negotiation is not a codeword for capitulation.”

 

“Remarkable economic progress in both Western Europe and the Pacific rim permits our allies greater independence of action. And the Communist world, fractured by the Sino-Soviet rift, shows a similar trend towards national self-assertiveness in foreign policy.

 

“Exploiting this greater flexibility in the world situation, we have reached agreements with the Soviet Union on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on ocean seabed.

 

“The President has gone to China. And in the Middle East fighting has been replaced with discussions moving toward serious negotiations.

 

“The third pillar of the Nixon Doctrine, and the most important, is military strength, I say ‘most important’ because, without strength, negotiation with the Communists would be nothing more than capitulation, and burden-sharing would mean nothing more than walking away from our friends and allies.

 

“As Secretary Laird and I worked on planning our future military forces we were keenly aware of the need of America to remain strong. We recognized this country had been carrying too large a share of the defense burden for the free world, and we recognized the legitimate need for a larger share of federal resources to be allocated to domestic needs of the country.

 

“We did make substantial reductions in the share of the U.S. Gross National Product required for defense. In fiscal 1973 defense will require only 6.5% of GNP, the lowest drain on our economy in over twenty years. Down three full percentage points from the 9.5% defense took in 1968.

 

“At the same time we took major steps to improve our strategic nuclear forces. Against great opposition from the liberal Democrats in the Congress we went ahead with the ABM, with the MIRV and other programs which have assured that we have adequate nuclear strength, not only today, but on into the future.”

 

“We have also moved ahead with many other important new weapons programs during the past three years as we reduced our military manpower under the policy of the Nixon Doctrine. I can say to you without qualification – if the Congress supports the defense programs we have included in the FY 1973 budget, America will have the military strength to support the Nixon Doctrine throughout the decade of the 1970s and on into the decade of the 1980s.

 

“Frankly. I think that this country would be in serious trouble if we didn’t have a fighter like Dick Nixon running the show. Isolationism, which seems to be what the Democrats want, may have had some merits in the 1920s. In the 1970s withdrawal of America from the world scene would be catastrophic to the cause of peace. At home, the Democrats have set their hearts on a massive new load of spending schemes – ranging from nationalized health insurance to a WPA-type program for unemployed workers.”

 

“Skilled and tenacious men are working to break down our military strength around the world and to build up a collectivist state at home. To resist them, we need a fighter on our side. To resist them we need another four years of Richard Nixon in the White House.”

 

4/20/72, Copy of printed program for the United Republican Finance Committee dinner.

4/21/72, Copy of clipping from San Francisco Chronicle, 4/21/72  covering Packard’s speech

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from Robert R. Wood, Chairman Republican Central Committee

5/4/72, Complimentary letter to Packard from William L. Keady

 

 

Box 3, Folder 27 – General speeches

 

April 24, 1972, American Business Press, Silver Quill Award, Puerto Rico

 

4/24/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with extensive handwritten notations and additions by him.

 

Packard starts out saying he was tempted to tell the audience about some of his “adventures in the jungles of Washington bureaucracy…about the dangers of excessive civilian meddling in the affairs of the military, about the need for military to put a high career priority on procurement problems, and so on….

 

“I have seriously considered telling something about the current situation in Vietnam, why it is essential for the President to respond – as he has responded – to the Soviet supported invasion by North Vietnam across the DMZ [demilitarized zone], and across the western border of South Vietnam. To tell you something that needs to be said again and again – If the North Vietnamese would simply go home – simply leave from South Vietnam, from Cambodia and from Laos, this war would be over tomorrow. But they will not go home as long as they have substantial support from many people in America – including elected officials and candidates for high office.”

 

Instead of the above, however, Packard says he has decided to talk about “the free enterprise system…in the context of the whole of American society.”

 

He says he wants to talk about this subject because he sees “a continuing erosion of our freedom in business and industry,” and, he judges, “the press feels put upon in this regard, as well.”

 

Packard says he has noticed that their “award describes America as a country which guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of enterprise.” And he says that “no society can be truly free unless both freedom in economic enterprise and freedom in political enterprise, of which journalism is one branch, are guaranteed. A blow at one will inevitably be a blow at the other.

 

“There are all too many people,” Packard continues, “including journalists, who do not understand the indivisibility of freedom. They imagine that governments can meddle in the economy without ultimately abridging political freedoms. As a matter of fact, the very left-wingers peddling this line are now feeling the error of their ways most acutely.”

 

In support of this last statement, Packard describes a situation at “Stanford University, where I was a Board member before leaving for the Pentagon. [At Stanford] there was recently a debate on whether to permit military recruiting on campus. Many faculty opposed such recruiting. But they did not oppose the tens of millions of dollars a year Stanford receives from the Federal Government; money which would be withdrawn if military recruiting were banned.

 

“And yet, they do not seem to have learned their lesson. Who do you think are now the loudest in proclaiming that universities need vast amounts of Federal aid for research into domestic problems – for scholarships for minorities, and for professorships in minority studies? So many of our left-wing intellectuals seem to think they can have it both ways: public money, but no public control. Well, they are learning the hard way what we believers in free enterprise have been saying all along: Federal aid means Federal control.”

 

Packard says the choice to refuse Federal aid – and thereby avoid Federal control, “is a desirable course wherever possible….The trouble is that Federal control has expanded much faster and much further than Federal aid. The tenor of the times is expanding Federal control. I am sure the expansion can not be stopped, but I do believe it can and should be slowed – better directed and made more constructive. The way to do this – and I believe the only way – is through better self discipline by the people involved and better leadership from the people involved – the business community, the publishing community, and indeed, all other private communities of our society.”

 

. “As I have said many times to my friends in [the defense] industry, if you don’t want a Senator Proxmire to chastize [sic] you for a C-5A program, don’t screw up the program so you deserve to be chastized. [sic]

 

“That is the lesson we in business and industry have not learned very well. Ralph Nader would not have enough credibility to get an audience if there was really no merit to his complaints. The environmentalists would have little influence if they were entirely wrong in what the say. The critics of the press could be ignored or would cease to exist if the press were, in fact, beyond criticism.”

 

Packard says he thinks “the increased criticism of business, at least in part, is the direct result of a lack of sufficient social awareness in the business community. I think that there are a number of reasons that businessmen resist [the] idea that they have social responsibilities, but I would like to point out these very same businessmen are the first people to spend lots of their free time helping out the lady down the street who just became a widow, or taking the kids next door on a camping trip while their father is in the hospital.”

 

Packard says he realizes “what is called a socially responsible activity is always changing….While perhaps exasperating, these shifts are natural. The needs of society change; as soon as society has conquered a certain problem, such as poor working conditions or inadequate higher education, it moves on to another problem. The businessman who fails to keep up with the trends of thought in society does so at his own risk, and, I might add, at the risk of society. The businessman, as we say in engineering, gets ahead of the power curve so he has some chance to direct its course instead of just letting it drag him along.”

 

“Businessmen must find ways by which they can help guide the overall thinking on a social issue. Take, for example, the environment. Already, we see two distinct lines of thought emerging: the one says that technology can be used to cure the ills created by technology; the other says virtually the opposite: that we should dramatically cut back our whole productive mechanism. The thoughtful businessman is better able than most so-called environmentalists to make an intelligent judgment on this score. How difficult it will be to clean up waste? Are new technologies designed to clean up waste likely to generate their own problems? How effectively could new low-polluting products replace what we have become accustomed to; in what time period and at what cost?

 

“Another reason for resisting the idea of social responsibility is a lack of clear guide lines among their colleagues within each industry as to what kind of behavior is proper and right, such as those codes of ethics that exist in the medical and legal professions. Naturally, without such guidelines the competitive forces of business discourage expensive exercises in social responsibility. For example, a steelmaker will be highly reluctant to undertake costly plant changes, thereby driving up his prices, to clean up his waste if he is not confident that such steps are being taken throughout the industry. One obvious solution to this – closer consultation among competitors over environmental issues – is currently discouraged by anti-trust laws. But this is a subject which should be followed up.”

 

“And finally, I suspect that much resistance to ‘social responsibility’ can be blamed on the way the extremist reformers push their ideas. When a Ralph Nader or a William Proxmire talk about business responsibility, he sounds like a vindictive prosecuting attorney rather than a friend asking for cooperation.

 

“ I must confess that I sympathize with businessmen who feel this way. I suspect that many corporate critics who tell business what should be their minority quotas, or emission level standards, or whatever, are not only anti-business, but are also hypocritical. They would be the first to squawk if you suggested that Harvard or Yale University has a social responsibility to produce certain kinds of young men and women. Can you imagine the liberal professors at Harvard, so eager to impose their particular standards of social progress on GM or General Foods, agreeing to a group of businessmen establishing measurements for a liberally educated undergraduate?

 

“ I want to say that I am very concerned about recent proposals to attempt to influence the business conscience by Universities through their investment portfolio. I doubt that General Motors or U.S. Steel could care less about whether or not Yale holds their stock – I am sure it would make no difference to the Hewlett-Packard Co.  If these Universities refuse to hold stock they would clearly also have to refuse to accept contributions from these corporations. To one who has worked very hard over the last decade to encourage more corporate support for higher education this would be a disappointing turn of events indeed.

 

“These crusaders seem bent on looking for villains and scapegoats. For example, all too many ecologists blame businessmen for pollution and proceed to argue that businesses should pay, out of their profits, to clean up the environment. They argue that private enterprise can not, because of its blind adherence to the profit motive, respond to these priority needs of our society. Such anti-free enterprise talk is nonsense.”

 

“However, despite all their shortcomings, these reformers are talking about issues which the whole country is thinking about. If they were not describing life as a lot of people see it, they would not receive the attention they do. We businessmen must listen to them for the general directions they see in society’s thinking.”

 

“However, we should be most wary about their particular prescriptions. Everyone in this room knows that if you want something done and you want it done well and fast, there is one segment of our society  to turn to: private enterprise. Once society has decided on general goals, free enterprise should have as much to do in implementing the goals as possible. It is imperative, therefore that businessmen take the lead in formulating and carrying out solutions to society’s problems. If government gets there first, salvaging the environment, or whatever, the task will become mired in red tape and duplication of effort and sloth. And, at the same time, additional controls will be imposed on the private sector.

 

“You in this room have a unique opportunity to help our business community understand the importance of responding to social issues. As publishers to the business world, you are key opinion molders of our free enterprise system. With the degree of objectivity which good publishers and reporters bring to their work, you can look at the broader picture. You can see that, while social responsibility may pose short-run inconveniences, it is very much in the long-run interests of American businessmen. You may not be thanked tomorrow for your efforts, but you will know that you helped to keep business in the vanguard of the American conscience where it must be if it is to remain free.

 

“Thank you.”

 

Undated, Copy of a booklet titled What is the Silver Quill?

2/4/70, Copy of the program from a previous award dinner

4/23/72, Advance registration for the American Business Press Eighth Spring Meeting

4/24/72, Copy of the program for the dinner presenting the award to Packard

 

4/3/72, Press release from ABP announcing the forthcoming award to Packard

4/23/72, Announcement from ABP to all attendees giving travel details

4/24/72, Press release from ABP covering award to Packard

1/31/72,  Internal HP memo from Russ Berg to Bob Boniface saying the ABP would like to present the Silver Quill Award to Packard.

1/31/72, Letter to Packard from Charles Mill of ABP describing the award and hope that Packard would be willing to receive it.

2/10/72, Copy of a letter to Charles Mill from Packard saying he would be pleased to accept the award

2/16/72, Copy of a letter to Packard from Charles Mill saying he is delighted Packard is willing to receive the award and enclosing some background material

3/17/72, Letter to Packard from William O’Donnell of ABP, asking for the name of the person with whom they can work on details Packard’s participation in the award dinner

3/20/72, Copy of a letter to William O’Donnell from Margaret Paull sending biographical material

4/14/72, Copy of a letter to Charles Mill from Melvin Laird, saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner and describing Packard’s contributions to the Department of Defense

4/19/72, Letter from President Nixon to Packard saying “It pleased me greatly to know that the American Business Press is presenting its Silver Quill Award to you. Your enduring achievements on behalf of our national defense have set standards which will be a source of strength and inspiration for all who follow you.”

4/20/72, Letter to Packard from William O’Donnell, ABP, saying they are looking forward to Packard’s arrival in Puerto Rico, and discussing local transportation arrangements.

4/25/72, Clipping form Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 28 – General speeches

 

April 28, 1972, The Businessman as a Public Official, San Francisco, CA

 

Packard was one of a panel of speakers at this Conference sponsored by the University of California School of Business Administration.

 

4/28/72, Set of 3×5” cards upon which Packard wrote some notes for his remarks. Hs notes are in brief outline form.

 

“Wide range of both private enterprises – corporate officials, government clerk – cabinet secretary

 

“Impression of government works because there are thousands of dedicated public servants – not because of the wisdom of the Congress or the elected and appointed officials.

 

“Where was my experience [in business] useful [in the DOD]: administration, decision making, technical knowledge

 

“Where was my experience of no value: dealing with Congress, good committees, bad committees; dealing with the public, simply had not done.

 

“Some problems: conflict of interest. Some useful programs, executive interchange

 

“Businessmen are no more able to reform government than anyone else.

 

“Did I learn anything useful?

 

3/8/72, Letter to Packard from Richard H. Holton, Dean School of Business Administration, discussing arrangements for the conference. A copy of the typewritten program is attached.

4/20/72, Letter to Packard from Dean Holton, saying they plan to tape the talks

4/24/72, Letter to Packard from Donald Fraser, member of the Executive Committee of the Business School, saying he will be Packard’s host contact during the conference

 

 

Box 3, Folder 29 – General Speeches

 

May 1, 1972, Investing in America, San Francisco, CA

 

5/1/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Since the organization, Invest-In-America, is directed primarily at educating young people about the importance of savings and corporate profits, Packard tells his audience  he will direct his comments to the young students invited to attend – since “I found it very difficult to think of anything I could say today that most of you do not already know.”

 

“What do we mean by ‘Invest-In-America?’ Packard asks. “Fundamentally, it means that we are working to promote the importance of the concept that individuals in America have the opportunity to invest their money…and also their time and energy and knowledge in enterprises of their personal choice.” Packard makes it clear that “This investment opportunity is not unique to America – it is also found in all countries which have not adopted the communist philosophy. The freedom of individuals to have the choice of investment is one of the important – indeed essential – freedoms of America and the entire free world.

 

“This option is not available to people in Communist countries. They are not allowed to own anything of substance, and no part of the productive establishment. In fact, an individual in those countries cannot own his own home, unless he has built it himself. These peoples have been sold the phony bill of goods that the productive establishment of their country belongs to the people – but nothing could be further from the truth. They cannot sell their share, not can they buy a larger share. Under Communism there is no such thing as ownership in the sense that the individual has anything to say about that share of the business or industry that supposedly belong to him as ‘one of the people.’ The people have no voice in how the productive establishment is to be operated.

 

Packard explains that freedom to invest is important “to provide the capital for our growing economy. These investments have a direct relationship to economic growth and progress.” And he adds that “growth is necessary if our country is to remain economically strong – an absolute must if we are to provide leadership in attaining the goals of peace and understanding among the countries of the world. Economic growth is also necessary if we are to continue our battle to improve the standards of living for every American. Economic growth means that there will be more dollars available to the hundreds and hundreds of charitable organizations and institutions throughout America who are working on the problems of the elderly, the disadvantaged, the handicapped. And, of course, economic growth on a national scale means economic growth on the individual scale, through improved earnings and benefits, and through the growth of personal investment.”

 

Packard also emphasizes the importance of freedom of investment of becoming a “part of the action in our economy….you can become, as a stockholder, a partner in the business you have chosen to invest in….

 

“It is through this process that millions of people have been able to participate in and benefit from the growth and success of the American economy on an individual basis.”

 

Packard tells how people in America can obtain financing for their business enterprises. “Decisions can be made by the people who will be able to implement those decisions and succeed or fail on the decisions they have made.

 

“Why is that important?,” Packard asks. “Why can’t a central authority decide what is to be produced and who is to produce it?…Wouldn’t it allow the resources of society to be allocated so as to produce on the most efficient basis the things the society needs.?

 

“The problem here,” Packard responds, “is that no one in a position of central authority, which would be the government, is that smart.”

 

As evidence,…”compare the range of products available at any shopping center in America with those available in any shop in Russia.”

 

Packard gives what he feels are the two most important benefits from a private investment economy – “First, it gives every American an opportunity to participate on a personal basis in our economic growth. Secondly, the economy is made more responsive to the needs and desires of the individual in our society through the individual investment process. It is an automatic and very efficient selection system. If you can build a better mousetrap you will be a success – and if you have this ability.”

 

Packard suggests there are other kinds of investments which have made America great. It is not just the stock or bonds you buy – or the money you put in a savings account and which in turn can be invested in a productive endeavor – it is also the time and energy and knowledge of millions of people which has been invested in endeavors of public service that have helped make America the great country it is today.”

 

“What is needed are businessmen, financiers, writers, and all sorts of professionals using their special talents, each should spend enough time to become familiar and sympathetic with the needs not only of a certain problem area – say fighting cancer

–but of the total organization. This would become his “other business.”

 

“I’d like to emphasize that I think the word ‘charity’ is a misnomer. The money and the time given to so-called charitable enterprises is in a very real sense investing in America. The value of this great personal investment by Americans of their substance, their time, and their talent is probably beyond measure. Whatever its measure, it is without any doubt becoming more important as our society becomes more complex.”

 

“I would like to say a word about the importance of a favorable climate to this investment process. Incentives to investment have been built into the tax laws—special rates for taxing capital gains, investment credit, special depreciation allowances. These special tax considerations have done much to make a high private investment rate possible in America. These tax provisions have brought about business expansion, more jobs, and better and lower cost products than would have been possible otherwise. Recently we have seen the emergence of a tax reform movement—an issue receiving considerable attention during the current wave of political campaigning. The people who are now talking about tax reform are talking mainly about closing so-called loopholes. These so-called loopholes they are talking about closing include mainly those incentives that have been built to encourage investment in America. The tax provisions for capital gains is one of the greatest incentives to invest in America. The reformers propose to apply a full tax on capital gains. This means that if someone in the 60% tax bracket sells a stock, he must pay 60% tax on his capital gains rather than 25%. I’m sure you can see the effect this would have on the free flow of capital.”

 

Packard goes on to depletion allowances, saying they “are provided as an incentive for investment in exploration and development and have played a crucial role in insuring that we have the natural resources, the necessary gas and oil, and other natural resources to supply our expanding economy. Elimination of this allowance would undoubtedly increase our reliance on imports at a time when our balance of trade is already in trouble.

 

“The Revenue Act of 1971 restored the investment credit, expanded deductions for charitable giving and was generally constructive to private investment. The tax reform proposals now advocated by the leading Democratic candidates would roll back these gains as well as other longstanding incentives to private investment. The proposed tax reform would be a severe blow to investing in America.

 

“Economic growth is part and parcel of the spirit of progress, exploration, and adventure that pervades the Western world. The spirit that encourages our investment in tomorrow is the same that makes us want to go to the moon or explore the mysteries of the atom, or inquire into the basic life processes. It is the spirit of American free enterprise.

 

“Economic growth gives us something to look forward to, to work for. It lets us anticipate a better life, with the hope and goal of an ever-improving standard of living and expansion of opportunities for all Americans.

 

“The stakes of American free enterprise are the stakes of investment in America. For efforts to keep alive this great and important tradition, I salute you.

 

“Thank you.”

 

2/3/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes, President Standard  Oil Company of California, inviting Packard to speak at the 18^th annual Invest-In-America luncheon. Attachments give background information

2/23/72, Copy of a letter to H. J. Haynes from Packard, accepting the invitation.

2/29/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes saying he is delighted that Packard has accepted their invitation to speak

4/12/72,  Copy of the formal invitation to the luncheon, and printed program

5/1/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes thanking Packard for his “most realistic presentation at the luncheon

5/2/72, Letter to Packard from Robert R. Gros asking for a copy of Packard’s speech which he wants to send to the Freedoms Foundation

5/4/72, Copy of a letter to the Freedoms Foundation from Ivy Lee, Jr. sending them a copy of Packard’s speech

5/11/72, Letter to Packard from Ivy Lee Jr. enclosing photographs taken at the luncheon

5/2/72, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle covering Packard’s speech

 

 

Box 3, Folder 30 – General Speeches

 

May 10, 1972 Invest in America, Annual Achievement Banquet, San Jose State College, CA

 

In the words of the School “The primary purpose of the banquet is to present awards to deserving business students. Each of the seven departments of the School selects students, who, on the basis of certain qualifications, have been nominated to receive either a financial award or a plaque, or similar item of recognition, donated by various local and national organizations or corporations.”

 

5/10/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says he is pleased “to be speaking before a group of young men and women who are embarking on a career in business.” He says his own career in business has been challenging and exciting and he is confident theirs will be too….”America is teeming with opportunities for ambitious young businessmen and businesswomen.”

 

Packard wonders why young people sometimes think careers in business are considered ‘boring’ or ‘ignoble.’ “It might seem that there are some necessary

projects which can only be performed by government, such as pollution control. But the fact is, anything as big as pollution control cannot be handled by government alone. Strong control would bring chaos and inertia to the work necessary to solve the problems of pollution. There would be chaos, because there are simply too many millions of day-to-day decisions –affecting jobs, paychecks and progress in other areas, as well as the environment – for Washington bureaucrats to handle the problem intelligently. And there would be inertia, because once Americans think Uncle Sam will do the job, they forget their own responsibilities.”

 

“Businessmen are perhaps the most important group of private citizens that should involve themselves in social efforts such as the pollution battle.” Explaining this statement, he says businessmen would have a better practical  understanding of the technology required, would have a better appreciation of the value of the dollar, and would have more flexibility, allowing him to try alternatives and switch to the best one.

 

“By contrast, the bureaucrat…cannot use funds for other than legislated purposes. Even if he can save or generate money through above-average efficiency….The result is to discourage new, more effective programs and to perpetuate old programs, however inefficient they may be.”

 

Packard also feels the businessman “can be more objective than the politician in appraising social action programs. Trained in the hard realities of profit-and-loss statements, he will more likely scrutinize the effectiveness of a given program and be less swayed by its lofty-sounding, if unattainable, goals.”

 

“Nowhere is the need for efficient administrators more evident than in the Defense Department. The enormous size of the operation, the massive procurement problems, and the importance of national security makes the pentagon a prime candidate for business management techniques.”

 

Packard says when he and Mel  Laird first came to the Defense Department they found many problems – cost over-runs in procurement, poor communications, poor intelligence, scandals, and friction in the chain of command.

 

“Yet, as I worked with the people in the Department, I found them to be as capable individuals as you would find in the best business organizations of the country.”

 

“Why, then, were there so many management problems? The answer, in my opinion, is very simple. Managing the department of defense is a political job as well as a business management job. Secretary Laird and I were able to bring about some improvements in the management of the Department during the past few years because he could handle the political side, while I could give some attention to the management side.”

 

Packard reports that they “were able to make some major strides forward in procurement. We improved the training, selection, and recognition of procurement officers. We established a new procurement school. We worked out the fly-before-you-buy concept, under which costs of development are separated out from costs of production.”

 

“Unhappily, however, I must report that Congressional meddling in Pentagon affairs prohibited us from taking many other much-needed steps. There were, as always, Congressmen fighting to bring bases and contracts to their home districts. And there was the new phenomena of left-wing Congressmen finding fault with all major new weapons systems, whatever their merits or however efficient they might be.”

 

“And these fault finders spoke not with a spirit of constructive criticism, but with the belligerency of headline-hungry opportunists. Time and time again, they distorted facts and used them out of context, simply to make a point that might embarrass the military and hit the front pages. During the three years I spent in the Pentagon these critics did not bring to light a single problem that was not already well understood and being worked on by competent professional people.”

 

“And yet they certainly did contribute to inefficiency in the Defense Department. We wasted thousands of man hours responding to Congressional interrogations – which were inspired to impress the people back home, not to contribute to the solution of a problem.”

 

“I further regret to say that uninformed Congressional criticism is not limited to management problems in the Pentagon. It extends to our overall foreign policy, and in recent months has taken on an ominously isolationist tone. Look, for example, at the recent Senate vote to kill the Foreign Aid program overnight, with no provisions to effectively phase out the program, or provide for adequate substitutes.”

 

“Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the current isolationist fever is the defense platform of senator George McGovern. McGovern, remember, currently leads the democratic field in terms of committed delegates. And, after being dismissed a scant two months ago as a splinter candidate, now has a very good chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

“He would cut the Marine Corps from 200,000 to 140,000 by 1975. He would recommend that the Air Force be cut from 750,000 to 475,000. Deployment of the SAFEGUARD system would be halted. The development of the B-1 bomber, a very important element of our future strategic nuclear capability, also would be halted he would stop the F15 development, which is the most important program we have to keep ahead of the Soviets in tactical air power.

 

“In short, Senator McGovern wold disarm the United States and gamble the future of our country on the goodwill of the Soviet Union.

 

“Senators aren’t the only ones whose irrationality is pushing America towards isolationism. While I was in Washington, I heard scientists use their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs—particularly the all-important nuclear programs. I heard distinguished newsmen favor Hanoi, Moscow, and New Delhi over America in their reporting. I heard mindless criticism flooding in from academe.

 

Packard anticipates that some may ask what is wrong with isolating ourselves from the world?

 

“The answer to this is that we no longer live in the 1920s. We can no longer shut out the world. If we do not actively pursue peace around the world, war originating elsewhere in the world will end up dragging us in, as they have in the past.” And Packard recalls  Neville Chamberlain coming back from Munich with an agreement which was to be ‘Peace in Our time’ in 1938.”

 

“And even if we do steer clear of war, a hostile power dominating Europe and controlling the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and the western shores of the Pacific, would inevitably limit our ability to contribute political, economic, and cultural leadership to other countries around the world.

 

“Let there be no doubt that a hostile power does threaten to dominate both Europe and these other important areas of the world. I am referring, of course, to the Soviet Union.”

 

“While the Soviet Union is probably not realistically planning all-out war against either western Europe or the United States, it undoubtedly does expect to reap political and strategic gains from its recent arms build-up.”

 

“We can no longer be sure we could deter the Soviets in the way we did during the 1962 Cuban Missile crises.

 

“The Soviets increasing naval strength will give them much greater power and flexibility in many areas of the world. The Eastern Mediterranean is perhaps the most critical. But the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific are areas where they could become the dominant power….In simple terms, if we withdraw from the world, the Soviets will become the dominant power in the world and we will become a second-rate nation.

 

“While we would not necessarily face an immediate Communist take-over at home, we would become, like other nations that have recently withdrawn from world affairs, a has-been nation. I hope that’s not the kind of a future you young people want to look forward to.”

 

Packard explains that this series of events would have economic repercussions as well. “All sorts of initiatives, described as efforts to restrict ‘U.S. Imperialism,’ would whittle away at our international commerce. Without a strong military to rely on, we would be forced to yield again and again.

 

“This would do serious harm to our economy. Many of our key industries depend heavily on foreign trade. Many of our natural resources come from abroad, and sole reliance on domestic sources would quickly deplete our reserves. Our shipping and air transport industries, of course, are highly dependent on a high level of foreign trade, and our high technology industries rely heavily on exports for sales.”

 

“It is folly to pretend, as so many politicians do, that we can isolate ourselves from the world without catastrophic effects to our national security, our economic well-being and, even more fundamentally, our national spirit.

 

“I say ‘our national spirit’ because the greatness of America has always been the spirit of growth, development, adventure, and search for new horizons. This is the soul of America, and it is also the soul of youth. Those who would suffer most, if we cannot shed our national introspection, will be the young people of America. Young people, who are just beginning their lives and want the chance to grow with their country—the same chance their parents and granPackardarents had. I hope, therefore, that you in this room—particularly you students—will join with those of us fighting to keep America self-confident, a leader and a participant in the expanding opportunities of all the world.

 

“Thank you for your interest and attention.”

 

5/10/72, Printed program for the Fourteenth Annual Achievement Banquet Program

5/10/72, Printed brochure about the School of Business

2/11/72, Letter to Packard from George Stauss, Professor, San Jose State College, inviting Packard to be the guest speaker at their Annual Achievement Banquet

2/22/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to George Stauss accepting the invitation

3/7/72, Letter to Packard giving details of the banquet

4/30/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury News saying Packard is to speak to Business School Grads

5/4/72, Internal HP memorandum from Security Chief Dick Coulter to Packard telling him that the Santa Clara Police expect some 300 students and non-students to hold a ‘mock trial’ in an attempt to disrupt his speaking. The memo discusses security for transporting Packard to and from the banquet.

 

5/9/72,  Memo from Dick Coulter to Margaret Paull discussing further security details

5/10/72, Typed statement which appears to have been written (and perhaps spoken at the banquet) by John H. Bunzel, President of San Jose State College. The statement is his reply to an  accusation that he brings disgrace to himself and the College by associating with David Packard, ‘a man who has blood on his hands.’

5/10/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from  a Tom Gautner enclosing a “Wanted poster” circulated by protesters. The letter wishes Packard well.

5/11/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury News covering Packard’s speech

5/12/72, Letter to Packard from George Stauss thanking him taking ‘such a personal interest in our business students at our recent Achievement Banquet.’

5/15/72, Letter to Packard from Millburn D. Wright, Dean of the School of Business, thanking him for speaking at their banquet.

6/30/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Marlene Stauss thanking her for making him a ‘special’ tie, and saying he “appreciates it very much.”

Undated, Newspaper clipping telling of Packard’s forthcoming speech

Undated, More samples of protest flyers

 

 

Box 3, Folder 31 – General speeches

 

May 18, 1972, Military Affairs Luncheon, San Francisco, CA, Chamber of Commerce

 

5/18/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

“We are gathered here today to honor the men and women who serve America in the uniform of their country….They are great  people, and they deserve and need the understanding and support of every loyal American.”

 

Packard says he was “most impressed” with the men and women in the Armed Forces while he was at the Pentagon – with their efficiency, their dedication. “It is often fashionable to characterize men who make a career of the military as unable to do anything else. [They] seem to believe…that military service is not noble, and therefore attracts people for only the basest reasons. This is simply not true. Most soldiers, particularly those who devote their lives to the military, believe strongly in the need for and the importance of the security of our country. They know that America must remain strong if America is to remain free.”

 

Packard cites many other reasons why men and women are attracted to military life – the outdoor life, being in an organization which has precision and efficiency, professional opportunities such engineering, flying, navigation, communications.

 

“People trying to downgrade the calibre [sic] of our servicemen often point to drug and race problems in Vietnam, and many of our newspapers are all too happy to play up these themes. But how often do we read about the winners of medals for heroism, or the soldiers in Vietnam who work off-hours to help teach Vietnamese kids English or help Vietnamese families build better houses?”

 

Packard recalls that Senator Fulbright charged that American troops were turning Saigon into a brothel. “But how much news coverage has been given to the lasting friendships developed between Americans and Vietnamese? Or about the foreign girls American soldiers marry during their overseas tours?”

 

Packard says he is “sickened”  when he hears of “spoiled young elitists on our college campuses demonstrating against President Nixon’s efforts to resist blatant aggression. And even those students who only circulate petitions –like the one to cut off all supplies to our men who are in Vietnam – are not much better. They hurt our troops’ morale and encourage the North Vietnamese to continue their aggression…perhaps causing irreparable damage…to our national security.”

 

“A particularly regrettable result of student dissent is the removal of ROTC programs from many of our so-called prestige colleges. These ROTC programs were providing some of our best young officers – men who could eventually move to the highest levels. And now that we are moving to a smaller Army, it becomes increasingly important that our leaders be the best available; quality must substitute for quantity.

 

“Our colleges and universities have a responsibility to contribute to the quality of training and leadership of our Armed forces. Those that do not, deserve the support of neither the Federal Government nor the general public.

 

“Personally, I have nothing but contempt for the college and university Presidents who approved the removal of ROTC from their compuses. I do not exempt Stanford from this judgment, despite all the time, energy, and substance I have devoted to my Alma Mater.”

 

Before leaving the subject of ROTC, Packard points out that “certain institutions are considering reinstating ROTC.” And he adds that “during the last three years, when ROTC programs were being thrown off 38 of the ‘elite’ universities, 58 new ROTC programs were established at other colleges – particularly in the West and the South. It would seem that, once again it has been demonstrated that the great common sense of the country is not very well represented at the Harvards, the Yales, and the Stanfords.”

 

Packard says there are other places where “irrationality over the military” can be found – “emotional anti-military harangues from columnists, liberal Congressmen and others.”

Packard feels “disenchantment with the Vietnamese war underlies much of this anti-military fervor. Many Americans – disenchanted with the war and puzzled as to what went wrong – turned against the military as the most visible symbol of our problems in Vietnam. While unfair, at least this reaction is rooted in genuine bewilderment.

 

“But there is another source of anti-military rhetoric which is nowhere near as innocent. And that is the liberals who got us into the war in the first lace. Having seen the war going badly, they looked for a scapegoat that would turn attention away from their failures. The military, highly visible and misunderstood by many Americans, was the obvious target.

 

“Incidents such as My Lai fell right into the critics’ hands. For at My Lai the military clearly abused their power. The liberal line, peddled by politicians and press alike, tended to downplay the extreme provocations Calley faced and the fact that none of our other officers, despite similar provocations, have overreacted. Instead, we heard over and over about alleged cover-ups and the obvious brutality of the killings. The message was loud and clear: ‘The military is out of control, we liberals who started this war wash our hands of it.’

 

“In point of fact, of course, far from getting out of control, our soldiers in Vietnam have been the victims of excessive civilian controls. Our political leaders permitted Cambodia to be used as a sanctuary of the North Vietnamese. Prior to 1970 the Communists were allowed to bring supplies through the Port of Sihanoukville and establish bases 35 miles from Saigon and all along the border of south Vietnam.”

 

“Ground action to cut the HO Chi Min trail was avoided and many other constraints were placed on our military people in Vietnam.

 

“There were reasons for this civilian control and reasons why specific actions were taken or were not taken. When they did not work out, however, it is not the military that should be given the blame.”

 

Packard refers to critics who have started “peddling the line that our war effort is aggressive, aimed not at preserving world peace but at securing bases, winning economic gains, or even giving our soldiers the sheer joy of killing.” He finds the last idea “simply beyond belief.”

 

“As to the notion that we seek some sort of permanent economic or territorial advantage, America’s record during the twentieth century speaks for itself. Despite winning three wars, we have neither sought nor gained a single economic concession or permanent territorial gain. In striking contrast, wealth and territory were central war aims of the totalitarian powers we fought against.

 

“Our goal has been simple enough: lasting peace. We have been willing to spend hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve this simple goal.”

 

But Packard says he regrets that “we do not seem to have learned the first lesson of international politics: military strength and an active foreign policy are necessary to achieve a lasting peace. After World War I, which might have been prevented by active American diplomacy, we were pulled into another great war, which firm resistance to early Nazi aggression could have prevented. After World War II, we brought all our troops home and excluded vital segments of the Asian rim from our defense perimeter. This folly led to the Korean war and confrontation with the Soviet Union in eastern and southeastern Europe.

 

“Now many Americans would have us once again withdraw from world affairs and a strong defense posture. What new war would this bring? I would like to ask.

 

“In this day and age, I believe that the best chance the world has to limit the extent of war is for the leading nations of the world to be strong enough to deter attacks upon each other and then be willing to cooperate in responsible ways to minimize conflict among the smaller nations of the world.”

 

“In planning for the future, there are two programs worth special mention. One is to provide for substantial improvements in the responsiveness and survivability of the command and control of our strategic nuclear forces. This program is so urgent that the President requested a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal 1972 budget to accelerate it.

 

“The other is ULMS (Undersea Long-Range Missile Submarine Force). This program is essential to provide survivable submarine-based missiles to replace our aging Polaris-Poseidon force. The ULMS submarines can be based at home, under the protection of our fleet. Our allies are showing increasing reservations about allowing U.S. nuclear weapons on their territory, and it is therefore prudent to have submarines which can be based at home as soon as possible.

 

“The Nixon Administration has also been moving ahead on conventional forces.” And he names several weapons systems – the F-15, the Ax, the F-14, the Harrier and the Agile missile. “We increased the Navy shipbuilding budget by some $2 billion, which increases the production of nuclear attack submarines, modern destroyers and frigates. We have two nuclear carriers under construction and have requested funds for the third in the fiscal year 1973 budget.”

 

“And R and D has been increased. We increased it from $7 billion in 1971 to $7.7 billion this year, and we requested $8.5 billion for fiscal year 1973.”

 

“ Because of all these efforts, we have been able to bargain from strength, and the results are encouraging. We have reached agreements on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on ocean seabeds.

 

“We have made progress on the strategic arms limitations talks, and this round of negotiations is a magnificent example of the advantage of bargaining from strength. Our decision to move ahead on ABM and other strategic systems has induced the Soviets to negotiate seriously. Had we taken the advice of certain left-wing Senators and abandoned these projects – in effect, unilaterally disarmed – the Soviets would have been pleased. But they would have had no motivation to work toward an arms limitation agreement with us.

 

“Unfortunately, we have not yet reached the second requirement for the possibility of permanent world peace – the ability of the superpowers to keep wars from breaking out in smaller countries.

 

“This, of course, is no easy matter. An increasing number of nations resent what they consider big-power meddling, even when peace is the objective.

 

“Furthermore, there are fundamental differences between the Soviet Union and the United States which may prevent cooperative peace-keeping. Soviet arms shipments to North Vietnam and provocations in the Middle East testify to the inherent problems in any scheme of superpower peace-keeping.”

 

“It is important that this support be translated into specific actions that will demonstrate to our soldiers and sailors how much we appreciate them, and how much esteem we have for those who make a career of the military. It will become increasingly important to encourage men and women to stay in the Armed Services as we move to an all-volunteer Army, since the all-volunteer army will eliminate many draft-induced enlistments.”

 

Packard has some recommendations which members of the audience can do to help: placing veterans in jobs, involving the Presidio personnel in things like parades and other community action projects.

 

He recommends encouraging reservists, “since our smaller active forces will require a strong and ready reserve.”

 

“These are just a few suggestions, and I am sure all of you have your own ideas as to how to better recognize the fine young men and women who are serving you and your country.

 

“Let’s make every day Armed Forces Day!”

 

5/18/72, Copy of the program for the day’s events

12/27/71, Letter to Packard from Ben Swig, Chairman, Military Affairs Committee, inviting Packard to be the guest speaker at the Chamber of Commerce’s Military Affairs Luncheon.

12/29/71, Copy of a letter from Packard to Ben Swig accepting the invitation to speak.

1/6/71 [sic], Letter to Packard from Ben Swig thanking him for accepting their invitation.

5/12/72, Letter to Packard from Lex J. Byers, Coordinator Military Affairs Luncheon, enclosing ticket for the head table.

5/18/72, Letter to Packard from James M. Gere, a professor at Stanford, saying he shares Packard’s feelings about support for ROTC , and that he has been embarrassed by the actions of some of his colleagues.

5/18/72, Letter to Packard from Finley Carter congratulating him on his speech.

5/19/72, Letter to Packard from Ralph N. Cole, a Stanford grad,  thanking him for his speech. He encloses a copy of a letter to President Richard Lyman of Stanford from himself expressing “dismay and outrage” at President Lyman’s recent letter to President Nixon expressing “dismay and outrage” at the bombing of North Vietnam.

5/20/72, Letter to Packard from Walter M. Morand agreeing with Packard’s point of view. A news clipping is attached.

5/21/72, A handwritten letter to Packard from Bert L. Frescura who says he is an employee of HP, attending Stanford on the Honors Cooperative Program. He says he agrees with Packard’s viewpoint on the ROTC.

5/21/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from Darwin F. Godfrey, saying he was pleased to hear Packard’s comments.

5/21/72, Note to Packard from Archie Brown, saying it was with “deep satisfaction” that he read Packard’s comments.

5/22/72, Letter to Packard from Mark A. Whalen, Rear Admiral U. S. Coast Guard, saying he appreciated the opportunity to hear Packard speak.

5/22/72, Letter to Packard from J. Richard Finnegan saying he was delighted with Packard’s comments and asking for a copy.

5/22/72, Letter to Packard from Robert E. Franck applauding Packard for his speech.

6/7/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Robert E. Franck thanking him for his letter.

5/23/72, Handwritten note to Packard from George S. Harman, saying it was a pleasure to read Packard’s speech, and enclosing a news clipping.

5/24/72, Letter to Packard from Alfred D. Kirkland agreeing with Packard’s comments.

5/25/72, Letter to Packard from Prentis Hale congratulating Packard on his speech.

5/25/72, Letter to Packard from Edwin Tilton thanking Packard for his speech.

5/30/72, Letter to Packard from Willard G. Houghton congratulating Packard on his thoughts.

6/7/72, Letter to Packard from Allan G. Tate agreeing with his comments

 

5/18/72, Clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech

5/19/72, Clipping form Stanford Daily reporting on Packard’s speech

5/29/72, Clipping from unnamed newspaper with letters to editor disagreeing with Packard

Undated, Clipping from unnamed paper covering Packard’s speech

 

 

Box 3, Folder 32 – General Speeches

 

May 23, 1972, Annual Awards Luncheon, San Francisco, Jr. Chamber of Commerce

 

5/23/72, Typed text of Packard’s speech

 

Saying that there is “a certain exhilaration for young people who have their careers ahead of them”, Packard recalls some of the achievements when HP was starting: building the first building , having a hundred people on the payroll, starting a plant in Germany….

 

“For nearly two hundred years there have been great opportunities for young people in America …a satisfying life in this free enterprise economy.” He says we face a question as to whether “ these kinds of opportunities [will] continue and be there for your children as well.”

 

He wonders if we are caught in some “irresistible and irreversible thrust” toward a “people’s democracy” as the revolutionaries and communists say. He says he doesn’t know if the tide we are caught in is irresistible and irreversible, but he says it may become so “and overwhelm our free institutions and destroy our individual freedom unless we take it more seriously and do something about it.”

 

Packard describes some candidates who are running for office as the ‘people’s candidate.’ “What this means,” he says, “is they want to give the fruits of your labor to the so-called ‘people.’ To the ‘people’ who are protesting in the streets….Where this kind of radical gets elected, he will seek to destroy the opportunity for the accomplishments we are honoring here today.”

 

Packard also says he is “greatly troubled” by the candidacy of George McGovern, the leading Democratic candidate. “McGovern,” he says, ”would cut thirty billion dollars from the Defense budget. Such a cut would, in effect, disarm America and destroy our opportunity for world leadership. Furthermore it would destroy the jobs of three million people who are working to keep America strong.” He refers to McGovern’s talk of finding jobs for everyone as “old New Deal WPA.”

 

Packard tells his audience there are two things they and he can do about this situation. “The first is a short term action and is very simple – get out and work for candidates on the local, state, and national level who will fight for the preservation of our free enterprise system.

 

“The longer term action which the business community must take is to recognize and deal with some of the problems which radical liberals are exploiting. Businessmen can deal effectively with the problems of our society both in their professional role and in what they do in their extra-curricular activities.”

 

“Many critics charge that business ought to be more ‘responsive to pressing problems,’ that it ought to ‘put people above profits,’ that it ought to develop a ‘social conscience,’ that it ought to ‘put human rights above property rights’ and on and on. My response to such critics is ”how many payrolls did you meet this week? What useful products have you placed in the hands of an overworked housewife or busy businessman?” Packard says business is not “some special interest” divorced from the mainstream of society. “…private enterprise is a remarkable effective mechanism for meeting the basic needs of everyone in our society.” And he mentions supermarkets, automobiles, housing, the garment industry, and he asks “Where is there a country or a system with the standard of living so high? Where is there a country with such a great opportunity for an individual to improve his personal situation?”

 

So, then, “What is wrong? Why is business vulnerable to criticism and attack? One reason these anti-business attitudes have gained ground, I regret to say, is that all too often businessmen have not behaved like good neighbors. They have put short-term gains ahead of their long-term reputation.”

 

Packard describes some business people who cheat customers and take advantage the unsophisticated, “Sharksters” he calls them, and says they give all businessmen a bad name. “Doctors and lawyers regulate themselves, and this is the reason they have become known as professionals. When other elements of business and industry impose the same stiff standards on themselves, they will have taken a giant step towards professionalism.

 

“The responsible businessman also thinks about what special effort he can make to help the community. I like to call this investing in the community. This may be helping a charity—a local college, dance troupe, or hospital. Or it may be something in your own business that represents an extraordinary expense.”

 

“Investing in the community does not necessarily mean doing what other people tell us needs to be done. It means doing what we can do, in the most responsible way.”

 

“The point is, let your conscience, not political fads, be your guide to investment in the community.

 

“If you are contributing substantial money to outside charities, I urge that you contribute your time as well—that you roll up your sleeves and get involved in the management of your favorite charities.”

 

Packard feels business can bring a fresh perspective to community enterprises, and he gives the example of education. “During the campus demonstrations of the 1960s academic administrator after academic administrator bowed to, and at times encouraged, the rhetoric that breaking windows and heckling speakers are ‘symbolic free speech’ and that a university should be a place of political activism. The result, predictable, was public revulsion with higher education. The natural question was asked everywhere: Why should I pay taxes or make contributions to support rioting?”

 

Packard says, “Our universities today would be stronger and more widely respected if, during the 1960s, boards of Trustees around the country had exerted control over the day-to-day functioning of our universities.” He acknowledges this would not have been easy, and adds that “you would be amazed at the marvelous arguments university staffs have as to why contributors and Board members should stick to giving money and forget about how their money is being spent”

 

As another example of how businessmen might contribute to community organizations Packard says “…look at how resistant charities can be to cost-benefit analyses. Many general purpose hospitals are spending vast amounts of money on specialized programs—such as nurse-training—which could be handled much more efficiently at specialist hospitals. Often these services have become an established part of a hospital’s self-image, and a thoroughly objective cost-benefit analysis is never applied.

 

“Another talent businessmen can bring to charities is setting up quantitative goals. They do this in their own organizations all the times: whether it is market share, return-on-investment, earnings per share, or whatever. Such tangible goals provide a common target for employees, and, if well chosen, can be great morale-builders.”

 

“Businessmen working in charities could help set up quantitative goals and keep them sophisticated and updated. If, for example, you are working with a hospital, it might be worthwhile to set a goal of holding the average daily cost to patients to a 2 percent annual rise over three years. Adjustments for inflation or other extraordinary effects would be made regularly. This goal might encourage greater efficiency among workers, especially if incentive payments were reasonable and could be instituted.”

 

“I am firmly convinced that the private business community can help in meeting the social needs of our country more effectively than can the government, either local, state, or national.

 

“But there are many candidates running this year who do not believe this. They are against what you and I believe in and stand for. They would have the federal government take on more and more and more. They must not be elected to office if we are to reverse this trend toward socialism. That is your short term job, and it is very important this year.

 

“Over the longer term we must all continue to see that free enterprise American business meets the needs of our society. Not just the goods and services for our customers, and the wages and benefits for our employees, and the profits for our stockholders and on which our businesses depend for stability and growth—but we must also as businessmen and businesswomen contribute to the quality of life in the community around us and help the people of this country fulfill their spiritual needs as well as their material needs. That is our longer term job. It is very important, and it will never be finished.

 

“Thank you.”

 

5/23/72, Prior draft of Packard’s speech with extensive handwritten sections by Packard

 

3/28/72, Letter to Packard from Gerald P. Flannerey, President, San Francisco Jr. Chamber of Commerce inviting Packard to be the keynote speaker at their Annual Awards Luncheon in San Francisco.

Feb. 1972, Copy of printed newsletter called the “San Franciscan” published by the Jr. CC

Undated, Copy of a printed brochure called “The War of Apathy,” also from the Jr. CC

5/24/72, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle covering Packard’s speech

October, 1972, Copy of a newspaper called “Th Universal Voice.” The paper says it is published by “the International Re-Education Foundation, a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to promote a better man and a better society by the development of human character.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 33 – General Speeches

 

August 4, 1972, Pepperdine University Commencement Address, Santa Monica, CA

 

8/4/72, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech

 

Speaking to the graduating class at Pepperdine, Packard thinks back to his own years at Stanford. He says a course in American History had a “profound” influence on his thinking. He says he “dreamed about the days when men could leave the troubled civilization of Europe and find unbounded hope and opportunity in America;” – followed, as eastern cities developed, by the call – “go west, young man, go west.”

 

However, he says there was no “further west to go in 1934,” when he graduated from Stanford.

 

He admits, however, that as he looks back on what has happened since 1934 he realizes that this has been “as exciting and as adventurous a period for America as any period during the great romantic westward movement.” And just as exciting and satisfying for himself  “as anything that might have happened to him if he could have…turned back the clock to the period 1834 to 1872 -–the golden years of the great westward movement.”

 

Packard pictures the period of the western movement as a time when “there was unlimited land, an abundance of game, and mineral resources to be had for the taking.  Life centered around the family, mobility was severely limited, and communication between geographical areas of the country was slow and lacking in detail. For the most part it was an agrarian, non-scientific culture.

 

“During the first six decades of this century, science and economic development created a new culture. I remember I heard my first radio broadcast in 1922 when I was ten years old. On the dining room table of our home in Pueblo, Colorado, I hooked up a primitive vacuum tube my father had bought for me and the family took turns listening to WHO in Des Moines, Iowa.” He draws the contrast, when, fifty year later the whole world visited China along with President Nixon via man-made satellite in space.”

 

Packard takes a try at answering a key question that faces the young people graduating today – “What are our opportunities as we step out into the real world?” While “No one can predict what your opportunities will be,” he says…”there is one clue…and that comes from the basic nature of growth. Physical growth tends to be exponential rather than linear.”

 

But this growth brings its problems as well, Packard acknowledges. “If the usage of many [natural resources] now considered critical to our economy continues to grow at an exponential rate, the world’s supply will be exhausted within your lifetime. Silver, copper, chromium and a number of other metals fall into this category – and even oil could be exhausted in only a few generations.

 

“Within the past two centuries we have seen the beginning of the end of unlimited resources – first of land and those other things available for the taking, and now even some of the things that have been the products of science. The scarey [sic] thing is that this great change has come about within the memory of people at least some of us have known – our parents and our granPackardarents.

 

“I suppose the fact that many of you young people are troubled about what your parents and your granPackardarents have done is because we are reaching the point where the traditional attitude – the acceptance of and commitment to exponential growth -–is rapidly bringing our world to an unacceptable situation.

 

“The evidence of the development of this unacceptable situation, resulting from uncontrolled growth, is mounting – pollution the most obvious. I think a general awareness is evolving, that what we have been doing in the past cannot continue forever in the future – in many respects cannot even continue for very long.

 

“This is the great challenge for you young people who are graduating in 1972. You may long for things the way they were – or may accept things the way the are, but you are the ones who will have to make things the way they are going to be. You are faced with the awesome task of solving the ecological problems posed by our population and by the demands of our technological society. And as you approach these problems, keep in mind that the goal is to survive not for just another generation or two, but for as long as the sun shall shine – for at least another billion years.

 

“I will not even attempt to predict what the future holds for you, except to assure each of you that in at least three ways it will be similar to my future in 1934. There will be challenge, there will be change, and there will be opportunity.

 

“Good luck, and God bless you.”

 

 

8/4/72, Six notebook pages handwritten by Packard as a draft of comments to include in his speech.

7/19/72 Clipping form New York Times,  with article about rising income during the 1960s. No doubt included as reference material for Packard

5/10/72, Letter to Packard from William S. Banowsky, President of Pepperdine University saying the University would like to award Packard the Degree of Doctor of Laws, and would also like Packard to deliver the commencement address.

6/5/72, Letter to Packard from William Banowsky, giving details for the commencement. Also, apparently in response to a question raised by Packard, assures him that no protest activities are expected.

8/8/72, Letter to Packard from Herbert W. Kalmbach congratulating Packard on his address.

10/31/72,Ttypewritten note to Packard from Norvel Young sending six photos taken at the commencement.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 34 – General speeches

 

September 14, 1972, Annual Meeting, The Salvation Army, San Francisco, CA

 

9/14/72, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says he is pleased and honored to be here today, because  – “In many ways the ideals and the accomplishments of the Salvation Army represent to me the America I was brought up in, and the America I believe in.”

 

Packard says he appreciates “that after your long and first-hand involvement with the poverty, the ill health, and the degradation which many people of America have suffered for many years, you have not surrendered to the notion that simply more money from the government will cure the social ills of our country.

 

“I am impressed that you stress the importance of spiritual guidance – and with this foundation you believe that dedicated people who are willing to work for what they believe in can contribute more to the resolution of the problems of our time than billions of dollars of federal funds administered through the often un-informed and inept – and nearly always political and unresponsive – bureaucracy of the federal government, whether it be Republican or Democratic.”

 

“The pressures are strong indeed to encourage people to believe that if we simply spend more money on our social problems they will be solved. The pressures to encourage people to believe that the government in Washington can do everything are also strong. This belief is well entrenched among the so-called intelligencia in America, and among the so-called liberals in Washington.”

 

Packard cites some of the reasons why the federal government cannot do those things a private organization like the Salvation Army can do.

 

“One reason is that all too often federal anti-poverty programs are based on political expediency. Money goes where an influential Congressman thinks there are votes to be had. Of course, the Congress is not the only culprit – the money may go where a member of the Administration thinks it will be useful, rather than where it will be effective.”

 

Packard points to the Rural Legal Assistance Program, as an example of a federal program with a negative effect. “This program is based on the notion that certain classes of people are oppressed by the so-called “system” and need legal aid to fight back. This brings about the absurd situation in which the federal government supports attacks on the local government in the name of securing justice. I accept the fact that there may be isolated cases in which this procedure could result in the correction of an injustice – but these few instances do not justify the program as it has been conceived.

 

“People in the federal government can never know as much about the facts of a local situation as the local people. It is hard for me to see the value of a procedure which isolates the decision makers from the facts. In addition, handling matters in this manner does much to make people distrust their government.”

 

Packard gives more examples to support his conviction that “where a job can be done by volunteer efforts or by an independent organization – be it a private business firm or a public service organization such as the Salvation Army – it will be done better than if done by an agency of the federal government.”

 

“Let’s look at the current program for unemployment compensation and aid to dependent families. Both have strong built-in incentives not to work.”

 

Packard agrees there are cases where people do not have a job – and need and deserve help for their families. “In such cases I would much rather depend on the judgment of people interested in the local problem such as the members of the Salvation army who are on the scene and who can carefully and humanely assess the situation, than on the typical person in the Washington bureaucracy who probably does not know what it is all about, and more often than not is interested in helping his record rather than the people who need help.

 

“Another problem,” Packard says, “is that public welfare programs involve large amounts of money. Where there is big money there are always con men ready for the grab. You are all aware, I am sure, of situations where there have been unlawful diversions of funds.”

 

Packard commends the Army for its willingness to “toot your own horn.”

 

“Your singing at Christmas time, your uniforms, and many of your other activities attract attention to your cause and demonstrate that you are willing to acclaim to the public what you believe in.”

 

Packard says the Salvation Army’s willingness to go out in the streets is good. “By doing this, your members reap a twofold benefit. They are exposed directly and personally to the people they are trying to help. And secondly, they strengthen their personal commitment to solving the problems they encounter.”

 

“Your use of a uniform particularly interests me, having served in the Pentagon for three years. It seems to me that the uniform helps give members of an organization a sense of identity with their colleagues. I observed in the military that the best soldiers showed pride in their uniform – and that this pride in the uniform in turn turned into a kind of pride in the service.

 

Furthermore, the uniform brings your organization to the attention of others. And – in the case of the salvation Army, the armed services, and our police forces – the uniform reminds people of your willingness to forego fancy clothes and high salaries so you might better serve humanity.”

 

Packard diverges a moment saying, while he is on the subject of uniforms, that he would like to say a few words about the armed services. He says “our soldiers have been the victim of a continuing stream of vicious attacks on our campuses, in the media, and, even more distressingly, from many elected officials.”

 

“Many of these criticisms originate with disenchantment with the Vietnam war. But the military should not be made a scapegoat for policies handed down by civilian authorities. Scapegoating is particularly unjust to our soldiers since they are bound not to engage in political debate. Therefore, they cannot defend themselves.

 

“While serving in the Pentagon, I came to know a great many of the men and women in our armed services. I developed a high regard for their professionalism and their dedication. They are not the misfits or power-hungry martinets which their detractors picture them to be. On the contrary, they are dedicated people interested in developing their professional expertise and devoted to serving their country.”

 

“There is another group of Americans who have recently come under fire and which the Salvation Army, I would hope, can sympathize with.  I refer to those who feel that America has a commitment to the rest of the world, and who are criticized for holding this view. The Salvation long ago made a commitment to world-wide service. Today you serve in 70 countries. You understand the indivisibility of mankind. You understand that our many problems at home are no excuse for turning our backs on the rest of the world.

 

“Yet just this turning away from the world is what many politicians are today advocating. They advocate drastic cuts in defense spending. They advocate drastic cuts in foreign aid. They advocate, in effect, withdrawal from our commitments around the world.

 

“I say this is wrong. I say that internationalism is one of America’s greatest opportunities today. And it is through our substantial aid programs – both military and economic – as well as the efforts and contributions of the private business sector, that we will carry out our international obligations.

 

“I might add that those who want to withdraw from the world are living under an illusion. They believe that, by an act of will, we can discard our international ties and devote our full attention and resources to domestic problems.

 

“But America is not an island. America cannot be isolated from the rest of the world. Prosperity, democracy, and social justice cannot flourish at home if they do not exist abroad. Is it possible that our free institutions would be unaffected by the Soviet subjugation of western Europe? Is it possible that democracy in the United States would be unthreatened by a victorious Marxist tide sweeping through Latin America? I am sure you all know the answer to this question.”

 

Packard returns to the subject of private charities,  saying he would like to point out some strengths which both business and the Salvation Army bring to their charitable efforts.

 

“First, we are both interested in charity, because it is right, not because it will make us rich, or powerful, or more influential. Self-denial is a way of life with you. As individuals you each make an enormous financial sacrifice to spend your life in the Salvation Army. And as an organization you are also prepared to make sacrifices. I am reminded of your decision to lead the way in the formation of the U.S.O. at the outset of World War II. You knew you would be passing up an opportunity to expand your influence, and yet you supported the U.S.O. concept. And, You did it for a simple reason: it was the right thing to do. For your self-sacrifice, millions of American servicemen are thankful.

 

“And businessmen – while they cannot claim to make the some sacrifice that you in the Army do – they do charitable work without ulterior motives. The businessman who spends his evenings telephoning to raise money for a hospital or coaching a little league team does this because it is right – not because it will get him anything.”

 

“Second, both business and the Salvation Army understand how vital effective administration is to any successful attack on human suffering. The Salvation Army has patterned itself after that great model of administrative organization, the Army. And, business structures its charitable activities along the same highly efficient lines it has worked our for its day-to-day business operations.

 

“By contrast, the welfare activities in the public sector – particularly at the federal level – often are poorly organized. They are plagued with overlapping areas of authority, excessive layers of command, and lack of a well-developed sense of obedience.”

 

Continuing with his description of the similarities of business and the Salvation Army charitable activities, Packard says “both business and the Salvation Army are flexible in their approach to meeting social problems. Adaptability is almost an article of faith with the businessman. He is trained to be sensitive to changing human needs as expressed in the marketplace. Once he turns his attention to social problems, he becomes quickly attuned to changing patterns of social needs.

 

“Your changing approaches to drug addicts, alcoholics, and unwed mothers are just three examples of how you have grown with the times. But changing with the times does not mean chasing after fads. And we in business and you in the Salvation Army are often able to act more independent than people in the public sector. The politician seeking votes or the bureaucrat seeking funding must be closely attuned to what Ralph Nader’s latest pronouncement was, or what the latest environmental fad is. We can be more detached in our appraisal of what needs to be done and what can be done.

 

“I am frequently asked by businessmen friends about what sort of social involvement they should pursue – getting minorities integrated into the economy, working for better plant conditions, cleaning up the environment, hiring veterans, or whatever. I almost invariably tell them: be a good neighbor: do what you can do best.

 

“If you run a large plant in a depressed section of town, perhaps you should set up a manpower retraining program. On the other hand, if your firm is setting up a plant in a prosperous suburban area, extra money might better be spent on raising the architectural and landscape standards of your plant.

 

“The Salvation Army has been a pacesetter for 100 years. Long before the politicians discovered and publicized these trouble areas in our society, you knew that life was wretched for many, and that what was needed was both spiritual and material help. You knew that blacks and other minority groups needed guidance and encouragement. You knew that unwed mothers needed help, and not social rejection. You knew that all people in trouble – the rejected, the dejected, and the downtrodden of all kinds – were, after all, human beings who needed above all else human compassion.

 

“You men and women of the Salvation Army have set a noble standard for all Americans. If we can follow in your footsteps, America and the world will be a better home for all of us.

 

“Thank you.”

 

9/14/72, Copy of printed invitation to the Salvation Army “Annual Civic Luncheon Meeting”

9/14/72, Printed time schedule of events at the luncheon

9/14/72, Typewritten note listing seating arrangements at the head table

9/14/72, Copy of printed booklet titled “What is The Salvation Army?”

9/14/72, Copy of booklet describing Army activities and organization in the Bay Area

9/14/72, News clipping from the Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech

5/31/72, Letter from Lt. Col. Robert J. Angel to Packard inviting him to be the guest speaker at their annual luncheon

7/28/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Robert J. Angel  giving background on the Army

8/23/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel discussing more details for the luncheon

9/11/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel sending a draft of the program for the luncheon, and a listing of seating at the head table

9/14/72, Letter to Packard from Marjorie D. Sheffield, Executive Director, USO, complimenting Packard on his speech

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Bernice M. Hemphill, Executive Director, Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, complimenting him on his speech

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel thanking Packard for participating in their luncheon

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel enclosing a clipping from the SF Examiner covering the Army luncheon. It contains a quote from the Army’s PR Director to the effect that Packard’s speech was too political. Co. Angel says this was not what she said and they agree with Packard’s remarks.

9/21/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Co. Angel saying he should not be concerned with the Examiner’s article.

10/3/72, Letter to Packard from Alden P. Stanton thanking Packard for speaking at the Salvation Army luncheon

 

 

Box 3, Folder 35 – General Speeches

 

December 8-9, 1972, AIAA/NABE Seminar, Los Angeles

 

12/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with extensive handwritten inserts by Packard

 

The theme of this two day conference is “Reorienting the Aerospace Industry to Changing National Priorities.” Packard titled his speech “Should the Aerospace Industry Reorient to Changing Priorities,”  and he quickly makes it clear that he has “some reservations about the theme of this conference, and so in a sense I am appearing as the Devil’s Advocate.”

 

“Packard’s handwritten insert at this point reads: “My doubts are not whether some priorities might be changed but more as to how to do it. Senator Tunney  this morning [spoke?] to favor Federal subsidies – what he called a NASA approach to some of our domestic problems – crime, health, transportation. I don’t subscribe to the Federal subsidy approach. I simply think you will have a better industry in the long run if as you go into new markets you have to compete with those industries that are already there.

 

Packard says he agrees that the aerospace industry must change with the times. But what he takes exception to, and what he sees as the “proposal before this conference is that the Aerospace industry should do more than change with the times. What is proposed is that the aerospace industry should make a concentrated effort to move into new fields and new markets different from those in which the industry has been involved in the past.”

 

Packard agrees that the aerospace industry has a severe problem because of cutbacks in defense spending, plus leveling off of the demand for commercial aircraft, but he is “not at all sure that this problem can be solved, or even alleviated for the industry by trying to move into new product and new market areas.

 

“The Aerospace industry has had some great triumphs. It has also had some disastrous failures. This leads into the second argument which again I believe is wrong.

 

“The second argument is that because of its great triumphs in space and aerospace the industry has unique qualifications to do other difficult tasks. As your chairman put the issue in his introduction, the Aerospace industry, with its advanced technology base and sophisticated managerial and systems analysis technique, is well qualified to meet the challenges of the future.

 

“I have trouble with both of these propositions.

 

Packard says there “will not be any major increases in federal funding of defense and aerospace programs in the foreseeable future.”

 

“The challenge for the Aerospace industry in respect to national security, then, is to produce for America more defense capability at lower cost.”

 

The overall problem of national security can probably be solved with lower levels of military manpower. But if America is to remain strong we cannot have both lower levels of manpower and inferior weapons.

 

“Thus, I come to the conclusion that the most important responsibility and opportunity for the Aerospace industry, in respect to National Security, is to do the job that it is capable of doing and doing it right. Your responsibility in your industry is to develop and build the weapons that only you know how to build, and to do so with greater efficiency and greater economy than you have done in the recent past.”

 

“Defense budgets will be lower in the future in terms of real dollars. The need for military capability will not go away. You people in the Aerospace industry have one of the greatest challenges of the century against which to apply your so-called ‘great sophisticated management and systems analysis capabilities.’ Frankly, I think you may have to get rid of some of these ‘sophisticated management and systems analysis capabilities’ and fall back on some good old-fashioned common sense management techniques if indeed you are to do the job for the country that must be done.

 

“The only way an industry can produce better weapons at lower cost is with fewer people. That, in my view is what you in this industry will have to face up to. I am convinced, after spending three years in the Pentagon, that the industry is grossly over staffed and very inefficient by any sound management standards.”

 

Packard places part of the blame on “some of the so called ‘experts’ in the Pentagon, but says the Aerospace industry can do better – “in fact, you must do better in responding to what will continue to be your main priority.”

 

Another handwritten insert at this point reads: “Secretary Hansen talked about some of the things we tried to do while I was at the Pentagon to improve the efficiency – I sincerely believe the industry can do a better job, but again let me emphasize –this will require even fewer people and will not help the matter you are worrying about here.

 

As to people, I do believe a more effective effort could be mounted to retrain, reorient and relocate people – and in fact, it may be a better approach to encourage other industries to take advantage of technology by absorbing some of the technical talent from Aerospace.”

 

Packard accepts as accurate the claim that the Aerospace industry has a great store of advanced technology. “Our magnificent air transportation system is based solidly on fine contributions from the Aerospace industry. In turn, this fine accomplishment can be largely attributed to research paid for over the hears from the defense budget. Weather satellites and satellite communication have come from federally financed space and defense research, and satellite communication in particular is a new priority of great importance for the future.“

 

“Commercial jet aircraft began as simple modifications of military jet aircraft, and it is interesting to speculate where we might be with commercial aviation had there been no requirement for military jet aircraft of comparable size and performance. Or as a corollary, how bright the prospects for an American SST might be if the SST could evolve as a simple modification of the B1 bomber.”

 

These and other contributions from the Aerospace industry have been, Packard says, “rather natural expansion of advanced technology into new markets which were logical and natural for the Aerospace industry. In most other cases where aerospace technology has contributed to old or established markets, other industries with experience in those markets have simply picked up the advanced technology of the Aerospace industry and applied it themselves.

 

“With the notable exception of the commercial airline industry, which grew up hand in hand with the Aerospace industry, the record of applying the so-called ‘sophisticated management and systems analysis technique’ by the aerospace industry to new fields is not very good.”

 

Looking for some examples, Packard points to the shipbuilding industry, which he says was far behind in technology and adhered to what many considered to be antiquated management principles….This great opportunity was siezed [sic] upon by several of the largest, and until then the most successful of the Aerospace firms. What happened? So far, all of the sophisticated management and system analysis techniques were ineffective in an area where the firms had no previous experience. They simply did not know the business.”

 

Another handwritten insert: “And this brings out a point which Dr. Moor alluded to this morning. The Aerospace industry does not have the marketing capability needed for other market areas. I believe the point is even broader than that – every industry has built up over the years a great deal of special know how unique to that industry. Aerospace may bring some new and useful know how to a new industry. There will be much old and necessary know how it does not have. And this fact must be recognized as new areas are considered.,

 

“In the case of shipbuilding, the one firm which did know something about the business may work its problems out. General Dynamics, which had considerable shipbuilding experience in its Electric Boat Division, may eventually salvage something out of its expansion into a non-aerospace field.”

 

“Examples of the Aerospace industry with its great management talent expanding by the conglomerate route do not give much credence to the theme that the Aerospace industry has much to offer in new and different fields either. I can think of some aerospace companies which are now better off after having been taken over by non-aerospace companies. I am hard put to think of many non-aerospace companies that are better off after having been taken over by aerospace companies.
I believe it is time for you people to call a spade a spade and admit that the first priority of the Aerospace industry is to get its house in order and not go charging into new fields. The industry does not yet know how to build complex reliable equipment at a reasonable cost. The industry can build complex equipment which is reliable when there are no constraints on cost. The Apollo program is a magnificent example of what can be done, and there are some equally impressive defense programs.

 

“Most of the defense development and procurement programs, however, have not produced the kind of equipment the industry can be very proud of. Most of our current military aircraft can fly only a few hours without a system failure. The development process in the industry is so slow and inefficient that most new systems are out of date by the time they go into the inventory.

 

Another handwritten insert reads: “Now, as I have already suggested, these problems of the Aerospace industry can not be blamed on the industry alone. The industry had to do what its major customer asked for and its major customer was not always very smart in its demands. Underbidding has been encouraged, which was a major factor in cost [over runs?]  – overly complex equipment – production without adequate test of the design. The industry has some bad habits which will have to be unlearned before it will be able to compete efficiently in new areas.

 

“We have a good example of what has happened when aerospace techniques are applied to ground transportation in the Bay Area Rapid Transportation (BART) system. This system was designed around computers and other aerospace type system technology. After a few weeks of operation one of the trains ran off the end of the track. The program is far behind schedule and the cost overruns are substantial, and there are other serious problems. In short, BART has most of the characteristics of many recent products of the Aerospace industry – such as the C-5A.

 

“You in the Aerospace industry have only one priority, that is to learn how to do the job you are supposed to be doing and do it right. Learn how to build reliable equipment at a reasonable cost. Stop looking to the government to bail you out when you fail to do your job.

 

“I am convinced the serious problems which the Aerospace industry has are largely related to the fact that this industry has been and still is too dependant on the government. And I judge what is being suggested here today is that the government should support the industry involvement into new fields. I have no trouble with the concept of expansion into new fields if the industry is willing to submit to the rigid disciplines of the marketplace in doing so.
The worst possible thing for the Aerospace industry would be for the federal government to subsidize its ‘reconversion’ into domestic markets. This would assure the continuation of the waste and inefficiency which is the real problem of the industry.

 

“On the other hand if you can go it on your own and learn to compete in the real world, more power to you. Some of you can, and some of you can’t.

 

“And so I will conclude by answering the question I have posed in the title of my presentation. Should the Aerospace industry reorient to new priorities.? The answer is yes to the extent it can demonstrate by its performance that it can do so. The answer is no if the industry must seek subsidies from the government to survive. Government subsidies to help the industry reconvert to new priorities will not help its survival  – it will only postpone its failure. This is my solid belief, and I urge you to give consideration to these thought as you set your course for the future.”

 

12/8/72, Typewritten copy of the program for the AIAA/NABE Seminar

12/8/72, Printed copy of the program

12/8/72, Copy of one page of the program with handwritten notation on back by Packard – no doubt with thoughts occurring to him as he heard others speak

12/8/72, Copy of speech given at the Seminar by Grant L. Hansen Ass’t. Secretary of the Air Force Research and Development

 

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from W. H. Pickering, Director JPL, giving details on the Seminar

10/12/72, Letter to Packard from Don Wendling giving more details of the Seminar

11/13/72, Letter to Packard from G. Russell Morrissey, giving the time for Packard’s speech and asking for the title of Packard’s speech

12/15/72, Letter to Packard from Michael Witunski asking for a copy of Packard’s speech

12/18/72, Letter to Packard from H. K. Gagos providing copies of newspaper clippings

1/16/73, Handwritten letter to Packard from Paul K. Adams taking exception to Packard’s speech

2/1/73, Letter to Packard from George Johnson complimenting him on his speech on the Aerospace industry

2/1/73, Letter to Packard from James McGuire asking for a copy of Packard‘s speech

2/1/73, Letter to Packard from A. L. Barnes saying he is an employee of McDonnell-Douglas and asking for a copy of Packard’s speech. He also encloses a clipping from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch covering the speech

2/9/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mr. A. L. Barnes replying to his letter of 2/1/72 and saying “I note you are an employee of McDonnell-Douglas, and I want you to know that I believe your firm has done an outstanding job over the years and is not subject to many of the criticisms I have made about the industry in general.”

2/27/73, Letter to Packard from John F. Bishop complimenting Packard on the speech

 

News Clippings

12/11/72, Copy of clipping from Los Angeles Times with headline “Packard Hits Inefficiency of Aerospace Industry

12/12/72, Copy of clipping from Palo Alto Times with headline “Heads may roll in aerospace

Undated, unnamed clipping headed “Packard: Aerospace overstaffed, inefficient”

 

Box 2, Folder 25 – Department of Defense

 

January 12, 1972, Army Project Managers Conference

 

1/12/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.

 

Speaking to a group of Army project managers Packard tells them that the Services must do a better job, and that the Office of the Secretary of Defense can’t do it for them. He adds “I assume the purpose of this conference is to discuss what you can do to improve the way this job is done in the Army.”

 

Packard says that “…we do not believe we have necessarily discovered or laid out for your consideration the best of all possible policies in all details. I do believe that if the policies we have outlined are followed, a better job can be done in future than has been done in past.

 

“The first step in improving management is always to put a better man in charge and give him the authority to discharge the responsibility you have given him.”

 

“A manager must know and understand what his responsibility is – what is expected of him – and this often requires a wide range of discussion – communication we often call it.”

 

As an example, Packard says “The manager is naturally expected to manage the development of the new weapons system for which he is responsible so it will have the highest possible performance, be available at the lowest possible cost, and all within the shortest possible time. The first fact of life we must learn to accept is that these parameters cannot be rigidly specified at the beginning of a project.

 

“There must be trade-offs made in the parameters involved, and cost must be one of those parameters in the equation.

 
“The problem is that all too many times cost is the only variable, the performance and the schedule are fixed and only the cost is allowed to change.

 

“When a project is structured this way, the cost will, in fact, almost always change and the direction will always be up.

 

“The project manager must be allowed to let other variables than the cost change. I hope, in fact, you can learn to manage programs to keep cost within a ceiling. To do so trade-offs of other parameters must be accepted.”

 

“Packard says that he has reviewed many projects over the past three years, and he has concluded that “…often disaster has been built into the program at the beginning because the first decisions were not made right….”[This means] several things. First, the new weapon that is proposed must fit into long-range planning and has at least a reasonable prospect of being developed and procured with resources which are likely to be available.”

 

“This aspect of – make the first decision right – hardly comes within the project manager’s responsibility – but there are some other aspects of – make the first decision right – that do.

 

“Is the project as proposed really feasible – are we asking for too much performance – are we out too far in new technology – have the uncertainties been eliminated or at least defined and minimized before a major commitment to the project is undertaken.

 

“Do we have the right kind of a contract.

 

“Have we made honest cost estimates or do we have a buy-in.

 

“These are all aspects of what I mean by saying – make the first decision right. You project managers have a great stake in this issue because – no matter how good a manager you may be you will look bad if the project is not started on a sound basis.

 

Packard agrees initial questions are difficult and often cannot be resolved by paper studies alone. “To the extent the design can be reduced to operating hardware it will be much more likely that two of the key questions can be answered with much more certainty.

 

“Is this really what we want for our forces – will it add significant capability and thus be worth the investment.

“Can a practical design be achieved which can be produced at a reasonable cost.

 

“I conclude that many programs will be improved by more use of development hardware, tested before full-scale development and production is committed.

 

“The fly before you buy concept includes more use of development prototypes, there is another equally important aspect. The full-scale development should be completed before major investment in production is made. I am sure all of you who have been through a program realize that some investment in production may be appropriate before the development models are tested and approved. Urgency to have the new operational capability in the forces is often given as a reason to accept concurrency between development and production. This may be a valid reason in time of crisis or in wartime, …and I believe experience will support the fact that it is always more costly. Many contractors will try to make a case otherwise, but I do not believe it can be done if we accept the need to make some production investment – tooling – production processes – perhaps the better way to put it – keep the production build-up to an absolute minimum until all the bugs are shaken out of the design.”

 

Packard mentions some other things that must be given attention in striving toward better management.

 

“Training and development for managers.

 

“Management is a profession – not a two-year tour of duty.

 

“Organizational structure has a considerable impact on creating an environment for better management.

 

“Not everyone has to be in on everything is something that must be emphasized at all levels – especially the OSD offices.

 

“Let me conclude by saying again – if there is to be a record of better management on army projects in the future, you are the people who will have to do the job. If you are to do the job, you will have to be supported fully by your supervisors and by the OSD offices. You will have to take some heat from congress when you know you are right. For example, there are some programs where a cost type contract is the only way the development can be done right. You will have to find some way not to accept the low bid when it is obviously a buy-in. There will be some tough issues to face – but there is no such thing as good management unless it is tough-minded management. I am confident you men here today are up to the challenge.”

Box 3, Folder 8 – General Speeches

 

March 30, 1968. The Promise of America in Crisis, Challenge to the Leadership of the Communities, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce conference for business and industrial leaders, Palo Alto CA.

This conference, under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce, was intended to generate discussion of possible solutions to the problem of the under employed, disadvantaged people, particularly those living in East Palo Alto \. Packard was asked to be the keynote speaker and participate in a panel discussion .

 

3/30/68, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with many notations by him in his handwriting.

 

Packard mentions several problems facing America , Viet Nam,  the Mid-East monetary policy, inflation or the problems of the disadvantaged, saying it is hard to know which is the most serious, much less know how to solve them. However, with the disadvantaged he says “…we can do something here because this is where the problem is. I want to make some general observations about the problem and suggest several courses of action for your consideration here today. I believe we have the opportunity here in the mid-peninsula to develop an exemplary solution to this problem. It will require more effort and more involvement on the part of everyone, but I believe it can – indeed, it must be done.”

 

Referring to Federal support programs for the disadvantaged, Packard says “…criticism has ranged all the way from too little control to too much control.

 

“Evaluating the programs and their critics, there is no doubt that Federal involvement has been constructive – that in addition to such substantive contributions as have been made, the Federal Government has helped to catalyze the private sector of the American Society into concern and action.

 

“We have at least reached the point where every important institution in America – Government, School Church, foundation, Business, Industry, Labor – wants to help in solving the problem of the minorities. Their reasons may be different, their approaches to the problem may be different, but they are all concerned and genuinely want to help. The forgotten man in the minority culture of America is certainly no longer forgotten.”

 

However, Packard acknowledges that “…it does not follow that every person involved in each of these institutions is so committed. There are generations of prejudice to overcome, and this cannot be done quickly.

 

“With a problem so complex, underlaid (sic) with traditional attitudes, biases, emotions – and compounded by the simple fact that it takes time for people to change their views, and their ways, and their feelings, I see no hope for a quick solution – but I see every hope for a substantial and continuous improvement.

 

“Whether the rate and the substance of the improvement will satisfy all those involved is very doubtful. The probability is of more violence for some time to come. It is not just a probability, it is a certainty – almost as sure as day follows night. This distressing fact must not, however, limit our resolve to proceed with the job at hand; indeed it should strengthen our resolve to get ahead with the job.”

 

As to advocates of “Black Power” and separatism Packard refers to a quote attributed to Francis Bacon to the effect that :Knowledge is Power.” If that is what the Black Power leaders mean, I am with them. If, on the other hand, they mean power in terms of the primitive law of the jungle, they will only hinder progress and do their people a great disservice.

 

As to a separate Negro society there are pros and cons. There is a great human imperative to be in control of one’s destiny. This aspiration certainly translates to groups of people, encouraging people with common interests to band together in support of the common cause. Why not, then, encourage Negros (sic) to establish their own society, and let their destiny by determined by their own efforts? I think the answer to this is very simple. The white society in America has such a head start that the Negro would have a very difficult time if he did not share in the wealth and benefits of the American Society as a whole….The idea of a separate society is an emotional response. Though understandable, it is completely unrealistic.”

 

Focusing on the local problem, Packard says “The most important thing I can say is that I believe we have the opportunity to produce an exemplary solution to the problems of the disadvantaged right here in our own back yard. We have the resources – education, jobs, human understanding – in better measure than almost any community in the country. If we fail it is only because we lack the will.

 

“I am delighted that the Palo Alto Chamber has called this conference to study and attack these problems. I would like to suggest a number of propositions which I believe will help us move ahead in the job at hand.

 

#1. We must begin with the proposition that this job cannot be done without much more effort and involvement on the part of everyone. To put it squarely – every business, every industry, every union, indeed, every person must do more than has been done so far.

 

#2.  We must all understand that the job cannot be done over night. We must ask for a degree of patience from the people we are trying to help; we must insist on a high degree of urgency from everyone else in the community.

 

#3.  Because there are so many people interested we must do a better job of coordinating the efforts in this area. I hope from this meeting here today will come some action toward a better coordination of the effort of all the institutions and people who are involved.

 

#4. Because jobs are the foundation on which all else will be built, we must muster an all-out effort to get more of these people in meaningful jobs as soon as possible.

 

#5.  Although emphasis recently has been placed on finding jobs for the “hard core” unemployed and the “drop out” youth, we must not distort our judgment against those who have tried. Heads of families should have first priority, of course. Then high school graduates should be given preference on the theory that if a high school diploma in fact earns a job, there will be more high school diplomas.

 

#6. After these steps have been achieved – singly or simultaneously – ways must be found to employ more of the so called “hard core”. This will require considerable effort.

 

#7.  Although initial employment and training will require extra effort, in the long run achievement standards cannot be lowered. To lower standards will place the business firms at a competitive disadvantage, and reduce their ability to provide jobs for anyone in the future.

 

#8.  In addition to finding jobs with business and industrial firms in the area, encouragement should be given to the establishment and support of minority owned and managed firms. These firms will not only provide much-needed jobs, but will add to the confidence of minority people and their pride in their own ability.”

 

Packard hopes that “…every employer in the community will find a way to accommodate a larger proportion of disadvantaged people into his work force in the future than he has in the past. And I hope the unions will cooperate in this endeavor. This may mean changes in hiring standards. This certainly will require more understanding – more thoughtful training – more effort on everyone’s part. The name of this game is to extend yourself in firing and training, but not to lower your standards of job performance because that will jeopardize your competitiv3 position, and therefore the future success and growth of your company.

 

“I believe it is important for disadvantaged people seeking jobs to understand this very important economic fact of life. Business and industry do not create jobs; they provide the opportunity for people to work and produce something some one else wants. If the employees produce a superior product, more people will want the product and more jobs will be generated. If the employees produce an inferior product – or service – no one will want it, and that firm will have no more jobs. So, while private business can do a better of hiring and training undereducated under-trained people, private business cannot provide jobs for them in the long run unless standards of quality, production, and service are maintained that are necessary for the survival and success of the business.

 

Packard says he believes the government’s recent emphasis on employment of the “hard core” minority , while worthy, “overlooks some basic considerations. It is generally agreed that education is the most secure path to progress. Over the past few years, when these problems of minority unemployment have been brought into focus, there have been thousands of jobs available – for those with the right training and education. Clearly, more education would be of immense help in alleviating these problems. Sometimes I think this particular problem is a failure of our educational system more than anything else.

 

“While the problem is complex, one reaches the conclusion that motivation is a key factor. There is the question of the home surroundings and many other discouraging environmental factors, but it remains as a fact that any minority youngster can obtain a good education and be a success in the American Society if properly motivated.”

 

“It is important – very important – then as we seek to help those who have not made the grade, that we also encourage those who have. This says that we must put our first emphasis not in helping the drop outs, gut in helping those who have had the will and determination to get an education. To make sure the rewards for their effort are both real and visible.

 

“I hope, then, that we can find a way in this community to assure every Negro high school graduate, and every Spanish American high school graduate, that he or she will either have a good job opportunity or will have an opportunity to go on to college.”

 

“This matter is so vital that I hope the community can pup special emphasis on summer jobs for high school students. What better incentive could there be for a young person to work at his high school education than to know that by doing so he would be assured of a good summer job, or a good permanent job after graduation – or go to college.”

 

“While this and other efforts should reduce…and in the short run eliminate, this drop out problem…we have some short term considerations relating to drop outs.

 

“The drop outs of the past cannot be completely overlooked, even if we can keep them in school in the future. This suggests that business and industry should do what they can providing jobs, training and education to help bring some of these so-called “hard core” people back into the mainstream of American Society.”

 

Summing up Packard says “The order of priority providing jobs is then as follows:

 

# 1.  Those with a family to support, a home to maintain, because the home environment is the true foundation on which the future is built for every person – regardless of race, creed, or culture. I understand there are 641 families with dependent children numbering 2,036 on welfare. We certainly should be able to find that many jobs. Child care centers, transportation, welfare policies etc…..

 

#2.   Those who are taking advantage of the educational opportunities available to them. They deserve this recognition for their efforts and such recognition will provide a powerful incentive to motivate others to follow.

 

#3.  The so called “hard core” unemployed and the “drop outs”. Even though they have not availed themselves of educational and other opportunities, they deserve a second chance. In fact, for one reason or another, they may not even have had a first chance. It is probably not possible to get these people back in [the] educational system and here business and industry can help.

 

“I would hope we might, here in this area, provide job opportunities for all of these groups. If we can do so I believe it can demonstrate that Negros (sic), Spanish Americans and other disadvantaged groups are a part and parcel of American Society and can be counted on to do more than their share in helping us build a community with true equal opportunity for all. Each of you here today has a great responsibility and a great opportunity to help translate the American Dream from vision into reality.”

 

 

 

1/26/68 Letter to Packard from Joseph Ehrlich, confirming the agreement that Packard will be the keynote speaker at the conference sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce.

3/15/68, Letter to Packard from Rev. Carl A. Smith thanking him for agreeing to participate in the Conference of Business and Industrial Leaders. He attaches a copy of the program.

3/27/68, Internal HP memorandum to Packard from Ray Wilbur, VP Personnel, giving some background and thoughts on the program. He attaches a copy of a speech by John Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

3/27/68, Internal HP memo to Packard and Ray Wilbur from J. A. Barr, giving a progress on the project known as EPA Electronics, Inc.

4/2/68, Letter to Packard from Rev. Carl A. Smith expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation in the conference.

4/5/68, Copy of a letter from Packard to Joseph Ehrlich expressing the thought that the conference seemed to be worthwhile, but there remains “a problem of follow up.”

To do this Packard suggests a group be formed to contact local businesses individually.

Copy of an undated letter to Allan Brown from Joseph Ehrlich with a cc to Packard with some suggestions on steps to implement a plan.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 9 – General Speeches

 

April 19, 1968, Keynote Speaker, International Business Scene and Minority Race Problems, Rotary International of Northern California, Palo Alto CA

 

4/19/68, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech – in outline format.

 

“So many interesting things – international scene. World in turmoil. Vietnam. Focus on what is U.S. role in world.

 

“…U.S. has had role in international leadership last two decades unsurpassed in history.

 

“Our leadership rehabilitated Europe.

“Japan position great economic strength and progress.

 

“Stabilized balance free world and Communist world.

 

“Here at home greatest prosperity. 20 billion GNP growth firsts quarter – 800 billion.

 

“In a year or two we add to our economy an increment equal to total economy of France or England.

 

“Amid prosperity – more of everything for everybody – even poor than any prior society.

 

“Greatest social turmoil in history of country. We are in midst of one of the great revolutions of history.

“Bad news – Good news

 

Pilot comes on speaker – Bad news – visibility zero. None of navigational instruments are working. We don’t know where we are. We don’t know where we are going.

 

Good news – 500 knot tail wind. Get there ahead of schedule.”

 

“With your permission comment about two aspects  of this great national crisis.

Monetary and fiscal crisis and relationship to World Trade.

Observation on minority problems.

 

“The crisis in United States monetary and fiscal affairs is simply the strength of the dollar – despite what the advocates of a gold standard say – the dollar is in fact the monetary standard of the free world. If the dollar should fail in this role, we would find ourselves confronted with a world-wide economic panic.

 

Undermine U. S. role in world leadership

Undermine ability to solve domestic problems

 

“Let me attempt to outline the problem in simple terms. In the years following the war, we spent billions of dollars overseas helping Europe – Japan – recover from the ravages of the war and in stabilizing the position of the Free World vs. Communist countries. These dollars were welcome abroad – many were returned to buy products from U.S.

 

“As Europe and Japan reached position of economic stability their need for dollars lessened. Yet we continued to pour billions more into the international monetary system. From 1958 to 1960 the average was 3.7 billion per year.

 

Aid – Military – Tourism

 

We get  some back – Merchandise trade

 

“Many countries simply had more dollars than they needed and they returned them to us in exchange for gold. The government became concerned – first voluntary program and other actions and reduced outflow but have been unable to bring to low enough balance.

 

“Agreements with banks to hold dollars

 

“We do not have enough gold to cover – raised price – economies of other free world dependent on confidence in dollar.

 

“We are reasonably safe as long as purchasing power of dollar in U.S. remains stable.

 

“Sly Fowler – money can be sound at home and in trouble abroad – but money cannot be sound abroad and in trouble at home – our economy too large

 

1. Must control balance of payment problems

 

3.9 billion 1960

1.3  billion 1965

3.5 – 4 billion 1967

 

1. Must get monetary and fiscal problems at home under control.

 

“What are elements of balance of payments problem?

1.   Vietnam

1.  Other military commitments – We could get out of Europe – Creditability – Vietnam

 

1. Tourism – 1 billion

 

1. Merchandise trade balance

 

Trade balance

Large

Dependent on two-way trade

U.S. industry is competitive abroad in many areas

Total exports from Calif. (?)

1.2  billion 1966  ¼ Agricultural

 

“In view of importance of our merchandise trade balance

International quota war would be disastrous

“Stability of dollar at home

“Federal deficits – inflation wage settlements

“When government asks us to support programs – important

“Cannot support Vietnam – war on poverty – space program

 

“Those of you who have influence with anyone in Washington should help

Tax increase will help

Late

Corporate

Individual

“Mail from home against taxes – for quotas – for more of everything

 

“Word about minority problems

 

“Must resolve our ultimate goal

 

“One nation indivisible – all blacks and all whites working together – equality and brotherhood for all or polarized black against white in peripheral strife

 

“Events of past two weeks may have increased polarization

 

“Difficulty compounded by subversive elements – aim not unity but destruction of our country

 

Confrontation of Black Student Union at Stanford

Sympathy with concern

Polarization – White Plaza event

Confrontation of Payton Jordan by Harry Edwards

 

“We are undertaking positive program. Has been underway

 

“Applicants increased three times in last several years

 

“Programs of assistance will be continued

“If Black Student Union leaders persist in efforts to isolate black from white at Stanford, it will defeat the purposes of the University.

 

“Administration, faculty, white students cooperating with black enable them to fully integrate into life of University.

 

“This is the problem for all of us who want to help in our areas of responsibility.

 

“Actions which will help integrate black people into structure of society with equality and brotherhood

“Difficult because subversive elements are in control in many areas – make sure you know who these people are in your community. Help the large group that deserves help.

 

“We are faced with some touchy problems

“ Understanding – and involvement – we can make progress.”

 

 

 

 

4/19/68, Outline of speech handwritten by Packard

1/23/68, Letter to Packard from Jack B. Power expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation in speaking at their luncheon. Says they expect about 500 to attend.

4/19/68, Printed copy of program of Rotary 30^th annual conference

5/13/68, Copy of letter from Packard to Jack Power thanking for sending him some cuff links.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 10 – General Speeches

 

April 22, 1968, Congratulation to PG&E Scholarship Winners, PG&E  personnel and scholarship winners, San Francisco, CA

 

4/22/68, Typewritten text of speech.

 

Packard is speaking to an audience of high school students and he tells them he was “…thinking about what I might say of interest to you tonight and realizing that young people are properly concerned, or at least interested in what kind of a world their world will be, I tried to recall in my mind the state of the world 38 years ago when I was looking forward to graduation from high school in 1930. – Pueblo, Colorado –

 

“Radio broadcasting, which began in the early 1920s, was just coming into its own. One of my hobbies was amateur radio, and I had been building radios for a number of years. Many families in our neighborhood did not have a radio. Television was still some time away.

 

“Automobiles had become a major factor in our lives but many streets and highways were not yet paved.

 

“Lindbergh had made his famous flight across the ocean only a few years earlier. The airmail was coming into Pueblo in a two-place biplane from Denver. It was to be ten years before I made a cross country flight in a DC3 – it took nearly 24 hours. By comparison in the first three months of this year I have flown to New York 5 times, Europe once, Chicago 2 times, and a few other places like Boston, Washington, Dallas and Denver in between.

 

“Although our family was very healthy, an infection of any kind often required a week or more in bed. Pneumonia and other infections diseases were often fatal. No one dreamed that surgery would ever be possible, let alone the possibility of transplanting a heart or a kidney.

 

“There was no television, no radar, no garbage disposals, few plastics except celluloid and hard rubber. I remember hearing about a new plastic called bakelite when I was in high school. For the ladies there was no nylon though there were a few synthetic textile materials.

 

“I decided while I was in high school I wanted to be an engineer and I read all of the technical magazines I could obtain. The library in Pueblo had only about a dozen volumes on electricity and chemistry, all of which I read several times.

 

“We had heard of Einstein’s equation and the possibility of converting matter into energy, but no one dreamed it would be possible so soon I am sure we knew that fossil fuels were limited – there was talk about solar energy – but certainly the thought never crossed our young minds in those days that there would be unlimited energy in our lifetime which could be directed to unlimited good or unlimited evil.”

 

Packard tells of having been asked what the Hewlett-Packard Company will been doing ten years hence. He says he responded by saying that “10 years ago I could not have told you what we would be doing today, and I am unable to tell you what new products we will be showing our stockholders. I am certain, however, that there are just as many important things to be done today as there were 10 years ago, and I can say for sure …in 10 years there will certainly be more yet to be done, even though I can’t tell you just exactly what that will be.

 

And Packard tells his young audience that “Although much has been accomplished in the 38 years since I was your age, there is more knowledge – more ability – more resources – and the next 38 years are certain to be as challenging and as exciting for you as the past 38 have been for me.

 

“But you say yes there has been material progress and there will certainly be more – what about the other things – urban problems, riots – Vietnam – starvation of people in a world where food is thrown away or deliberately not produced. Has the world really made any progress in the past 38 years in these areas – or is it in fact in the worst condition in its history?”

 

Packard admits this is not an easy question to answer. “We know we can produce electricity more efficiently – we can make accurate measurements. We know people have more money – even the poor, and even after we allow for inflation. Whether more people are happier – whether better off, etc is hard to evaluate.”

 

Packard remembers the world of 1930 as “…reasonable calm and hopeful. There had been the crash in Wall Street – people lost jobs and things were very difficult, but I didn’t sense great despair. On the world scene there had been considerable progress in disarmament. There was the World Court – and after all, America had entered World War I to make the world safe for democracy. On closer examination, however, there was very much the same kind of turmoil all over the world then that there is today. There had been very bloody labor strife in Colorado a few years earlier. Two or three years later there were reports of Japanese military action in china. We began shortly to hear about a man names Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy. I recall stories of the communists in Russia. The Bolsheviks going through a crowd and shooting on the spot any person who did not have callused hands and who was therefore not a working man.

 

“It is clear to me that in close examination there was just about as much turmoil in thee world in those days as there is today. We decry horrors of Vietnam, but World War II was no humane endeavor.

 

“There is however, one big difference. We read about these things in newspapers or in magazines. Some were on newsreels in the theaters, but we did not have on-the-spot television nowhere near the thorough news coverage. We simply were not anywhere near as aware of the social and political problems of the world as you young people are today. – We knew about them, but they seemed remote.

 

“As I think about these matters – and what has happened in these areas over the past 38 years – I believe there has been substantial progress. I am certain the world is better today than 38 years ago. Clearly there is great opportunity for more progress, and I am pleased that so many young people today are dedicated to help bring it about.

 

“I would hasten to add, however, there will always be an opportunity for improvement in human and social affairs – just as there will always be opportunity for scientific discovery, inventions and new works of engineering.

 

“I am afraid Robert Frost was right when he said there is only one thing in this world we can be certain about – there will always be conflict and there will always be change. The problem is: how to minimize the conflict and how to make the change constructive and substantial. That is of course precisely the problem we face in our civil rights – minority problem here in America.

 

“Packard tells the students that as they go on into life they “…will have some of their ideas challenged – there will be conflict in your mind – you will find new fields of knowledge available to you – what you make of it will be up to you.

 

“We hear much today about the generation gap. You are at the age where you don’t understand your elders – probably some of you don’t even understand your parents. I can assure you that is one thing which really has not changed very much. I remember vividly one of the greatest things about coming to Stanford for me was that I would have a chance to get away from home. I assure you after being away I soon wanted to get back – I decided my parents weren’t so bad after all.

 

“I learned a little secret somewhere along the line I would like to share with you. Whatever you may think of this older generation of yours, we desperately want you to succeed. When we criticize it is only in the hope we can help you avoid the mistakes we have made. In particular I want to say to each of you – if you ever need help, don’t hesitate to ask. The Chairman and the President of this company would be flattered and pleased if they had the opportunity to help you in any way that might be useful.

 

“And regardless of what you think about the older generation, you have a responsibility to them – to make the future better than the past. You have a responsibility to your parents to grow up to be a person they will be proud of. But as David Starr Jordan once said, the person above all who you have a responsibility to is the person you will be 10 – 2 — 30 – years from now.

 

“Good luck and God bless you.

 

4/22/68, Text of speech handwritten by Packard.

4/4/68, Letter to Packard from Robert H. Gerdes, Chairman of the Board, PG&E, inviting Packard to speak to the winners of college scholarships.4/10/68, Copy of letter from Packard to Robert Gerdes saying he will “see if he can find something to say to the group.”

 

4/11/68, Letter to Packard from Robert Gros  expressing appreciation that Packard has agreed to speak and giving details of the evening.

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 11 – General Speeches

 

November 20, 1968,  Dinner speaker, Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys Club of Menlo Park, Leading Citizens Dinner, Palo Alto CA

 

11/20/68, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.

 

Packard says this event has great significance to him: first, because he had the good fortune to know Herbert Hoover during the last few years of his life, and “I know he put the Boys’ clubs high on his list of priorities. And secondly, “…this Boys’ Club is making a great contribution to the improvement in the lot of young people of the black community in our area.”

 

Packard then says he would like to say a few things about Herbert Hoover – “for whom this Boys’ is named. “In doing so I am not unaware that Herbert Hoover was a conservative. Many of our friends on the campus today would call him a reactionary. Many of today’s students would reject him – even though they don’t understand what he really stood for.

 

“I am afraid also that many of the black power advocates in East Palo Alto would reject Herbert Hoover and what he stood for, but in the end I predict that the solution to our minority problems will come only from better understanding of and acceptance of the things Herbert Hoover believed.”

 

And Packard lists some things Hoover believed:

Conservative – referred to liberals as “those left wingers”

Was respected by both Republicans and Democrats, and friend of several presidents from both parties.

 

Hoover loved fishing and encouraged boys to fish.

 

“He thought it very important that boys be close to nature.”

 

Referring to Hoover’s feeling that we should work toward a “strengthening if vision, curiosity and patience” in the mind of boys, Packard says “What a great contribution to the troubled times of today more vision would bring. And patience – our young people of today seem possessed with the idea that there are instant solutions to everything. I am a great advocate of the idea that young people should learn something about the world before they try to reform it.”

 

“Herbert Hoover had great love for his country. He once expressed it this way:

 

“I was a boy with nothing and this magnificent country of ours gave me my education and my opportunity. After I had made my competence – fortunately rather early in life – I wanted in turn to do something for my country.”

 

“And he spent the last 50 years of his life in service to his country.”

 

Herbert Hoover was one of the great men of this century. He was the product and the examplification [sic] of what we call the Puritan ethic. The Puritan ethic involved a strict code of morality, a belief in religion….Many of these ideas are rejected today – by young people – by people in the black community – even by people in the churches who are searching for new answers

 

“The young radicals and even some people who should know better say America is a sick society.
In the words of Eldridge Cleaver all religions are phony.

 

“The Puritan ethic is rejected by many minority people because these people have failed to obtain their fair share of the good things of an affluent society built on the Puritan ethic. They are not willing to trust their reward at some future time to a benevolent God in heaven – they want some of that reward now.

 

“And I think they are right in saying and believing something better must be done for them, and by them – and it must be done now. We don’t need a new philosophy – we need better application of the old.

 

“We have, here in our area, the Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys; Club. We also have the Nairobi Day School Teen Summer Project. Both of these groups are directed toward influencing the minds of the young people of this community toward their training and education.”

 

Packard says he has quoted from the philosophy of Hoover, and he would like to quote from the Nairobi Day School Teen Summer Project. He gives some quotes by young people who attended the Nairobi (East Palo Alto) Day School Project:

 

Here is a poem titled “Black is Beautiful” which Packard quoted:

“Black is who is always getting in fights

Black is who is now standing for their rights.

Black is the way you walk,

Black is the way you talk.

Black is the kind of food you eat,

Black is [who] the pigs like to beat.

Black is who was a slave,

Black is who pigs think don’t bathe.

Black is the way you wear your hair,

Black is at whom the pigs stare.

Black is the music you dig,

Black is the way you gig.

And I would like to say,

As I finish this poem today,

BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL……..”

 

Packard continues, “These are not the happy, care-free young people Mr. Hoover recalls. They are troubled. And we must be troubled when we hear what they say. But if one reads on, there is a clear ray of hope.” And Packard quotes another poem:

 

“EDUCATION”

 

“Education is what we need

To get along in this world,

In reading let us pick up speed.

Whether we are a boy or girl.

 

Math we need also in school

To develop our minds so blank,

But it’s better than pitching pennies or shooting pool,

So let’s not walk that plank.

 

Science is a necessary thing

To me and to others

So when our education bell rings,

Let’s help our sisters and brothers.”

 

“These are the young people of East Palo Alto. They are complaining about their lot – but behind the complaints is a new sense of pride – a dedication to education – a call for competence and responsibility. These are the activist young people speaking.

 

“Behind them is the vast majority who have faith in the American way as did Herbert Hoover.

 

“Since I have been involved in the minority problems of this area, I have had many communications – letters, phone calls, and discussions with people from the black community who do not agree with the black activist tactics. People who believe that the traditional values of our society are right. People who would agree with Herbert Hoover. They are the ones we must help – not just the activists who attract attention.

 

“I am convinced we must all work harder to open the doors of opportunity for our friends in the minority community. Progress will come to them through education – education dedicated to the goal of improving their competence and responsibility.

 

“I believe my friends in the Nairobi Day School are also saying that their students should strive to be competent and responsible.

 

“I am sure I speak for all of the employers in this area – we couldn’t care less about Swahili or African History – we want people who are competent in English and mathematics and science. People who can do a job well. But if pride in their background or learning Swahili helps them appreciate the importance of competence and responsibility, then it’s all to the good.”

 

“We are here tonight to honor and to help the Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys’ Club. It is involved in the future of young people from the black community.

 

“Get these people into club

n  education

n  jobs

n  housing

 

“Don’t blame them for what’s going on – blame yourself – get with it.

 

“The Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys; Club is one of the very important enterprises in our community. It can help bring hope, confidence, competence and responsibility. It can demonstrate that the principles which guided Herbert Hoover’s long and useful life can also serve the young people of today.

 

“We don’t need to discard the things which have made America great. We simply need to get these troubled people on board. This will take understanding by you and me. It will take time and it will take work. There is no greater challenge today. Perhaps this is the most severe challenge we have yet encountered.

 

“It can be done, and one good step is for us all to give our unqualified support to the Herbert Hoover Boys’ Club here in our community.

 

“But don’t stop with your $25 involvement tonight – move into this job as though you really mean it.”

 

 

11/20/68, Copy of the printed program for the Boys’ Club dinner at Rickey’s Hyatt House in Palo Alto.

9/6/68, Letter to Packard from David M Botsford, A Director of the Boys’ Club, saying he had received the “good news” that Packard has agreed to speak at their dinner.

9/11/68, Copy of letter from Packard to David Botsford confirming Packard’s willingness to speak.

11/8/68, Letter to Margaret Paull from Mrs. Crone Kernke sending material written by Herbert Hoover.

11/26/68, Letter to Packard from David Botsford thanking him for his participation at the dinner.

12/4/68, Letter to Margaret Paull thanking her for mailing out invitations to the dinner.

12/13/68, Letter to Packard from Bruce Michael asking for a $5000 donation for the Boys’ Club Drum and Bugle Corps. He says the last minute request is necessitated by the unexpected withdrawal of a pledge from another company.

1217/68, Copy of letter from Packard to Bruce Michael saying he “cannot help further at this time….There are just too many other things that come higher on my list of priorities.”

Several newspaper clippings and other articles providing Packard background reference material.

Box 3, Folder 6 – General Speeches

 

March 31, 1967, Comments on Opportunities Industrialization Center West (OICW),

Palo Alto, CA

 

It is not clear who the audience was to whom Packard was speaking, however HP was a strong supporter of OICW and these remarks, although brief, give an emphatic response to some negative reports that had been made in the community.

 

 

3/31/67, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s comments

 

“Since it was organized in 1965,” Packard says, “OICW has created and conducted well-managed, effective job training programs geared to the specific needs of Peninsula business and industry. It has received, and continues to merit, the enthusiastic support of all segments of our community.

 

“Through its emphasis on self-help, it has enabled hundreds of unemployed and under-employed people on the Peninsula to obtain worthwhile jobs and to bring hope, confidence and dignity to themselves and to their families.

 

“Our company, as well as many other firms in the area, has hired several OICW graduates, and we intend to hire more. We find these people capable, industrious, and able to make an important contribution to the community’s growth and progress.

 

“It is gratifying to note that throughout local industry there is a growing appreciation and endorsement of OICW. Many firms are pledging increasing financial support to the program, are contributing equipment and teaching skills, and are broadening job opportunities for its graduates.

 

“As with any positive, energetic movement, OICW has gathered a few critics along the way. Several of us in industry have recently investigated and evaluated its criticisms. We find that these are not based on fact but on fancy. They are a product of negativism and questionable motive. It is regrettable that not everyone in our community approaches important social problems in a positive, constructive manner. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the overwhelming majority of people who are directly exposed to OICW heartily endorse its principles and programs.

 

“The beauty of OICW is that it works. It represents accomplishment, not promise; hope, not despair; affirmation, not protest; action, not apathy. It is a vital, moving force in the betterment of our community and as such, deserves our continuing interest and support.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 7 – General Speeches

 

October 9, 1967, Dedication of Lou Henry Hoover Building, Hoover Institution, Stanford Alumni and Friends, Hoover Institution

 

10/9/67, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech,

 

“I am pleased to be able to participate in the dedication of the Lou  Henry Hoover Building. This is an important occasion for the Hoover family, I know, to have their mother – as well as their father – honored here at Stanford and remembered by this beautiful building.

 

“The occasion is also an important and memorable one for many of Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover’s friends and admirers a number of whom have helped to make this building possible. From among these, I would like to say a word about two.

 

“Mr. Jremiah Milbank, because of his close friendship with and great admiration for Mr. And Mrs. Hoover over the past forty years, has been generous to Stanford and the Hoover Institution on many occasions. It is indeed appropriate, and I must add very gratifying personally to me, that the main reading room in the Hoover Tower is being renovated and will be hereafter known as the Jeremiah Milbank Room. Mr. Milbank attended many Advisory Board meetings of the Institution with Mr. Hoover in that room, and I know The Chief would have been very pleased that Jerry Milbank’s name will be permanently inscribed there.

 

“I am sorry to tell you that Mr. Milbank’s health is so uncertain that he cannot be with us today. We are honored, however, by the presence of his son, Jeremiah Milbank, Jr.

 

“About sixty years ago, a penniless and virtually illiterate Serbian youth named Todor P9lich arrived in Los Angeles. He learned English – and through hard work and no small measure of innate ability – he became a successful businessman. His two sons graduated from Stanford, and both played on the football team.

 

“ Mr. Polich came to admire Herbert Hoover and what he stood for and what he believed in, and I, in turn, have been a great admirer of Mr. Polich and of his accomplishments.

 

“Through his generosity, Mr. Todor Polich has helped make the Lou Henry Hoover Building possible, and I am certain that both Mr. And Mrs. Hoover would have been very proud to know that he main seminar room in the Lou Henry Hoover Building will carry his name.

 

“Our dedication today is not only an important event to commemorate the memory of Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover, and to acknowledge those who have given so unselfishly in their tribute to them. The event also has significance in the progress of Stanford University.

 

“The Hoover Institution here on the Stanford campus has become one of the strong and prominent segments of this University. The books, documents, and archives of the Institution constitute a significant proportion of the University’s library collection, and in fact have contributed tremendously to the nation wide prestige of the Stanford Library.

 

“The Institution also has become an important center of scholarly research, study, and publication on subjects which have great significance in these troubled times. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hoover placed great hope that this Institution would serve well in man’s continuing search for a better world. That is also the hope of a great university.

 

“In many ways Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover reflected the tradition of Stanford. They combined a love of scholarship with a dedication of service to their fellowman. I have often marveled at their accomplishment in the translation of Agricola’s De Re Metallica.

 

“Lou Henry Hoover’s involvement in help for young people was extensive throughout her lifetime, and Herbert Hoover set the finest example for young people who would seek to serve their fellowman in a career of public service. In Mr. Hoover’s case, it began with his relief work, continued with numerous assignments under five Presidents, and as president himself.

 

“Nevertheless, he always stoutly maintained that the private sector – the professions and the private business establishment – make the most important contributions to both the social and economic progress of the world.

 

“Every student should read his statements about his profession of engineering.

 

“It is a great profession,” he said, “There is the fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realization in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes to men. Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the engineer’s high privilege.”

 

“If this is not enough to appeal to the socially oriented student of today, Mr. Hoover also pointed out that “from works of engineering, new laws and regulations have to be make and new sorts of wickedness curbed He, the engineer, is also the person who really corrects monopolies and redistributes national wealth.”

 

“Herbert Hoover also had something to say which might help enlighten those students who look with disdain on business as a career. He was a businessman as well as an engineer, and during the last fifty years of his life, which he spent in public service, he had many dealings with the business community. He recognized that the vast majority of businessmen are not motivated by selfish interests. As Food Administrator during World War I he relied largely on voluntary cooperation of the business community in solving the many problems of maintaining an adequate supply and distribution of essential foodstuffs to mount a successful war effort.

 

“In accepting President Wilson’s appointment, he responded by saying, “I hold strongly to the view that while large powers will be necessary for a minority of cases, the vast majority of the producing and distributing elements of the country are only too willing and anxious to serve.”

 

“In his administration of this program, there were great and serious difficulties. Most of these were solv4d, however, because the business community rose above their selfish interests under his leadership.

 

“His leadership toward a higher ethic in business affairs continued as he took charge of the Department of commerce and introduced many programs in which the business community cooperated to better serve the public welfare.

 

“It is an image widespread among students, and professors too, that service to humanity is not a common characteristic in the world of commerce and industry. Such an image was perhaps justified during the early decades of the 20^th Century.

 

“Fortunately, during the last three or four decades, the social attitudes in the world of commerce and industry have undergone a momentus (sic) change for the better. Mr. Hoover’s influence, by way of example and by way of his constructive thought and action throughout his many years of public service, have had no small effect on contributing to this higher ethic in the administration of business and industry.

 

“I am particularly pleased, therefore, that today’s dedication of the Lou Henry Hoover Building recognizes the expanding role of the Hoover Institution in the affairs of this University.

 

“It is my hope that this new building will help the Hoover Institution serve well both faculty and students in their scholarly studies – in their search for new understanding, and new answers, to the perplexing questions of today and tomorrow.

 

“It is my hope also that this new building will serve as a continual reminder – to present and future generations of students and faculty – that Stanford has a great heritage. It is a heritage worthy of preservation, and one reflected in many ways in the lives of Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover.

 

“In particular, this heritage includes a tradition in which the University and its graduates have served their fellowman in the practical as well as the intellectual affairs of the world. It also includes a tradition of strong involvement in – and commitment to – the principles of free and private enterprise as well as public and social service.

 

“I know my hopes in these matters are shared by the vast majority of the Stanford family, as well as those who have made the building possible.

 

“On their behalf it is my privilege and honor to resent the Lou Henry Hoover Building formally to the President and Board of Trustees of Stanford University.”

 

 

10/9/67, Copy of speech handwritten by Packard.

Undated,  Handwritten note from Packard to his secretary Margaret Paull, asking her to arrange to have copies of his speech go out with the Alumni letter.

Copy of the printed invitation to the dedication ceremony.

 

Box 1, Folder 2 – Stanford

 

 January 6, 1957,  Function of the Trustee of the Privately Endowed University, Stanford Business School, Palo Alto

 

1/6/57 Handwritten speech given by Packard at Stanford’s Japanese Seminar.

 

He goes into considerable detail describing how the Board of Trustees operates at Stanford. He describes the history of private universities in the US saying, “Although private individuals started the institutions, in most cases they received support from the local government during the early phases of their history. Soon, however, the administrators, particularly those on the academic side, found it desirable to be entirely free from political influence and so very early divorced themselves from state control. They remain independent and privately administered to a large degree today.”

Speaking of the contribution of private universities to the country Packard says, “Although the public institutions outnumber the private universities and are proportionately much better supported, the private universities exert a tremendous influence in the United States and provide most of the leadership both in the academic and professional areas. for example, in a rating recently made by a large American newspaper, seven out of the top ten universities were privately supported. In the sixty largest business concerns in the United States two-thirds of the officers and directors are graduates of or attended one of these seven leading privately endowed universities. The responsibility of the privately supported university therefore is one of leadership, as even the proponents of publicly supported universities recognize”

Packard describes the organization of the Board of Trustees, its responsibilities as well as limitations placed on it by the founding grant. He covers the work of several committees one of which is the Committee on Investments. “One of the very important responsibilities of the board of trustees is the preservation of the endowment funds that were originally given to the university by the Stanfords and of the funds that have been given subsequently by other donors.”  Packard goes on to list the types of investments held and the percentage each represents of the whole $43 million fund.

Packard says that the Committee on Finance “is responsible for overall financial policy, as well as for day to day financial operation. For example, its most important job is to review the annual budget of the university in order to recommend it to the board of trustees for approval.” The Committee on Buildings and Grounds, Packard says, “assumes responsibility for maintenance of the physical facilities of the university and studies plans for expansion, new buildings,  rehabilitation of older buildings, and all of the things having to do with the physical plant with a view to making specific recommendations to the board of trustees.”

Packard says the board of trustees is less active in the area of academic affairs and that  “The control of academic affairs is centered in the president of the university (as distinct from the president of the board of trustees) and the faculty. In the selection of the president of the university, however, the board of trustees has an important influence on academic affairs because the president, in principle, provides the leadership and, to a large degree, determines the academic caliber of the university.”

Packard gives a detailed description of Stanford’s fiscal budget listing income and expenditures. Endowment income, he says, “is a rather small portion of the total amount of available money. …Generally this money is contracted for the purpose of some specific research in a particular area.

 

2/30/57 Letter from Oswald Nielsen, Professor of Accounting, sending Packard a   typewritten copy of the above speech asking that Packard make any corrections.

1/24/57 Letter from Gail Saxon (Packard’s secretary) sending the draft back to Professor   Nelson with minor changes.

 

Box 1, Folder 28 – HP Management

 

January 11, 1967 – Management Conference, Monterey

 

1/11/67, Typewritten comments prepared by Packard to be given at the conference.

Packard congratulates everyone on the good things done during 1966, but says he wants to talk about areas “where we have done, in my opinion, a disgracefully poor job.”

One example”, he says, “is our management of inventories and accounts receivable.” Dave goes on to say that the problem with receivables started when responsibility was assigned to the sales offices.

 

Dave shows some slides on both inventories and receivables concluding that “this is poor management.” “To put it bluntly – I submit to you that a division manager who is unable to keep his inventories in line better than some of you did in 1966 may be miscast in his job. And, the same applies to an area marketing manager and his receivables. I hope a word to the wise will be sufficient.”

 

“Now all of this has to do with the proper management of our resources – and it goes back to one of our basic objectives – and a very important one – to keep our corporate -wide profits at a rate which will generate resources sufficient for us to finance our growth. It follows logically that we must utilize these resources efficiently. Let’s look at our performance over the last few years in this respect, as shown in Figure 4.” He shows a slide which shows that growth in net worth has not kept up with growth in shipments. He concludes the answer is to increase profits. “It seems to me”, he says, “that any division which is in the ten to twenty million dollar area of sales, should be expected to generate a profit adequate to finance its own growth, and provide a little extra for seed. Here again, I hope a word to the wise is sufficient.”

 

Dave says he has some specific suggestions for consideration:

“First, making a profit adequate to support your own growth is primarily a matter of attitude – you can do it if you decide it is that important – and as far as I am concerned, from here on it is going to be that important.

 

“Second, it is highly dependent on pricing policy. The main opportunity we have to raise our profit performance is to develop new products good enough to justify an adequate profit. They must be priced accordingly, and as I have said before, you have to find new product projects which will generate a substantial volume when proceed to produce an above average profit. If you have development projects which are likely to give you products with large volume and below average profits, you better think about cutting them off – they won’t help you get your performance where it has to be. If you take business on an incremental basis, it had better be a small increment of hour total business, or you are in trouble before you start.

 

“The object of the game is to increase your profits at least as fast, but hopefully faster, than your growth in sales. You are likely to turn in better performance at a higher price level and a lower volume. If your growth in profits is not equal to your growth in volume, an increase in prices will have the effect of bringing them in line. Taking on incremental business will make this relationship move the wrong way.

 

“Third, the problem often starts at the design stage of a new product. If you design an instrument that has more components than its competitive product, or is more difficult to produce, even the most efficient manufacturing effort won’t bail you out.

 

“Fourth, if you don’t take a tough minded attitude about your people and their performance, you are sure to be in trouble. We have emphasized over the years, the importance of being fair to our people, and certainly we must be. But, this does not justify condoning poor performance by anyone in a management position. We cannot build a future for all the people in this company with mediocrity. We must demand excellence.

 

“Fifth, I do not believe we have done a good enough job in our planning. We have not developed an adequate, well considered strategy for what we want to do.

 

…….”The underlying strategy in our new product program must always be to make a contribution – to be ahead of, and better than, our competition.”

“Sixth, we are not yet doing a good job in every division in the transition from development to production. This, again, is as much a failure in planning as in implementation. Last year we had several new products put into production, and on the market, before they were ready to go. This is not good management. This is just floundering around. It wastes resources, as will as effort and every of people.”

 

Packard closes by asking that each division manager submit a written report to him on his strategy and plans for the future in specific detail to improve the performance of his group.

1/12/67, Typewritten pages by Dave Packard . He says that last night we looked at the BIG job we have to do. And now he invites all to take a look at our FIVE YEAR plans. Packard spends some time talking about opportunities in the medical and analytical areas and then moves on to the bigger picture:

 

“In addition to the medical and chemical markets, we  believe there will be a trend toward more automation and data handling in our traditional market. We have been working in systems at Dymec, and we have been developing many instruments which are programmable and produce data in digital form We have looked forward to a growing interest in fully automated instrumentation systems. the introduction of our Computer this year brings us closer to the capability of producing viable, fully automated instrumentation systems. We are not there yet, and I hope we can keep working on the interface problem between instruments produced by different division and with our Computer.

 

“I would summarize the outline of our over-all corporate strategy in regard to our markets and fields of interest as follows:

A. First to strengthen our position in our traditional field of electronic                    instrumentation.

1. Put more emphasis on instruments which make a real                                           contribution in this field.

2. Build a stronger position in automated instrumentation systems.

3. Keep up with latest technology, such as integrated circuits in our                                    new products.

B. Build a viable position in Medical instrumentation.

1. Put more emphasis on instruments which make a real                                           contribution in this field.

2. Build marketing capability to support the program.

 

3. Recognize  that the medical market is fragmented, and                                          concentrate our effort on the portion of this market where we have,                            or can expect to build a viable position.

 

D. Build a position in electronic instrumentation for Analytical Chemistry.

1. Place more emphasis and effort on areas where we can really                               make a contribution.

 

2. Build marketing capability to support program.

 

3. Be sure we keep close coordination and compatibility between                            marketing capability and new product program.

E. Work to bring and concentrate total corporate strength into these four                            field of activity.

 

Development programs, acquisitions, or other endeavors, which are not                  directed into these specific areas should by undertaken only with great                        caution.

 

The balance of the material in this folder is support papers for the conference

 

 

Box 1, Folder 29 – HP Management

 

June 12, 1967, Division Managers Meeting

1/12/67, Folder contains various supporting charts, spreadsheets, for the meeting