Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285792559
label
Association - Packard [1990-92]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285792559
contentType
document
title
Association - Packard [1990-92]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62086-009
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Allan D. Bromley Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285792559
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
10b976433bee2875
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Organization Files - Non-Government Organizations
OA/ID Number:
62086
Folder ID Number:
62086-009
Folder Title:
Association - Packard [1990-92]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 21, 1992
Dear Lynn:
It was good to see you at the recent annual meeting of the Packard Foundation and I
think all of us can be extremely proud of the way the program has developed.
Because I really feel that an alumni association, either of the Packard Fellows alone or
of an expanded group that would include the Packard Fellows as well as the quasi
Packard Fellows that we in the Federal Government produce each year, could be
extremely important. I would like simply to follow up on our discussions with some off
the top of the head suggestions as to ways in which we might consider starting such an
association if you and the other members of the Foundation consider it to be a good
idea.
It would be, I think, an excellent idea if we could get for each of the 100 Packard
Fellows a two page spread that would include on the first page a photograph together
with brief biographical information - where did they grow up, where were they
educated, what positions they held in the past, and what their current positions are as
Packard Fellows. Then the facing page (I would limit it rigorously to one page) would
have a very brief discussion of what sort of research work they are involved in, what
area of teaching they are involved with, and finally, a selection of, let us say, five
papers which they think are particularly representative of their research activities. This
way if we had this pair of pages facing one another in a booklet, it would be extremely
convenient to be able to leaf through it, recognize the face, put it together with the
information, and have at one's disposal, in a very convenient and attractive fashion, the
kind of information that I, for example, frequently want as I try to find people whom I
might call for expert opinion or to serve on various boards or committees. Quite apart
from anything else I think that such a record would be a rather remarkable historic
document in the years ahead. Perhaps we should consider putting this together so that
we updated it every 5 years or whatever interval seems appropriate with interim
sections being produced each year as new Fellows are selected.
I think the photographs are important and that such a hard copy item would be a
nucleus around which alumni activities could be built.
I see at least two problems: one is the obvious one of funding because in order to be
done well this would not be inexpensive and secondly, my experience has always been
that obtaining reasonable photographs of any group is extremely difficult and I would
hope that we could avoid the scruffy photographs taken with a box camera on the beach
at twilight that so often are submitted in response to photographic requests; indeed this
is a particular sin on the part of scientists and engineers. I have been appalled in the
past at what distinguished authors of papers in volumes that I have edited have
submitted for inclusion in the photographic roster of authors.
When I got back to my office I took my brief notes from the banquet and dictated the
enclosed hard copy of my remarks at the banquet with the thought that you might wish
to pass it on to David.
I think that next year's meeting will be particularly interesting as we hear the
graduation reports from the first group of Fellows and I very much look forward to it.
After some shuffling of schedules, I will be back in San Francisco on Thursday,
September 24, to give a talk to Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference that is being
organized in substantial measure, it seems, by staff from Hewlett-Packard. Perhaps I
shall see you in connection with that activity.
I was very disappointed with the support given by John Young, John Sculley, and other
CEOs to the Clinton-Gore campaign, but delighted with David Packard's letter that
appeared in the September 17th San Jose Mercury.
With warmest best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
Am
D. Allan Bromley
The Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Enclosure
Professor Franklin Orr
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
300 Second Street, Suite 200
Los Altos, California 94022
REMARKS ON THE PACKARD FELLOWSHIP*
D. Allan Bromley
The Science Advisor to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
It is rare indeed that a scientific banquet, or indeed any banquet, is ever held in such
magnificent surroundings as those provided here in the Monterey Aquarium, and as
veteran attendee at scientific banquets, let me say that it is almost as rare to have the
quality of the banquet itself match these superb surroundings. Finally, it is perhaps
even more rare to have the intellectual content of the banquet conversations and
discussion match either these surroundings or this remarkable banquet.
For all these things we are indebted to one remarkable individual: a man who has
achieved worldwide recognition as a creative engineer, as a truly exceptional
entrepreneur, both personally and on behalf of his entire region, and as a public servant
of the highest distinction; a man who has served his region, his state, his nation, and
indeed the entire world in dedicated fashion. David Packard is all these things and
more. Tonight we would specially recognize him for the pioneering role that he has
played in recognizing true excellence in our academic faculties and, through the Packard
Fellowships, in encouraging some of the very best young people in our nation to commit
themselves to academic careers in universities across our nation.
Tomorrow, as the Scientific Advisory Board selects the twenty new candidates whom it
will recommend to the Packard Foundation as the 1992 Packard Fellows, we will have
completed the full one hundred that hereafter will be the number of Packard Fellows
working at any one time. In preparing for this meeting the members of the Advisory
Board have read the nominations and proposals submitted on behalf of all the
candidates. In the case of winners of Packard Fellowships - such as those of you present
here this evening -- we have read all of these documents several times. Out of this there
is only one inescapable conclusion: you are a remarkably select group indeed,
perhaps the most select group of young scientists and engineers anywhere in the world.
History tells us, although you may not be thinking of it at this stage in your career, that
much will be expected of you both from your profession and from your nation.
Perhaps the best analogs in the past to today's Packard Fellowships are those that were
awarded by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations in the 1930s. At the time,
*Remarks delivered at the 1992 Annual Meeting of The David and Lucille Packard
Foundation Fellowship.
fellowships were, in many ways, the dominant sources of support for young people
entering into science or technology, and because their numbers were relatively small and
because they were, as you are, very highly selected, they rather quickly developed a
network. This network was to play an absolutely critical role in the years ahead.
During World War II -- with its emphasis on the application of science in the radar
program, in the Manhattan Project, and equally important but less well known, in the
dramatic efforts to improve the delivery of high quality health care, not only to those in
the battlefield but to those throughout our society -- the group of Rockefeller and
Carnegie Fellows very quickly and very naturally assumed roles of major leadership --
in many cases despite their relative youth. After the war, this same group of individuals
played key roles not only in advising the government as to appropriate federal roles in
research and development in the postwar period but also in building the academic and
high technology industrial enterprises that have served this nation so extraordinarily
well in the postwar years.
Networking today, of course, is much easier than it was in the 1930s. Technology has
moved forward dramatically, and the possibility of almost instantaneous communication
with any individual or group of individuals lies available to us. Indeed, earlier today we
were exchanging E-Mail addresses so that Packard Fellows, and happily the members of
the Advisory Board, could begin the kind of networking that I believe to be essential to
the full realization of the potential of the Packard Fellowship.
Tonight I would like to challenge all of us here to work actively to create the beginning
of an alumni organization for Packard Fellows. This is an organization that can have
major internal and external benefits and one that I think works toward achieving the
goals that David Packard had in mind when he created this program.
I believe that these annual meetings that are now well established are extremely
important. First of all, they allow us to put faces to the documents that we, on the
Advisory Board, have been reading so carefully. They allow the Fellows to come to
know one another and, hopefully, to begin the networking that I have just mentioned.
But perhaps most important of all is the fact that these meetings are enormously
exciting as we all have an opportunity to hear what some of the most able young people
anywhere have chosen to devote their time to during the past year. In my own case, I
find these two days that I spend each autumn at this annual meeting to be among the
most exciting and valuable that I spend in the entire year. Where else do I find, in such
attractive and accessible form, reports from the very frontiers of science and technology
presented by the people who are themselves pushing back those frontiers?
I would take this opportunity also to remind you that earlier this year in Washington we
announced the selection of the first 30 Presidential Young Faculty Fellows. This is a
program which, let me be quite clear, was in almost every respect copied from the
Packard Program. The selection process is almost precisely identical, the awards are
identical, and the goals are identical, although in the Federal program we have perhaps
emphasized even more than in the Packard program the teaching as well as the research
aspect of the career objectives that we would like to see for our young faculty members.
I would hope that the 30 young people from the Federal program could be brought
somehow into contact with the Packard Fellows because they too are remarkably highly
selected, and this total group of 50 young persons selected each year as among the most
able in our nation is a very important group indeed.
I am convinced that both as individuals, and as members of this larger group, the
Packard Fellowship has not only the potential for great advancement of science and
technology in all its areas but also an enormous potential for national service. Who
better can represent the new generation of scientists and engineers, and who better can
speak for that generation as we develop policies, programs, and facilities that you will
use rather than us. Let me assure you that we will be calling on you for advice and
counsel. The presence of an alumni association would, I believe, make this interaction
more convenient.
This meeting, then, represents the end of the beginning of the Packard Fellowship. You
and your predecessors have demonstrated that we have indeed evolved a highly effective
selection mechanism. I have talked at length with David Packard about this program
and have had the privilege of being involved with it since its inception. I know that he
had very much looked forward to being here tonight and that only the most vigorous
efforts on the part of his physicians have kept him from being here. I know, too, that
he is delighted with the program and intensely proud of each of you who have become
members of the Packard Fellowship.
Last Monday was David's 80th birthday. Let me then ask all of your to rise and join
me in a slightly belated toast to David on this occasion. May he celebrate a great many
more happy and healthy ones in the years ahead. To David Packard.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
DATE: 7/5/91
TO:
Annedore Kushner
David & Lucille Packard Foundation
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 415/948-7658
FAX NUMBER:
415/948-5793
FROM:
Marian Nida
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
456-7116
FAX NUMBER:
(202) 395-3261
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET 2
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01a. List
Ranking of nominees [personal information redacted] (2 pp.)
(b)(6)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Organization Files - Non-Government Organizations
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Association Packard [1990-92]
Date Closed:
5/19/2010
OA/ID Number:
62086-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
DAVID and LUCILE
PACKARD FELLOWSHIPS
FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
THE DAVID AND LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION
300 SECOND STREET, SUITE 200
LOS ALTOS, CA 94022
Annedore Kushner
Program Coordinator
To:
Allan B., Tom, Millie, David, Stuart Rice, Allan S.
Date:
June 14, 1991
Re:
LATE REFERENCE LETTERS
Attached are for your review are copies of LATE reference letters
for individuals that are on your respective review lists.
All
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01b. List
Ranking of nominees [personal information redacted] (3 pp.)
(b)(6)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Organization Files - Non-Government Organizations
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Association - Packard [1990-92]
Date Closed:
5/19/2010
OA/ID Number:
62086-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
9121776
DAVID and LUCILE
PACKARD FELLOWSHIPS
FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
June 14, 1991
91 JUN 18 A10 49
D. Allan Bromley
Executive Office of the President
OFFICE DIRECTOR OF
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Old Executive Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20506
Dear Allan,
We received 94 nominations for 1991 (out of 104 possible submissions). We
have sent a three-volume set of nominations by UPS. Enclosed with this letter are:
(1)
A list of names of nominees assigned to you for review in the first pass.
(2)
A summary listing in alphabetical order.
(3) A summary listing sorted by field.
(4) A summary listing sorted by university.
As was the case last year, three reviewers will rank each nomination in the first
pass. We should each rank our nominees from 1 to 26 (or 25 in some cases). We will
then produce an overall ranked list from which we can select the top 40 or so for the
second reading by all of us.
This year we suggest the following schedule:
July 23: First pass rankings due.
August 30: Second pass rankings due.
September 6: Selection committee meeting.
Please write your rankings on the enclosed alphabetical list of your nominees
and fax it to Annedore at the Foundation (FAX No.: 415-948-5793) or phone in your
numbers.
Thanks for all the hard work you are about to undertake. If you have questions,
comments, or suggestions, please call Annedore (at 415-948-7658).
Sincerely,
Lymn
Franklin M. Orr, Jr.
FMO/ak
Enclosures
THE DAVID AND LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION 300 SECOND STREET, SUITE 200 LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 415-948-7658
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01c. Table
Packard Foundation Feloowships: 1991 Applicants [personal
6/14/91
(b)(6)
information redacted] (9 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Organization Files - Non-Government Organizations
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Association Packard [1990-92]
Date Closed:
5/19/2010
OA/ID Number:
62086-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 31, 1991
Dear David:
Many thanks for sending me a copy of your letter to Chairman Boucher and members
of his subcommittee. You make a whole series of excellent points and this input
will be extremely helpful in all that we are trying to do.
There is one paragraph, the second from the bottom on page 2, that addresses the
need for operating costs subsidies which leaves me slightly puzzled and when next we
get together I would look forward to discussing it with you.
As things now stand, I expect to arrive in Palo Alto late on Wednesday, September 4
and will be present for the entire meeting with the Packard Fellows. I very much
look forward to seeing you and to hearing from them and I hope that you will be able
to join us for the PCAST meeting scheduled for September 12 and 13.
I plan to be in Europe for the first week in August meeting with the Science Advisors
in Bonn, Paris, and Rome and then expect to take the last two weeks of August as
vacation when, for the first time in a long while, I will get all my family together at
our place up in Canada.
With warmest best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
D. Na Allan Bromley
The Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Mr. David Packard
26580 Taaffe Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
July 12, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR D. ALLAN BROMLEY
FROM:
D.A. HENDERSON HENDERSON
SUBJECT:
PACKARD LETTER
David and I had discussed the contents of this letter prior to his
sending it and, from our discussions, we had identified specific areas of
his testimony needing clarification. Except for paragraph 5 on page 2, it
is an eminently sound statement, in my view. The paragraph in question
simply makes no sense to me and, even with our earlier discussions as
background, I can make no sense out of it. I would suggest a simple
letter to David expressing your thanks for the letter and his interest.
Attachment
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
1411
COPY
DAVID PACKARD
26580,TAAFFE ROAD
LOS ALTOS MILLS, CALIFORNIA 94022
91 MAY 13 P12: 34
May 6, 1991
OFFICE CF THE
DIRECTOR
U. S. House of Representatives
Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Subcommittee on Science
Suite 2320, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Boucher and Members of the Subcommittee:
There were several issues discussed at the hearing on
April 25 that need clarification.
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.
This fixed percentage will be applied to the adjusted
direct cost base which will be the actual direct costs at the
various universities. These direct costs will have the
variations in the costs caused by cost of living
automatically built in.
RIGHT
It follows that this fixed-cost rate should not have a
cost of living bias of any kind.
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.
The fixed administrative overhead rate might be set a
bit on the high side because it will save money even then.
It should be reviewed after the first three years and
probably every five years thereafter.
The direct costs of university research should be
defined to be as specific as possible. All federal agencies
awarding contracts for university research should be required
to use the same precise definition of direct costs.
Subcommittee on Science
May 6, 1991
Page two
The most serious problem comes from the fact that
federal contracts provide for depreciation whereas most
universities have no depreciation costs. There are
exceptions in cases where universities borrow money for
buildings and equipment. In these cases the Federal
Government should, and I believe generally does, pay its fair
share of the cost of interest and amortization of the money
borrowed.
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 agencies. with the cooperation of the ONR as well as other funding
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 to debit 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. Ten percent of this special building fund
account could be allocated to buildings or equipment that are
used primarily for administrative activities rather than
research.
The need for operating costs subsidies should then be
addressed as a separate issue. It could be a surcharge on
all federal funding. It could be a special allocation from
the special building account I have recommended. If the
depreciation periods were reduced to twenty years for
buildings and five to ten years for equipment, and the cost
base brought up to a realistic level, there would be a
substantial increase in the depreciation allowances. This
would allow more room to make specific allocations for
routine operating costs.
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
Subcommittee on Science
May 6, 1991
Page three
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.
I hope this communication will be helpful to the
important work of your committee.
Wav Dackard
Chairman of the Board
Hewlett-Packard Company
DP/gd
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
du
TYPE:
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 9121411
FROM:
PACKARD, David: HEWKETT-PACKARD COMPANY
TO:
DR. BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 05/06/91
SUBJECT: LETTER TO CHAIRMAN BOUCHER AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY'S
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE REGARDING THE HEARING ON
4/25/91.
ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED:
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO: D. A.
Ken :
Carl
LIFE
pu
WHITE HOUSE TRACI
REMARKS:
$ comment
DOB
DATE RECEIVED: 05/13/91
FILE: LIFE SCIENCES-INDIRECT COST
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 5, 1990
Dear Annedore:
Herewith my ranking of the 32 1990 candidates for Packard Fellowships assigned to
me for the first reading.
The quality, in my opinion, has increased over those from last year and it was even
more difficult than before to rank these people.
I have not taken into account the fact that I have rated two people from the same
institution but will certainly do so in the next round pursuant to David's wishes.
With all best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
Aur
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Attachment
Ms. Annedore Kushner
David and Lucille Packard Foundation
300 Second Street
Los Altos, California 94022
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. List
Ranking of nominees [personal information redacted] (1 pp.)
7/8/90
(b)(6)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Organization Files - Non-Government Organizations
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Association - Packard [1990-92]
Date Closed:
5/19/2010
OA/ID Number:
62086-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 23, 1990
Dear David:
This is a belated follow up to our brief conversation during the PSAT
meeting concerning your thoughts on next year's Packard fellowships.
I agree with you entirely that it would be desirable to change the rules
so that no university in any given year would have more than a single
fellowship.
I would also agree with you that it would be desirable, at least for a
time, to reduce the fellowship program's emphasis on computer software
and at least the basic biology aspects of biotechnology, although I would
still be very receptive to people in chemical engineering or process
engineering areas who might be prepared to do something constructive in
the area of scale-up since I feel this is an area where we in the United
States are dropping rapidly behind both our Japanese and European
competitors in the whole biotechnology field.
I recognize that many of the fellows whom we have selected in the past
two years already have significant support from other sources. I do,
however, have a serious problem with our making that a major
detriment to receiving a Packard fellowship for the simple reason that
the absolutely first class people we are trying to attract to your program
almost inevitably will have received significant notice and, consequently,
support from one or other of the federal agencies by the time they are
selected by their home university. If we insist that we focus only on
those who have not been so recognized and have no alternate support, I
am afraid we would be excluding a large fraction of the truly
outstanding young people in the nation.
While I sympathize with your point of view and with your desire not to
simply add Packard foundation resources to an already generous supply,
I would suggest that this consideration be one that the advisory
committee take into consideration in making recommendations to you
and that we not specifically instruct the universities to filter out those
having significant support. I'm afraid that by doing the latter we would
2
exclude from our consideration some of the truly remarkable young
people whom I believe should be candidates for the growing prestige and
career acceleration that the award of a Packard fellowship conveys.
I want to say again just how much I enjoyed and how much I was
impressed by the reports given by almost all of the fellows with whom
we met at the Aquarium last September. As I noted there, if we can
continue to select people of that quality, then I am totally convinced that
within a matter of only a few years the Packard fellows will collectively
begin to have an impact on American science and technology that will be
comparable to that of the Rockefeller and Carnegie fellows in the 30's,
40's and 50's. Your program, I believe, is off to a flying start and I
consider it a personal honor to have been given the opportunity to
participate in the program.
As I mentioned to you last fall at the September meeting, after
considerable discussion I was able to get the office of government ethics
to permit me to remain a member of your advisory board - the only
external activity indeed that they allowed me to attain - but they require
that I relinquish the chairmanship of the advisory committee. If
Annedore Kushner would be good enough to send me a brief
memorandum acknowledging that I have relinquished the chairmanship
as of last September's meeting, I would appreciate it since the office of
government ethics now requests a copy of such a document.
I would only tell you how very deeply I appreciate your agreement to
join PCAST and your very effective participation at this first PCAST
session. As I think you already sensed, the President was extremely
pleased by his interaction with PCAST and looks forward to future
meetings. Karl Erb and I will be in touch with you within the next few
weeks to get your ideas concerning the most effective agenda for our
March meeting.
I had the pleasure of meeting a few days ago with John Young and we
will be working closely with the Council on Competitiveness in
developing the OSTP Technology Plan. We will also, of course, want to
obtain your comments and those of other PCAST members on that plan
before we make it public.
3
It will be good to have the opportunity to work with you, both on
foundation matters and in PCAST.
I will be sending you very shortly a photograph taken at Camp David
that I think you will enjoy. With warmest best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
Alan
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology
David Packard
David and Lucille Packard Foundation
300 Second Street, Suite 200
Los Altos, California 94022
"CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING"
TYPE:
Action Item
DOCUMENT NUMBER: 8920835
FROM:
DAVID PACKARD
DAVID AND LUCILE PACKARD FELLOWSHIPS
TO:
BROMLEY
DATE OF
CORRESPONDENCE: 12/19/90
SUBJECT: DISCUSSING THE INTENDED DISTRIBUTION OF THE AWARD
AND ASKING FOR SUGGESTIONS.
ASSIGNED TO: D. Allan Bromley
ACTION REQUIRED: APPROPRIATE RESPONSE
SENDER'S DUE DATE:
OSTP DUE DATE:
01/23/90
DATE COMPLETED:
COPIES TO:
REMARKS:
DATE RECEIVED: 12/27/90
FILE: NEOB
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 10, 1989
Dear David:
I am writing to bring you up to date on our efforts to bring
the President's Council of Science and Technology Advisers
into existence. You may have been wondering why the delay.
Both President Bush and I had been under the misapprehension
that as President, all he had to do was select the members
of his Council and then invite them to serve. On that
basis, he asked me to draft a letter for his signature,
which I did, but at that point we found that even the
President cannot take such direct action.
After a number of discussions with C. Boyden Gray, the
Counsel to the President, it became clear that it would be
advantageous and would, in fact, strengthen the Council,
were it to be established by a formal Executive Order signed
by the President. Development of such an Executive Order is
a matter of some weeks' duration but it is now essentially
complete, apart from sign-off by the Justice Department and
a few other legal niceties.
In parallel with a number of discussions with lawyers from
the White House Office and the Office of Management and
Budget, I was able to arrange for Bruce Smith of the
Carnegie Commission to undertake a detailed study of the
issues involved for advisory groups operating at a senior
level in the Federal Government under today's conflict of
interest and ethics laws. Many of you will know him from
his study, a few years ago, of the status of U.S.
universities. Bruce has done an absolutely scholarly job,
and now that the final version is available, I am forwarding
it to you herewith.
Now that we have the Executive Order establishing the
President's Council essentially in hand, we can proceed to
have the President formally invite you to serve. It will be
necessary also for the President to provide certain formal
waivers of potential conflict of interest to allow us to
function without undue restriction. In some special cases,
it will be necessary for individual members, despite those
waivers, to recuse themselves during discussion of specific
matters where they may have a special conflict or appearance
of conflict.
Although this all may sound rather formidable, I hasten to
emphasize that in Bruce Smith's study, he concludes that
there is no reason at all that the necessary requirements
cannot be satisfied without really, in any way, hindering
the effective activity of the Council.
As part of the formal procedures required under the
Executive Order, you will be asked to provide the now
standard personal and financial data required of all members
of federal advisory bodies, and the pertinent forms will be
sent on to you shortly. If there are any questions
concerning them, please do not hesitate to call me at
(202) 456-7116.
You will be hearing from President Bush in the near future
and I am very much looking forward to the pleasure of
working with you.
With warmest best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
allan hamm
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
The Honorable David Packard
Chairman of the Board
Hewlett-Packard Company
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Enclosure
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 11, 1992
Dear David:
This is just a brief note, first of all, to express to you my appreciation of your warm
and delightful hospitality at our recent PCAST meeting. Our discussions under the
relaxed conditions that you provided were, I think, extremely useful and we will get the
promised material for your letter to the President to you as quickly as possible.
Let me then add my warmest best wishes and congratulations on the occasion of your
80th birthday! I very much regret that I will be unable to join in the celebration of that
auspicious event on September 7, but unfortunately I have a commitment, at the
President's request, that I must honor here in Washington. I will, however, be joining
you on September 10 and 11 for the meeting of the Packard Foundation and look
forward to seeing you then.
In my opinion, the candidates who have applied for Packard Fellowships this year are
even more outstanding across the board than those in previous years and consequently
rating them has turned out to be a more difficult task than in any prior year. You can
be extremely proud of the group that you have assembled, of the reputation that has
already been established for the Packard Fellowships, and I hope of the copy of your
program that has now been established under Presidential auspices here in the Federal
Government. From what we have seen in the present applicant pool there clearly are
worthy candidates for the 50 slots that are now open each year. But I do have some
question as to how much further one can expand this kind of program without seeing
some decrease in the quality which is now superb.
Noting that a substantial number of this year's applicants for Packard Fellowships have
already been granted Sloan Foundation Fellowships we must begin to consider, as a
matter of policy, whether we wish to avoid overlapping fellowships or whether we
should take the point that truly outstanding candidates should not be precluded from
holding more than one of the most prestigious awards simultaneously. We must also
address the question of whether you wish to focus your fellowships on young persons
who effectively are moving directly through academic careers or whether a few of the
applicants this year, for example, who have spent something like five to ten years in
industry prior to coming back to the universities, should be treated on an equal footing.
I look forward to seeing you on the 10th of September and, in the meantime, every good
wish for a very happy birthday and a great many happy and healthy ones to follow.
Sincerely yours,
Anan
D. Allan Bromley
The Assistant to the Prescient
for
Science and Technology
Mr. David Packard
Chairman of the Board
Hewlett-Packard Company
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 7, 1992
Dear David:
Barbara and I send heartiest congratulations on
your 80th birthday.
This is also a good chance to say, once again,
just how much the Nation appreciates the many
times and ways you have served your country. Your
advice and counsel have been particularly valuable
to me through the years.
Our warmest wishes to you, David, for a wonderful
year ahead and for many returns of this happy
occasion.
Sincerely,
GBd
The Honorable David Packard
26580 Taaffe Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
P.S
Many Happy Return- -
by
Packard to Leave $2 Billion to Foundation
Washington Post, 4/29/88, p. G4
Associated Press
one of the 10 richest charities in the
Packard works about two days a
SAN FRANCISCO, April 28-Da-
nation, ranking with others such as
week at the scientific instrument and
vid Packard, the 75-year-old cofoun-
the Ford Foundation, which is valued
computer research and development
der of the pioneering Hewlett-
at $4.7 billion, said Wilbur.
company he founded in 1939 with
Packard computer company, plans to
Packard will also make smaller do-
William Hewlett.
leave $2 billion to the charitable foun-
dation he set up, executive director
nations to other charities not yet des-
Packard's wife died in 1987. The
ignated, Wilbur said.
Cole Wilbur said today.
couple's four children are closely in-
The donation to the David and
"His feeling is that there are a lot of
volved in planning the donation, Wil-
Lucile Packard Foundation of Los Al-
important concerns in research and
bur said. He said Packard made his
tos, created in 1964 by Packard and
education, and he'd like to help devel-
intentions known April 22.
his wife to finance education and
op them and to help really make a
The foundation's programs include
health projects, worldwide, will consist
difference in this community and the
fellowships in science and engineering
of Hewlett-Packard Corp. stock, Wil-
world," said Wilbur.
for young professors; family planning
bur said.
Packard, chairman of the Palo Al-
programs in the United States and in
The foundation, with a current
to-based Hewlett-Packard Corp., was
developing countries; and environ-
wealth of $145 million, would become
not available for comment.
mental projects.