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
This file contains:
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Whitaker. 17 pgs including attachments. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Ehrlichman. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/8/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Pete Flanigan. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/8/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Ehrlichman. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/8/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Ehrlichman. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/8/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Pete Flanigan. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/8/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Marje Acker. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/3/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Ehrlichman, Pete Flanigan, Bryce Harlow, Dwight Chapin, and Ron Ziegler. 1pg. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Handwritten notes. 2 pgs. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Dwight Chapin. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Mitchell. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Peter Flanigan. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26126778
label
WHSF: Returned, 32-8
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26126778
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 32-8
description
This file contains:
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Whitaker. 17 pgs including attachments. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Ehrlichman. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/8/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Pete Flanigan. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/8/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Ehrlichman. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/8/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Ehrlichman. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/8/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Pete Flanigan. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/8/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Marje Acker. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/3/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Ehrlichman, Pete Flanigan, Bryce Harlow, Dwight Chapin, and Ron Ziegler. 1pg. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Handwritten notes. 2 pgs. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Dwight Chapin. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Mitchell. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/6/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Peter Flanigan. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/6/1969
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Returned White House Special Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26126778
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1b48cfb842b340c2
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number Folder Number Document Date Document Type
Document Description
32
8
01/06/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John
Whitaker. 17 pgs including attachments.
32
8
01/08/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John
Ehrlichman. 1 pg.
32
8
01/08/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Pete Flanigan.
1 pg.
32
8
01/08/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John
Ehrlichman. 1 pg.
32
8
01/08/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John
Ehrlichman. 1 pg.
32
8
01/08/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Pete Flanigan.
1 pg.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Page 1 of 2
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
32
8
01/03/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Marje Acker.
1 pg.
32
8
01/06/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John
Ehrlichman, Pete Flanigan, Bryce Harlow,
Dwight Chapin, and Ron Ziegler. 1pg.
32
8
01/06/1969
Memo
Handwritten notes. 2 pgs.
32
8
01/06/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Dwight
Chapin. 1 pg.
32
8
01/06/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Mitchell.
1 pg.
32
8
01/06/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to Peter
Flanigan. 1 pg.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM
January 6, 1969
TO:
JOHN WHITAKER
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
I think that you should include in your general area of responsibility
the staff work in coordination of intra-cabinet groups that may be
set up from time to time to deal with a specific problem and some-
times on a continuing basis to deal with a general area of responsibility.
Some of these groups, of course, will fall in the area of responsibility
of one of the other White House staff people in which case he should
handle it, i.e., Moynehan. Some, however, will not and when that
situation developes, you are the logical one to step in.
One such example is the possibility of setting up a National Economic
Council composed of the Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the
Budget, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and Chairman
of the Federal Reserve Board. This would be an informal group and
the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, and Agriculture might very well
be asked to sit in from time to time.
Maury Stans and others have proposed the formation of such a group
on a formal basis. It is RN's decision, at least at this time, that
it should be set up as an informal advisory group and I would appreciate
it if you would make a note to follow through on this in early February
as a specific project. Don't do anything externally until we have had
a chance to talk about it, however.
HRH
p2
H.
December 19, 1968
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Roy Ash/Bob Haldeman
FROM:
RN
I am enclosing a memorandum that Maury Stans sent
with regard to the Commerce Department. I think several of
the recommendations he makes deserve support although from a
political standpoint we probably would be unable to get the
Congress to approve such moves as destroying the independence
of the Small Business Administration even though it ought to
be in the Commerce Department. My general inclination is to
reduce the number of independent agencies and to get them into
the departments and I think an overall study should be made
on this score so that we could consider this in submitting any
future reorganization plans. There are, however, some very
grave political problems.
This memo, however, coming as it does from one who
is sophisticated in the ways of government is an indication of
the kind of in-put we are going to get from Cabinet officers
and particularly from their staffs over the next four years.
Our problem is to do our own thinking and submit our own ideas
so that we can avoid having to arbitrate bitter fights for
power within the Cabinet. One idea that does appeal to me is
that of setting up a National Economic Council. This should in
- 2 -
no way be in derrogation of the Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisors. He, as a matter of fact, should be the
staff man for this Council and the Secretary of the Treasury
should be its Chairman. (Or possibly RN should be the
Chairman as is the case in the Urban Affairs Council and
National Security Council in order to avoid conflicts between
Cabinet officers.) It is possible that we might not want
to formalize this. As I understand the present practice
is for the President once a month to meet with the Secretary
of the Treasury, the Director of the Budget, the Chairman
of the Council of Economic Advisors and the Chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board on an informal basis. I think these
meetings should continue in any event. I believe that both
Stans and Shultz could well be added to this group because
both have special competence in this field -- Stans as a
former Budget Director and Shultz as one of those so well
qualified that we considered him as a possible member of the
Council of Economic Advisors.
Haldeman should remind RN to follow through on this
informal advisory group and I would like to get Ash's rec-
ommendation as to whether or not we should set up a more
formal group.
# # #
December 10, 1968
CONFIDENTIAL
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
PRESENT
DIMENSIONS
Employment
26,000
Budget
Maritime
$400 million
Science
256
Economic development
275
Statistics
49
Business
42
Total
$1,022 million
CONSTITUENT ENTITIES
Business and Defense Services Administration
Office of Business Economics
Bureau of Census
Economic Development Administration
Environmental Science Services Administration
Maritime Administration
National Bureau of Standards
Patent Office
United States Travel Service
Office of State Technical Services
Office of Foreign Commercial Services
Office of Foreign Direct Investments
Planning Options
Under a New Administration
1. Leave the Department as is -- relatively weak and
without much purpose or movement.
2. Convert it to a Department of Economic Development
(with or without an actual change of name)
.
3. Convert it to a Department of Economic Development
and Communications (with or without an actual
change of name) .
General Recommendations for
Strengthening Role of Secretary of
Commerce in Economic Policy and
Development*
1. The Secretary of Commerce should be a policy making
spokesman for the dynamic qualities of the private
enterprise system. The Secretary's relationship to
the President as a maker of economic policy is central
to this question. Decisions effecting our national
economic policy traditionally have been led by the
Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman of Council of
Economic Advisors and the Director of the Budget.
In order to expand the resources available to work
on these policy questions, a National Economic Council
should be created by the President using the three
previous government executives plus the Secretary of
Labor and Commerce and the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board. Their joint roles should be similar
to the National Security Council and their responsibility
one of counseling the President on overall economic
policy required by the factors of the times.
2. The Secretary of Commerce should be the prime force of
analytical information on the economic health of the
nation without denying other departments intelligence-
gathering functions essential to their own special needs.
Much of today's analytical work comes from his department
(Census Bureau, Office of Business Economics and
assorted industrial analysis work). But far more
coordinated work would result from assignment of
the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Industrial
Production Index responsibility of the Federal
Reserve Bank to the Department of Commerce. In
this fashion all of the major generators of economic
indices would be under one roof and feeding coordinated
analytical information to the economic policy makers
throughout the government.
3. The Secretary of Commerce should be a catalyst for
inducing greater contributions from the private busi-
ness sector towards the solutions of general public
problems. The increasing amounts of business involve-
ment in the unemployment situation, the urban crisis,
housing rehabilitation, generation of new business
opportunities in small towns and rural America and
for minority groups -- all require a central point
in the federal establishment to which they can turn
for financial and policy assistance. This might
require the reassignment of numerous existing
assistance programs to a coordinated position
within the Department of Commerce from other agencies.
4. The Secretary of Commerce should be a stimulator of
economic development in the domestic business field.
He has, under the Economic Development Administration
and the various larger economic development communica-
tions, the nucleus of an organization capable of ful-
filling this role. Many duplicatory organizations
exist in other parts of the government away from
the Secretary's control but subject to his coordinated
responsibility.
5. The Secretary of Commerce should be a prime protector
of American business in the international economic
field. This responsibility should enhance both the
promotional and catalytic responsibilities of the
federal government. The Secretary should be charged
with responsibility for improving our international
position so as to enable a phasing out of controls on
U.S. direct investment abroad.
If the intention is truly to provide a central position
of policy leadership and program direction which would
be responsible to the total requirements of the American
business community, then the organizational structure
supporting the Secretary of Commerce requires the kind
of drastic strengthening such as outlined above. To
call for a more responsible role and a more dynamic
individual without providing such a reorganization
would be only to seek the impossible.
*Excerpted from paper by Key Issues Committee, based on
suggestions by Maurice Stans and Senator Percy.
Specific Organizational
Changes
1. Transfer in Small Business Administration
2. Transfer in Export-Import Bank
3. Transfer in various regional economic commissions
(Appalachia, etc.)
4. Create an Office of Consumer Services (to replace White
House unit)
5. Transfer in Office for Emergency Preparedness
6. Designate an Undersecretary for Economic Opportunity
7. Liquidate Office of Economic Opportunity, transfer
its social programs to HEW and its economic
development programs to Commerce
8. Consider transferring Maritime Administration to
Department of Transportation
Additional Potentials
1. Transfer in the Director for Telecommunications
Management from White House staff
2. Create an Office of Communications for policy making
and coordinating in communications, spectrum
management and telecommunications
LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC., 9370 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD BEVERLY HILLS. CALIFORNIA 90213
December 31, 1968
ROY L.ASH, PRESIDENT
Mr. Maurice H. Stans
Secretary-Designate
Department of Commerce
c/o President-Elect Nixon Headquarters
Pierre Hotel
New York, New York
Dear Maury:
I certainly agree with you that the Department of Commerce, as presently
constituted, encompasses only limited functions relating to the interests
and operation of the private enterprise system in this country.
Certainly, with all the pressures for redistributing the national "pie" of
goods and services output, maximum effort toward increasing the total of
that pie may -- in the last resort -- be the only way of reducing those
pressures to manageable dimensions. Thus a redefinition of Commerce Depart-
ment functions, as they may serve this end, is a timely one.
It seems to me the threshhold questions go like this:
1. Should one Department (Commerce) have a prime responsibility for
the main relationships between the Federal Government and the
private production sector (i.e. industry and commerce) ? As you
have recognized, a main relationship can hardly be an exclusive
one. For labor and employment policy; tax, monetary and fiscal
policy; trade and tariff policy; and various regulatory activities
also substantially condition the environment of the private sector.
2. Should the basic perspective of the Commerce Department (however
augmented with other functions and whatever entitled) be to
represent the private sector interests in the various councils of
government which deal with matters affecting the private sector,
or should it lead with its own initiative in formulating, sponsoring
and administering national policies and programs to:
a. Assure the most effective operation of the country's
private enterprise "machine" for the benefit of the
nation's economy and its citizens, consistent with
other national objectives.
li
Mr. Maurice H. Stans
December 31, 1968
Page Two
b. Maintain the strength, viability, and other qualitative
aspects of the private sector in both domestic and inter-
national environments.
While the choice between the lobbyist and the initiative taking
role need not be completely an either-or one, nevertheless determi-
nation of the main emphasis seems essential so that the proper
"mentality" can permeate the Department. If the choice is to
represent industry to the Government then I can see why the Labor
Department desires its separate status. The recent discussions
regarding the consolidation of Labor and Commerce undoubtedly had
these kinds of considerations in mind.
As one person's opinion, and in the context of broader organizational
changes probably desirable in the Executive Branch, it would seem to me
that the long term goal would be to create one Executive Department having
the prime responsibility for national policies toward the private production
sector. It would, of course, have important interfaces with a number of
other departments. Yet it would operate from a perspective broader than
just a partisan one representing industry to the Government. This obviously
requires legislation. Yet, if this is a desired long term objective, short
term actions can be geared to this end.
As to the General Recommendations you sent me:
(1) I would think that a new National Economic Council should come
into being concurrent with, rather than preceeding, the restate-
ment of the "new" Commerce functions. In fact, if it preceeds,
it might be just enough of a crutch to delay or cloud the need
for a more concerted solution to the need, yet not effective
enough to accomplish much real good. There is nothing now to
preclude ad hoc discussions among the potential participants
named; or for that matter, the present Council of Economic
Advisors can be instructed to solicit input from Commerce, Labor
and others in its deliberations, or even can redefine its
activities so as to encompass the need suggested.
Of course, my own bias is toward minimizing the use of councils
or committees of all sorts if there is a reasonable and workable
alternative of assigning the equivalent responsibilities to an
individual, including the responsibility for conferring with others
if the subject demands. If there are to be committees then it
seems essential to determine whether each is, primarily:
a. Policy forming and decision recommending or making; in
li
Mr. Maurice H. Stans
December 31, 1968
Page Three
which case the specific authorities and responsibilities
as between the committee and its individual members needs
to be spelled out;
b. For interdepartmental communications, with each member
retaining his individual authorities and responsibilities;
or
C. Therapy for its membership, from which nothing substantive
is expected.
(2) Certainly, if any department is to have responsibility for
administering any aspect of national policy, it needs the
mechanisms for information feed-back and for evaluation of the
effectiveness of those policies and of its operations. Without
knowing what those presently responsible would say, it would seem
reasonable to aggregate industrial and business data accumulation
and analysis under one authority.
(3) Commerce's proposed role as a "catalyst" to induce the private
sector to help solve domestic problems (by providing financial
and policy assistance), is as we both know, easier said than done.
The primary "assistance" will undoubtedly be in the form of tax
credits, grants, or even contracts, difficult for Commerce to lead
in. If new "outputs" are desired from industry, i.e. training and
employment of the marginally qualified, housing rehabilitation,
etc. it would seem that the department responsible for seeking
that output would work directly with industry. The parallel
situation is that of Defense which works directly with industry
for its needs rather than through Commerce. It would seem that
Commerce should be more concerned with enabling the means of
production rather than determining or contracting for the end
product output.
(4) Commerce is a natural agency to "stimulate economic development".
However, as an example from my own experience, I asked our Litton
people in Greece to define "economic development" as they were
charged with accomplishing it in portions of that country. Only
after three days of full time work of a number of us, were we able
to describe (for that country at that time) what we all meant by
use of that term. Until then, our undue ease in loosely using the
term "economic development" hindered the more rigorous thinking
necessary to know what we really should be doing. I'm sure your
li
Mr. Maurice H. Stans
December 31, 1968
Page Four
leadership can define and develop this role better than it now is
being performed. I would say, if economic development is to
develop industry, trade and commerce per se, the responsibility
should be Commerce's. If the objective is to redirect industry's
efforts toward new social "products", the "buying" department
(again analogous to Defense) should be responsible. The SBA,
theoretically, is an example of the former; the OEO may be more
of the latter.
(5) An increasingly important need is a cohesive and concerted foreign
trade responsibility. It is true that State, Treasury and others
have much to say on trade policy but the present fragmentation of
responsibility in this regard is harming our national interest.
Meanwhile, other countries with more unified trade policy re-
sponsibilities are able to serve their national interests much
more effectively. There are some present proposals to further
unify trade policy responsibility, but outside of Commerce. I
believe the key as to where it should lie is the caliber of
leadership that can be demonstrated for assumption of a unified
responsibility. It would be very natural for that to be in Commerce
and include agencies and offices with pertinent responsibilities
now outside of Commerce.
As to Consumer Services, the idea of bringing them under a new Commerce is
appealing. For if its job is to deal with the effectiveness with which the
private production sector serves the consumer (quantity and quality),
Consumer Services is a very relevant function. Of course, the FTC has some-
what related activities too.
While I believe that there is merit for transferring Maritime Administration
to the Transportation Department, it is regrettable that Transportation was
set up separately in the first place. There will be many industry pressures
to leave Maritime where it is, although on balance, I believe industry's
case is unsupportable.
Tf one Department, Commerce or the same by a different name, is to truly
embrace the mainstream of factors bearing on industry, trade and commerce,
the subject of its relationship to the Labor Department has to be of primary
consideration. If short term action such as merger of the two Departments
is impossible, the ground should be laid for longer term possibilities.
Maury, it seems to me the time is right for a restatement, at broad policy
li
Mr. Maurice H. Stans
December 31, 1968
Page Five
level, of the role for the "new" Commerce. Out of this can come the
rational basis for the rearrangement of individual entities. If you would
like I would be happy to meet with you to exchange further thoughts on the
subject. With this "new" Commerce mission clear and understood by all those
concerned, implementation will be easier.
Sincerely yours,
Roy your L. Ash
MEMORANDUM
January 8, 1969
TO:
JOHN EHRLICHMAN
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
One of the hang ups on Ray Bliss is that he is most anxious to
be accorded the customary courtesies of the National Chairman
at the inaugural. He says that these include sitting in the
Presidential box at the parade, and going with the President
to all of the inaugural balls, and being presented thereat.
In view of our efforts to work out the other problems, it probably
would be wise to accord him these courtesies, if at all possible.
You may, however, want to check out at least the latter one with
RN first.
HRH
MEMORANDUM
January 8, 1969
TO:
PETE FLANIGAN
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
RN asked me to have you check to be sure that we are putting a
good man who is totally loyal to us in as head of GSA.
HRH
MEMORANDUM
January 8, 1969
TO:
JOHN EHRLICHMAN
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
Fred LaRue has requested an opportunity to talk with RN about the
general national political situation. RN has agreed to see him after
the 20th but would appreciate your talking with LaRue now on the
basis of your asking him for advice and review of his opinion of
the general outlook, etc., so that LaRue will feel that he is being
given an opportunity to be heard.
HRH
MEMORANDUM
January 8, 1969
TO:
JOHN EHRLICHMAN
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
Bob Ellsworth informs me that the last batch of astronauts would
like very much to be invited to the inaugural as President Nixon's
guests and I think we should work out some way of arranging this
if at all possible.
HRH
MEMORANDUM
January 8, 1969
TO:
PETE FLANIGAN
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
I talked with Bob Ellsworth about the personnel material he wanted re
independent agencies, etc.
I think he is agreed now that he does not need to have this material
but I have assured him that your office will answer any specific
questions he has regarding staff openings and that sort of thing
that he may find necessary in conducting his investigation of the
agencies. This is no way implies that he needs to be given any
of the names of candidates but rather information regarding openings,
and he may want to suggest some specifics regarding candidates or
ask about types of people being considered.
HRH
January 3, 1969
TO:
Marje Acker
John Davies called here this afternoon to indicat e
that he would like to talk with you when you return from California.
whenever
His Company is interested in knowing his date of
for 21
resignation and he is interested in knowing his starting date, etc.
He plans to start driving from California around the middle of
next week.
He probably will call you sometime Saturday,
either at the office or the Wyndham.
213 Frontier 7-3777
MEMORANDUM
January 6, 1969
TO:
JOHN EHRLICHMAN
PETE FLANIGAN
BRYCE HARLOW
DWIGHT CHAPIN
RON ZIEGLER
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
Secretary-designate Schultz is planning to announce the appointment
of his Under Secretary of Labor on Friday, January 10th, at 11:30
a.m. at the Pierre. The announcee is James Hodgson of Lockheed
Aircraft in California.
Schultz feels that he has completed the necessary clearances but
Harlow may want to check with him on this. Flanigan may also
want to assure himself that all the proper steps have been followed,
including notification of the Governor, National Committeemen, and
State Chairman in California.
Ehrlichman may wish to arrange an appointment with Hodgson prior
to his announcement, or at least have a phone call with him, to set
up the conflict clearances. Hodgson's business phone is 213-847-6682;
his residence is 213-344-4094. He will, I understand, be coming to
New York Thursday evening.
Ziegler should contact Schultz and confirm with him the arrangements
for the actual announcement on Friday morning. Chapin should put
this on RN's schedule for Friday. Schultz and Hodgson will arrive
at the Pierre at 11:15 to see RN for a few minutes before going
downstairs.
HRH
Retybed &' submitted to HRH JANUARY 6, 1969
I suggest the following tenor of remarks to a
made by Mr. Nyar to Robert Mayo:
1. as Mr. Mays know, the subject of plans and
programs the budgets and executing organing timal
mechanisms research to effectively implanent they and
The increasingly complex inter departmental condination
required, are of prime importance in effectually managing
today' government
2. m. Mayo, as breater of the of the
Budget, Res caviduable breadth of responsibility
in There areas and will subtantially determine
the level of felected achieved.
3. Inr Nixon, too, regards there matters
as important mes, but also has other equally
pressure requirements no Res limited time He with
he comed spend full time on play, pangrams,
againgation, etc. but regastably cant.
4. the order to argment his / capabilities
to perform his own responsibilities, in Nipar well Rair the
assistance of Mr.
Mr
will, on an Nixmi behalf but with the time
Mr Nrxon coved not spend- work with Mr Mayo
one these important matters
J. there were of conse, be matters where Mr N y you
will want to work directly with Mr Mayo and
Mr Mayo well always have areas to Mr Nixois (over)
offece. on other matters it wored be deveble for
Mr Mayo to work as closely with with, Mr. 2.
and be as responsion to,
-
as
he named to Mr Nrxar himself
6 In fast, in such a was he - Mr Mayo -
can be assued of getting even more assistance from
the Presidents office available of here and Ris needs.
7. this working relationship in no way affects
the definition 8 authority and responsibilities
3 the sweeting the Beneau of The sudjet or any
of his people. It is instand a was the
President can get his am job done and be
more helpful + The Budget Lirector we daing his
RLASH
A Heldemar
R
arthma Burns and I disaused his recommeredating regarding
with him
government Organization The I completely agree a as as to The
necesity for obtaining reorganization authority he recommends.
as a result of an discussion he will revise the
sections on Hower-type commission and "offire of
Executery Management". He endorsed the ideas I
eacher submitted on these subject and will incorprate
them in his revised report. implare of the premit
recouse
I recommend a very timely reading a patiens of
an article in the Jan X New your wherein the
and changing,
ungency of considering, governmental organization at this
time is clearly and antimately stated Mr Nixon
well find it funcher support 8 his own convictions
to act now.
RCACH
MEMORANDUM
January 6, 1969
TO:
DWIGHT CHAPIN
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
For long range schedule planning, RN suggests as a possible
event in the future, a meeting in the form of probably a cocktail
party of the Russian kitchen cabinet group.
This should be brought up for planning consideration for a June
event.
HRH
MEMORANDUM
January 6, 1969
TO:
JOHN MITCHELL
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
RN suggests that you might want to consider Sam Witwer of
Illinois as a candidate for a post in the Justice Department.
He was, as you know, a candidate for the Senate, I believe
in 1960.
HRH
MEMORANDUM
January 6, 1969
TO:
PETER FLANIGAN
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
RN would like you to check out Dwyer of Illinois, who lost for
Lieutenant Governor, as a possible second-level appointee.
Apparently Bill Fettridge can give you the dope on him if you
need it.
Also, RN was asking what our plans were for Don Jackson.
He suggests that he might be very good at one of the Congressional
liaison jobs for a department and if this is not possible perhaps
an appointment to the Subversive Activities Control Board.
HRH