The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Collection: Paul A. Volcker Papers
Call Number: MC279
Box 25
Preferred Citation: Cosmos Club Speech, 1984 May; Paul A. Volcker Papers, Box 25; Public Policy
Papers, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library
Find it online: http://findingaids.princeton.edu/collections/MC279/c156 and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.orearchival/5297
The digitization ofthis collection was made possible by the Federal Reserve Bank of
St. Louis.
From the collections of the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton, NJ
These documents can only be used for educational and research purposes ("fair use") as per United
States copyright law. By accessing this file, all users agree that their use falls within fair use as
defined by the copyright law of the United States. They further agree to request permission of the
Princeton University Library (and pay any fees, if applicable) if they plan to publish, broadcast, or
otherwise disseminate this material. This includes all forms of electronic distribution.
Copyright
The copyright law of the United States (Tide 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in
the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of
these specified conditions is that the photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any
purpose other than private study, scholarship or research." If a user makes a request for, or later
uses, a photocopy or other reproduction for purposes not permitted as fair use under the copyright
law of the United States, that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Policy on Digitized Collections
Digitized collections are made accessible for research purposes. Princeton University has indicated
what it knows about the copyrights and rights of privacy, publicity or trademark in its finding aids.
However, due to the nature of archival collections, it is not always possible to identify this
information. Princeton University is eager to hear from any rights owners, so that it may provide
accurate information. When a rights issue needs to be addressed, upon request Princeton University
will remove the material from public view while it reviews the claim.
Inquiries about this material can be directed to:
Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library
65 Olden Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
609-258-6345
609-258-3385 (fax)
mudd@princeton.edu
Remarks by
Paul A. Volcker
Reserve System
Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal
1984 Cosmos Club Award
Washington, D. C.
May 3, 1984
institution, known in
The Cosmos Club is a venerable
place for men distinguished
your own literature, as "a meeting
re, and the fine arts."
in the fields of science, literatu
and out of Washington for
For an itinerant civil servant, in
for your annual award
more than 30 years, to be chosen
g of a mystery.
will, to me, always remain somethin
I realize the award, for
That is especially true when
one actively in
the first time, has been given to
the motto of this
government, in full knowledge that
be -- "sic transit
town might well be -- indeed should
gloria mundi."
with its
I realize an occasion of this kind,
provoke from the
ready-made platform, is designed to
state of the world,
honoree some pithy remarks about the
or at least his profession.
In approaching that task,
story of the response
was reminded of that old Abe Lincoln
on a rail: "If it
of a man about to be ridden out of town
just as soon decline."
wasn't for the honor of the thing, I'd
me they would rather
Even my best friends have begun to tell
n -- it's not, they
not hear me talk about the economy agai
but that they value
say, that they value our friendship less
their stock portfolios more.
t from
But I suppose it is fair to say that, apar
you, am now part
the world of economic policy, I, like
of the world of Washington.
And I have been struck, on
-2--
,
each of my returns, by how much the city has changed
es of
and how that reflects, and affects, the process
government about which we all have to be concerned.
I am not thinking primarily of the physical
appearance or size of the place -- even though, at this
time of year, we are all reminded of Lady Bird Johnson's
beneficient influence on the landscaping.
Those multiplying
new buildings downtown, and the fact that the outer suburbs
stretch out to practically touch those of Baltimore, could
over
be characteristic of the growth of many American cities
the past 35 years.
But I can't neglect one material change that
always strikes me as relevant.
When I was here as a
summer intern in 1950, and at the end of the summer had
saved up enough for one celebratory dinner with my
colleagues, one had, to the best of my memory, three
first-class restaurants from which to choose; in any
one of them you could expect to spend about half of New
York prices.
Well, my friends and I ended up at
Harvey's, which then as now styles itself as the
Restaurant of Presidents.
It is still here -- even
though, I hope not symbolically, it has descended into
a basement.
But it has now been joined by dozens of
others, with cuisine and prices well up to world standards.
-3-
I don't mention that because I have any special
competence as a gourmet, but to make the obvious point
that the industry is not being supported by either a
proportionate increase in the size of the Washington
bureaucracy or in their salaries -- the latter, as
you know, have often lagged well below increases in the
cost of living, even at home.
Rather, I suspect it is
supported by geometric growth in the number and size
of Washington-based trade associations and legal firms.
To take only one example, in 1950, the American Bankers
Association, the Independent Bankers Association, and the
Reserve City Bankers Association all somehow existed
without a Washington base.
Now they are all here, and
joined by numerous other major banking trade
associations.
Another reflection is that leading law
firms in New York and in every major city now seem to
find a Washington branch necessary, a circumstance
practically unknown even 20 years ago.
And I think
that does tell us something of the nature of the change
in American society and the processes of government.
Every particular economic and social interest
seems to be better organized, more vocal, and highly
litigious; this is the place to be all three.
And all
those added and expensive dining tables help provide a
-4-
business of
pleasant ambiance for going about the
.
influencing the processes of government
It is, I
complexity of
suppose, a natural response both to the
reach of the
today's world and to the fact that the
tly, has
Federal Government, at least until recen
our national
expanded steadily into more aspects of
life.
ic of its
But I would also suggest it has a dynam
own.
est group
One articulate and well-financed inter
as others feel
encourages a kind of Hegelian antithesis
the fellow first
compelled to protect their interests from
on the scene.
The question is whether, in the end, a more
nal interest
coherent and rational synthesis of the natio
emerges, or is likely to emerge.
Indeed, I sometimes suspect
ns and lawyers to
an insidious temptation for trade associatio
est of their own,
develop a kind of professional self-inter
ituents' or
hardening positions beyond their typical const
clients' needs and inclinations.
There is another phenomena within government that
I suspect is related.
As I indicated a moment ago, the
grown but
total size of the Washington bureaucracy has
nal popurelatively slowly -- about in line with natio
lation.
The number of Congressmen and Senators has not
sions of
changed at all, except to accommodate the admis
from the
Alaska and Hawaii to Statehood and the delegate
District of Columbia.
But within each of those great
-5-
institutions -- the Executive and the Congress -- there
have been enormous changes in the way they are manned
just below the top.
When one of my predecessors as Federal Reserve
Chairman, Bill Martin, left the Treasury to take the
job, he was one of only two politically appointed
Assistant Secretaries in that Department; the Treasury
in total only had five politically appointed "policy"
officials.
By the time I was Under Secretary in the
early 1970's, the distinction between politically
appointed and career officials had become blurred, but
we still had three career Assistant Secretaries and a
non-political Deputy Under Secretary among what had
become a total of 11 at that level or higher.
Today,
to the best of my knowledge, there is no careerist
among the 15 "policy" officials at the Assistant Secretary
level or higher.
And unlike the situation years ago,
there are a dozen or two non-career people at the next
lower level.
I do not, of course, recite that evolution to
make a special point about the Treasury, with which I
happen to be most familiar.
I am certain that the same
general trends have been evident in the other great
departments of government, probably more so.
Paralleling these developments in the Executive,
there has been until recently a virtual explosion in
-6-
staff on the Hill.
Much of that, of course, reflects
the efforts of Congress to keep up with the sheer
volume of constituency-related work as the country
grows and communication becomes easier.
I don't know of
any way to measure accurately "policy oriented" staff of
either individual members of Congress or of Congressional
committees, but I am told that House and Senate committees
now have a total staff of more than 3,600, in contrast
to only 540 in 1950.
The total size of Congressional
staffs is roughly 13,000.
I should emphasize that I can't imagine the
Congress acting effectively -- or at all -- today
withS ut a sizable and knowledgeable staff well equipped
SS th to participate in the legislative process and to
keep an informed eye on the Executive.
But what in-
terests me is how all this concentration of po
cally oriented talent interacts.
It's not that "politics" and "lobbying" ever
could or should be absent in Washington; that's a basic
element in government.
specialized and complex.
But
s certainly become more
And I am left with the nagging
question of whether the heavier layers of shorter-term
and politically oriented officials, interacting with
ever more highly organized and fragmented constituent
grS ups, do not figuratively, as well as literally, feed
7
upon each other.
Does it in the end produce more and
better results, or the reverse?
One certain effect has been to diminish the role
of, and I suspect over time the average quality of,
the professional long-term civil servant -- those in
the Executive Departments and with Congressional
committees who look upon government service as a career
in itself, regardless of the changing political scene.
I know when I was in college and graduate school, at
institutions thought to be among the elite, a career in
the foreign service or in some of the great domestic
departments and agencies was considered by many a
natural professional objective, a means by which those
able and interested in government could expect over
time to gain satisfaction and ultimately a reasonable
measure of prestige from constructive public service.
Such still exist, and
555oubt young careerists today
tend to be drawn from a wider spectrum of personal and
educational backgrounds, which in itself can be good.
But I also sense there is less enthusiasm among the
best in college and graduate schools, whatever their
S. rticular backgrounds, for a career in the civil
service, or in government generally.
We don't necessarily have to have a lot of
symS.thy about the particular perspective fr5m which
8
John Ehrlichman, in the midst of the Watergate hearings,
said that he could not in good conscience any longer
recommend to the young a career in government.
But
there is room for concern when, for different reasons,
our best among the young arrive at the same conclusion.
I know that many remain strongly attracted by public
policy issues, and they want to deal with them.
But I am
also struck by how often talented young people interested in
government tell me they think the best thing for them to do
is go to Wall Street, or to a law firm, or to a bank, make
some money, and then think later about how they might enter
government at a "policy level" position when they have both
financial security and a real possibility of influencing policy.
That's fine as far as it goes.
But I wonder how many will
really do it, and whether they will be familiar enough
with the processes of government to be fully effective when
they do enter.
When the young do want to enter government directly,
they seem much more likely than before to seek a Congressional
staff position where they think they will be -- and in fact
are likely to be -- more immediately exposed to, and can more
likely affect, the important policy debates.
However, those
positions often do not imply the same career commitment.
Some of the most politically active will, of
course, set their sights on becoming a member of Congress
-9-
itself.
I share the often expressed feeling that the
individual Congressman or Senator today is probably
better prepared, better educated, more articulate, and
his
more strongly motivated to "make a difference" than
typical counterpart of 30 years ago.
busier.
They are certainly
There are larger committees, more testimony,
and much longer and more numerous laws.
Whether those
ony
committee hearings are as well attended, the testim
among
as well absorbed, and the laws as well understood
.
all the competing claims on time is another matter
I
wonder if there is not a fallacy of composition -of
whether more individually energetic and able members
Congress, accompanied by more numerous and more expert
staff often eager and able to make their own imprint on
the policy process, will, beyond a certain point,
necessarily produce a more coherent and effective
result, or whether they do not, in effect, tend to cancel
each other out.
One possible result, it seems to me, is
which we
to dilute the ability of any Administration -- to
have for many years looked to set the national and
legislative agenda -- to develop and carry through a
consistent and coherent program of its own.
I know, in working with the Congress, that many
of the best feel a sense of frustration, and those
frustrations may even grow as they, as a result of
experience, intelligence, and sheer legislative
-10competence, reach natural leadership positions.
That
leadership is hard to express where there are so many
centrifugal forces at work; the arts of constructive
compromise, of bringing relevant experience to bear,
of marshalling consensus -- the essential job of a
Congressional leader -- are not made easier when so
many are in a position to urge so many competing concepts
of the public good, supported so aggresively by well
organized specific interest groups.
And, of course these days, it must all be done in
the Sunshine.
Sunshine may at times be a healthy and
essential antidote to festering sores.
But, carried to
excess, I have seen it wilt some tender plants that
need quiet cultivation.
Sometimes, when legitimate
efforts to reach reconciliation will be interpreted as
public defeat or "selling out," it seems to have the
practical effect of simply hardening antagonistic positions.
we are not going to return to a simpler time.
The public is going to demand -- and deserve -- full
information.
We have a more diverse, better educated society, and
complications rise geometrically.
As the government does more, and limits on its
range of activity once philosophically taken for granted
are exceeded, the insidious tendency is to assume that every
new initiative is precedent for doing still more.
-11-
Any President is going to demand that the
bureaucracy respond to his priorities.
The Congress needs to be equipped to do its job
of oversight and to make its imprint on legislation
wherever initiated.
I yield to no one the right to rail about the
"bureaucracy," with its tendency to repel different
ideas and new initiatives.
I respect and value the
work done on the Hill to raise important questions, to
facilitate legislation, and to air problems.
And there
is no doubt that groups in the society affected by
government need to have ways to articulate these
concerns, and indeed to bring their expertise and
experience to bear.
But,I also believe we could help the cause of effective
government, rather than harming it, if we more consciously
took into account the need for achieving consensus and
efficiency when debating aspects of the process of
government.
The aim would be simple enough -- to
restore a better balance among responsiveness,
professionalism, and continuity.
Nor do I think those
characteristics need be competitive; they can be mutually
reinforcing.
Change isn't an end in itself, and it
needs to be tested against experience.
-12-
I am thinking in part of matters upon which I
have no special competence or specific proposals.
Would government operate more effectively and coherently
if we collectively developed greater restraint on
federal initiatives when states and cities might
reasonably be called upon to respond (or not to respond)
depending upon their political judgment and their own
analysis of whether the matter at hand justifies the
money spent, the regulations imposed, or the laws written?
Do the campaign financing laws and the PAC's phenomena
exaggerate the influence of particular interests unduly;
and, would we be better off exerting more discipline on the
growth of Congressional and Executive "policy" staffs?
Have we paid enough attention to developing and maintaining
a core of expertise and a high level of professionalism
in the Executive, responsive to the needs of any President?
Do we need a better way to limit what we are willing to
spend to what we are willing to pay for?
Even more
fundamentally, the occasional debate about Consitutional
issues, such as the term of Congressmen or the President,
has implications for many of my more mundane concerns.
I have no formula for any of this -- my point is that
all of them bear on questions of the effectiveness of
the government machine.
-13-
have
I would comment upon the one area where I
had direct experience.
As I implied earlier, my
t and
observation suggests that the well of talen
been fully
effectiveness in the civil service has not
replenished over the years.
Too many of the best leave
entering at
prematurely, and too few of the best are
the bottom.
More political appointees are a perceived
sense,
substitute, but that practice, in a structural
can he part of the problem.
and to
More talent would be encouraged to come
of them
stay at the junior or mid-levels if the best
rs at
could look forward to culminating their caree
-- and the
higher levels of responsibility and salary
r.
former seems to me as important as the latte
That
ion
will require, among other things, stricter justificat
abinet
of political appointments, certainly at sub-C
taries
levels and the number of Under and Assistant Secre
reversing to some degree the postwar trend.
If that's to have a ghost of a chance, any
the
Administration will need to have confidence that
to
civil service is in fact both capable and responsive
their direction and needs.
I've been around long enough
deeply
to recognize that a new Administration is often
h to see
skeptical on that score -- but also long enoug
Cabinet Members come to respect and rely upon the best
-14-
of their inherited staff, often at the expense of the
less experienced "inner and outer."
And it won't work
unless the civil service, and thosehave a strong
ethic of responsiveness to their political masters,
while retaining the strong sense of institutional
memory, continuity, and expertise that is its strength.
The best have it now.
I have seen it work in key
departments with strong morale and sense of purpose.
But I also know it hasn't been uniformly true.
The best are getting too few, and we need to find
more imaginative ways of motivating and training them.
Some of the responsibility must lie with the professional
schSS ls of government at leading universities, some of
which seem to be groping for their mission.
Within
government, I question whether a natural departmental
S. rochialism and fear of elitism has not discouraged
programs to promote tranfers among kindred departments,
more emphasis on a variety of training assignments and
experience -- perhaps including long sabbaticals outside
government.
Alongside that goes the right of retirement
at reasonable pensions when a "fast track" doesn't work
S ut, and the right to fire.
None of that is new, but
sS mehow we don't seem to implement it well.
Maybe I'm biased.
I represent an institution
that, in its basic framework, is encouraged to maintain
professionalism and continuity.
Of course, the Federal
-15-
Reserve Act was more fundamentally designed to maintain
a certain insulation from partisan or passing political
pressures, while maintaining a sensitive awareness of
what is going on beyond our marble walls.
In those respects, while quite unlike the typical
department or agency, we share some of the characteristics
of other independent regulatory bodies -- only more so.
I suppose the Federal Reserve must, in its organizational
essentials, be among the least changed of all governmental
instrumentalities during my years in Washington.
It
certainly has more unique characteristics, with its
regional framework and built-in elements of private
consultation and participation.
The strong currents affecting all government have
had their impact.
Staff has grown.
The sheer complexity
of the economy and our broadened regulatory authority are
reflected in 894 pages of regulation today.
I am glad
to say that is below the peak, but it is still 10 times
what it was in 1950.
We spew out dozens and dozens of
statistical series about as fast as we can produce them
-- even if we sometimes doubt the utility of so much
volatile information so frequently -- in response to
the demand for openness.
Sometimes it's alleged we
lack accountability, but you will understand that charge
carries less bite to members of the Federal Reserve
Board who collectively made 143 formal appearances
-16-
before the Congress during the past four years; I
personally also made 53 less structured visits last year
as well.
In contrast, during Bill Martin's first four
years, Members of the Board testified 28 times.
I don't want to suggest that trend is any different
from that of, say, Cabinet officers, some of whom carry
a much heavier load of Congressional contacts.
I want to confuse quantity with quality.
Nor do
Indeed, it's
hard to believe -- I don't believe it -- that more
frequent testimony means more carefully prepared
testimony, or that members of Congress will be as well
prepared to receive it, amid the enormous numbers of
conflicting demands on their time.
That's one reason
they need the staff.
There has, of course, been a change in another
respect.
Thirty years ago, I can affirm from experience,
that when you asked a Washington taxi driver to take you
to the Federal Reserve, you had better be prepared with
the address.
A few months ago, a visitor reported a
response with a qualitative difference.
The taxi driver
responded to his direction with an exclamation:
"Oh,
the Federal Reserve, I didn't realize they had a
building.
I thought they were just on television!"
Well, if we haven't advanced in terms of locational
familiarity, we have in terms of public consciousness.
-17-
I suppose it is to that change that I can attribute this
award today.
But that awareness also naturally raises questions
about our unique role within government, how we go about
our business, and whether our special structure is
still justified in this day of openness and political
responsiveness.
The questions are hardly new.
The
issue is whether the answers also stand the test of
time.
My point is not to debate the popularity, or even
the wisdom, of current monetary policy.
stock in trade -- but not tonight.
That's my
What is relevant is
that the fundamental justification for the structure of
the Federal Reserve System is to remove that policy to
a degree from the passions of passing politics -- politics
in the narrow sense -- and from electoral considerations.
More positively, the question is whether the structure
in fact encourages professionalism and a "long view" in
its decision-making, and whether, at the same time, its
decisions are adequately informed, in the language of
the Federal Reserve Act, by awareness of the needs of
"business and commerce."
From one point of view -- that of a standard
governmental department -- the structure of the system
undoubtedly looks like the proverbial camel, designed
by committee.
It combines a central supervisory and
-18-
coordinating body in Washington -- the Federal Reserve
Board -- with twelve regional banks whose Presidents
participate directly in decisions on monetary policy.
The Banks also have knowledgeable private citizens,
drawn from various walks of life, on their boards of
directors; they participate in the regional administrative
management and provide a flow of information about the
economy and policy proposals even if they are shielded
from monetary policy responsibility (and even advance
knowledge of key decisions).
Obviously, there can be
stresses and strains internally -- they are a byproduct of the effort to assure a variety of points of
view.
But I would also submit that, like a camel, it
works, and works effectively against those tests of
competence, continuity, and responsiveness.
There exists a definite esprit de corps.
We
have lost a lot of good people over the years to the
private sector -- I am always struck by how many of
those commentators and critics of our policies were
themselves trained in the Fed; I also think we can fairly
say so many leave and assume positions of prominence
because so many good young people were attracted to
come in the first place.
Through the years, the sense
of enthusiasm and dedication to a common goal -- among
the Board Members themselves, the Reserve Bank Presidents,
the talented professional staffs, the boards of directors,
-19-
and the supporting staffs -- have remained high, and
that isn't a matter of creed or oath.
Beyond our role in monetary policy, narrowly
defined, the Federal Reserve also has responsibilities
in the area of banking supervision and regulation, the
provision of certain key banking services, acting as
fiscal agent of the government and in consumer affairs.
Whether or not each and every one of those
functions is inherent in central banking, I think we
must assume that the Congress itself, in providing us
with added responsibilities through the years, has
repeatedly recognized that certain functions may be
better done by an independent body, free from day-today partisan concerns and with continuity of purpose.
The challenges have, in the end, come from those
dissatisfied with monetary policy at particular times,
from those who, for whatever reason -- intellectual, or
doctrinal, or political -- want monetary policy to respond
to their particular conceptions.
That, of course, is the
basic reason a high degree of continuity and insulation
was provided the Federal Reserve in the first place.
The basic concept still seems to me sound.
So in this city that has seen so many changes in
my 30-year acquaintance, I am glad to say that some
fundamentals have remained.
I, and my colleagues, are
-20constantly aware that we must work hard to justify our
special place and trust.
A special status implies
special responsibilities -- responsibilities to take
monetary and other actions that we believe to be appropriate
viewed against the continuing long-term public interest
in stability and sustained economic growth, and policies
we can explain and defend in the public arena.
You can well imagine that, at the risk of driving
the selection committee to drink, I'd like to interpret
this occasion as a special Cosmos Club blessing on our
structure; but I won't.
What I do hope you will permit
me to say is that the honor you do me can only underscore
the need for all of us in the Federal Reserve to conduct
ourselves in ways that maintain the confidence we try
to earn.
The Cosmos Club
1. What Is The Cosmos Club?
The Cosmos Club is a men's club incorporated in Washington,
D.C. in 1878. The Clubhouse is located at 2121 Massachusetts
Avenue, N.W. Its founders were men active in science, literature
and the arts. Since that time the Club has elected as members
men who have done meritorious original work in one or more
of these areas, who are well known to be cultivated in one of
these fields, or who are distinguished in a learned profession or
in public service.
2. What Is, The Club Offer Its Memb ,rs?
The Club offers fellowship among men having interesting
careers in science, literature and the arts, in the learned professions, or in public service. Thus, a member who enters the Club
in search of congenial companionship will find it in full measure.
But should he seek solitude, his privacy is respected. Easy chairs
in the library, for instance, provide a retreat for quiet reading.
The social and cultural programs of the Club are extensive.
These include Monday evening lectures, monthly Noon Forums,
occasiS.l wine tastings, musical concerth, book-and-author
ners, theater parties, Spring, and Fall Open House, the presentation a the Cosmos Club Annual Award, art exhibits, receptions
fO r new members, the annual Club Anniversary dinner. The
traditional Monday night Members' Buffet is a particularly so
ble and informal affair, providing unusual camaraderie. Additional information is available in the Club office, and the monthly
Club Bulletin and special mailings provide current information.
Members enjoy reciprocal privileges with other selected clubs,
foreign and domestic. An up-to-date list and other information
are available at the Club office.
Members have the privilege of entertag guests at the
Club for meals and most Club programs, and may arrange for
male guests to occupy sleeping rooms. A member may secure a
"woman's privilege card" for his wife, entitling her to use the
ladies' parlors, to partake of meals in the Garden Dining Room,
and to participate in various social and cultural activities of the
Club. She may also invite guests.
Nearly 20 standing and special committees are appointed
annually, involving about 100 members. Committee service provides a stimulating opportunity to benefit the Club, and is often
the route to elective office.
3. What Club Facilities Are Available?
The Club's home was once considered one of the finest private
residences in Washington. After the Club acquired the property
in 1951, extensive structural changes and additions made it ideal
for Club purposes. This lovely French Renaissance structure
offers spacious dining rooms, convenient meeting places, comfortable lounges, and an interesting cocktail room. The library
is on the second floor, and the billiard room is on the third. Also
on the third floor are rooms which members may engage for
private meetings at which food and beverages may be provided.
The attractive, spacious Warne Lounge (second floor) was
once a ballroom. Here are held musical concerts, new member
receptions, dances and other important events. The Powell Auditorium is used for the Monday evening lectures (open to guests
of members), and for special events such as wine tastings, luncheons and dinners for large groups. The room may be reserved
by members for private gatherings by arrangement with the Club
Manager. Elsewhere are a barber shop, a locker room with
shower, a card room, and sleeping rooms for members and male
guests.
Meal service is provided for breakfast, lunch and dinner. (A
schedule of meal hours is available). A special "brunch" is available for members and guests on Sundays, and an extensive buffet
dinner is provided on Thursday evenings. Many guests of members have complimented the Club for its excellent cuisine and
gracious table service. Wine, cocktails and other beverages are
available in the Ladies' Parlors, the "Old Club Room" (first
floor), and in the Warne Lounge and dining rooms.
Limited parking is available adjacent to the Clubhouse for a
modest parking fee. Tipping of employees is not permitted. Members express their appreciation of employee services through
contributions to a Christmas Fund for employees.
4. How Is The Club Governed?
The Cosmos Club was incorporated as a non-profit, private
men's club on 13 December 1878. The articles of incorporation
specify that the Club shall be under the general charge of a
"Board of Management" under regulations established by the
Club's Bylaws. (The Bylaws are available in the Club office).
The Bylaws provide among other things for the election of officers, the establishment of committees and the admission of new
members. Elections are held annually at a meeting of the Club,
at which reports of officers and committees are also received and
other appropriate business is transacted. The Board of Management engages a General Manager who is responsibile for daily
Club operation.
2
5. How Are New Members Elected?
The Cosmos Club is composed of men (a) who have done
meritorous original work in science, literature or the arts; or
(b) who, though not professionally occupied in science, literature
or the arts, are well known to be cultivated in some field thereof;
or (c) who are recognized as distinguished in a learned profession or in public service.
The procedure for becoming a Cosmos Club member is not
unlike that of other organizations. It requires that two equally
responsible sponsoring Club members (each of whom has belonged to the Club for at least one year) cooperate in completing
a form (available at the Club office) giving the nominee's professional record. Each sponsor also submits a letter telling of the
nominee's qualifications and merits. These steps are followed by
the usual letters of reference, principally from Club members;
however, letters from informed non-members are acceptable.
Other data showing the candidate's achievements, etc. which
would be helpful to the Admissions Committee may also be submitted. The process requires three to four months on the average.
Membership is limited by the Bylaws to 2500, exclusive of Senior
and Emeritus members.
Because the sponsoring members are careful to propose only
those men whom they believe meet the requirements, a very high
proportion of nominees is elected to membership.
Receptions for new members are held in the spring and in the
fall.
6. What Costs Are Involved?
The initiation fee for men under the age of 40 at election is
$250. For those 40 and over, the fee is $400. The initiation fee
may be paid in full on election or in eight equal quarterly installments.
The annual dues depend upon the class of membership. Members in Resident Status are those who reside, maintain a residence, or are engaged in any occupation within 30 miles of the
Clubhouse during more than half of the calendar year. Members
in Non-Resident Status are all others. The Club Bylaws also
define Senior Members and Emeritus Members.
The following table shows the annual dues, which may be paid
in quarterly installments:1
Members under 40
Members 40 and over
Senior Members
Emeritus Members
Established January 17, 1977
3
Resident
Non-Resident
$200.00
400.00
200.00
0
$100.00
200.00
100.00
0
Three special categories of privileges are Associate, Foreign
Visitor, and Guests (see Bylaws). Fees and charges for these
categories are covered in the Bylaws.
Charges for meals and beverages are recorded on the member's order slip which the member signs, with his assigned membership number. Cash transactions are permitted only at the
office desk where tobacco, candy, brochures, books, postcards, etc.
may be purchased. The office will provide information on charges
for sleeping rooms, meeting rooms, etc. Itemized statements are
sent to members monthly.
7. What Are The Responsibilities of Members?
Members are expected to act as gentlemen in the Clubhouse
and on Club grounds. They are expected to know and abide by the
House Rules, copies of which are available at the Club office.
Members are likewise responsible for their Club guests. Guest
names are to be recorded in a book to be found at each Club
entrance.
After one membership year, members are responsible for
continuing the vitality and status of the Club by sponsoring
qualified men for membership.
8. What Additional Information Is Available?
A monthly Club Bulletin is mailed to members, with an informational Supplement. A directory of Club members is published
periodically in a book which also contains House Rules, Articles
of Incorporation, Bylaws, the then current officers and members
of the Board of Management and committee members, and lists
of past presidents, secretaries and treasurers. An up-to-date
roster and list of committee members is available for review at
the Club office.
A color brochure descriptive of the Club, and a book on the
Club founders are available for purchase in the Club office. Available gratis are a descriptive pamphlet on the Club library and a
leaflet describing certain sculpture in the Club. Other publications
on the history of the Club are in the library.
MEMBERSHIP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES COMMITTEE
February 1977
4
May 18, 1984
Mr. Charles G. Dobbins
1545 Eighteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Dobbins:
Your note reminds me I should have thanked you
"officially" for making that affair at the Cosmos
Club so nice for me and my family.
I hadn't seen the letter to the Post, but I
can't help but agree with the last phrase!
When I get out from under, we'll polish the
text and get it to you.
Sincerely,
PAV:ccm
Removal Notice
The item(s) identified below have been removed in accordance with FRASER's policy on handling
sensitive information in digitization projects due to copyright protections.
Citation Information
Document Type: Newspaper article
Citations:
Number of Pages Removed: 2
Dobbins, Charles G. "Blame for the Deficit." Washington Post, February 24, 1984.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
CHARLES G. DOBBINS
1545 EIGHTEENTH STREET. N.W.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20036
(202) 483-7199
May 10, 1984
The Honorable Paul A. Volcker
Chairman
Board of Governors
Federal Reserve System
Washington, D.C. 20551
Dear rr. Volcker:
One week ago you gave the Cosmos Club what members are
saying was the finest Annual Award occasion of all!
Your warmth and cordiality made everything easy for the
audience and for me as chairman of the Awards Committee.
I was pleased to note that the Post on Saturday reported
some of your remarks, and with fair accuracy, though we were
not aware of a reporter's presence.
Incidentally, when I wrote a letter to the Post (attached)
on February 24, it seems I was more prophetic than I knew.
On behalf of the Awards Committee and of myself, let me
thank you for a most informative and delightful address.
Sincerely,
CA
Chairman, Awards Committe,
The Cosmos Club
/
11
Ott95 ),A.A
OJOb
C
1#1
tex
Vint
'
)
,t
/11V41 )
eit/14'
•
I'
7))/
1334 JAN I G
r
oe
e
2121 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20008
(202) 387-7783
-7
Li
LEONARD J. GRANT
President
January 13, 1984
The Honorable Paul A. Volcker
Chairman
Board of Governors
Federal Reserve System
Washington, DC 20551
Dear Chairman Volcker:
I was indeed very pleased to learn from Mrs. Mallardi that
you have agreed to accept this year's Cosmos Club Award.
I can assure you that there is no need to be concerned about
the length of your address.
Mrs. Mallardi indicated that your preference would be for the
month of May rather than April. We would like to suggest
either a Tuesday or Wednesday evening, perhaps one of the
following: May 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 or 30. If none of these
u would find a
dates would be convenient, then perhaps
10, 17 or 31.
Ma
either
Thursday evening preferable,
Again, may I express my personal delight and enthusiasm on
your selection for this year's award and also your kind
acceptance. Yesterday I confidentially mentioned this matter
to a mutual friend of ours, William McChesney Martin, who
replied that the Club could not have made a better choice nor
found anyone who was more dedicated to serving the public and
our country.
An Arrangements Committee will be appointed shortly to work
out the details for the Awards Ceremony. Meanwhile, I look
forward to hearing from you on which date would be preferable.
Sincerely,
LJG/fr
0,11)4.
BOARD 1.'7 GOVEr,,,,I,,
rrIT7
;933 NOV 29 Al
-2121 Massachusetts Avenue, N. NV.
Washington, D. C. 20008
9: 2 t:
(202)387-7783
November 28, 1983
(/0
LEONARD J. GRANT
President
The Honorable Paul A. Volcker
Chairman
Board of Governors
Federal Reserve System
20551
Washington, DC
Dear Chairman Volcker:
It gives me great pleasure to advise you that the Board of
Management of the Cosmos Club, on recommendation of the Awards
Committee, has selected you as the 1984 recipient of the Cosmos
Club Award.
The Award is presented annually to a person of national or international standing in a field of science, literature, the fine arts,
•
the Award.
or public service. An honorarium of $1,000 accompanies
Previous recipients include scientist Edwin Land, art historian
Kenneth M. Clark, actress Helen Hayes, and poet Archibald MacLeish.
It has been customary to confer the Award at a public ceremony in
the Cosmos Club auditorium in the spring. The recipient is expected
to deliver an address of about 30-40 minutes and to provide a manusEs,Iat_of the_remarks which is published by the Club77- The pfriTteff--version may be -a—grt longer tharitt-d—daai'ess. I enclose three
examples of addresses by former recipients to give you a general
idea of the type and range of these papers.
I sincerely hope that you will honor us by accepting the Award. As
noted above, the presentation ceremony usually takes place in the
spring, preferably in April or May on a Tuesday or Wednesday evening.
A reception and dinner at the Clubhouse precedes the formal ceremony
and address. We would be pleased to entertain a few of your personal
guests at these events.
I am indeed delighted to have this opportunity to write this letter.
Knowing of your very busy schedule, I look forward with pleasure to
hearing from you so that we can reserve a mutually convenient date
for the Award ceremony next year.
Sincerely,
El
LJG/fb
RA 7
@FedFRASER