Tobacco Documents Online

hrincx 1lI R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Cornpany Winston-Salem, N. C. 27102 L A I°io ~iyaun.,in Cha rman Chlef Execuhve officer } August 6, 1981 Ms. Mary Covington Secretary General INFOTAB Rue Montoyer 10 Box 2 1040 Brussels Belgium Dear Mary: I have been following with interest the reports of dis- cussions on the role of the Secretariat and committees, as well as the recommendations for a possible re- structuring of INFOTAB and have several observations to offer. While reviewing the Report on committee work programs and the role of the Secretariat and committees, sent with your memo of July 10, 1981, I was struck with two funda- mental thoughts. First, that we were covering "old ground" and that much of this had been discussed and approved,at the Bermuda Board meeting in October. Second, that much of the perceived difficulty with committees is on its way to being resolved as a result of the early and personal leadership of Dr. Wiethuechter, our new Chairman. In October, the Board discussed and approved a basic "blueprint" for INFOTAB, i.e., the "ICOSI (INFOTAB) Ob- jectives, Strategies and Structure - Adapting to the Changing Situation." In that document it was agreed that working parties and task forces ~~uld continue to be a~pointed by the Board, that their chairmen wou~d consult ' the newly created Advisor Grou then three companies on ecisions t at need not be referred to the Board and t at e ecretary General would be an ex officio member of a 1 wor ing parties an task forces.

Ms. Mary Covington Page Two August 6, 1981 I still feel the approved direction outlined above is proper and wonder, therefore, why we are considering another possible restructure. As a result of the meeting with Dr. Wiethuechter and the committee chair- men, I feel that any problems of workload, coordination or priorities which may have existed are on their way to being better handled. Committees have now identified their major priorities and have limited their projects to a manageable number in support of those priorities. Improvements, of course, can always be made. As I see it, the inability of some of the committees and working parties to come forward with useable and helpful "products" was not due to structural defects but, instead, to not having set clear priorities and objectives, with a limited but achievable number of projects. Some committees had taken on too many diverse projects which detracted from their primary missions. The activities of some working parties were also dupli- cative of the work of others, and overall committee work in progress needed more efficient coordination. Again, as I understand it, the concept of an advisory committee grew out of recent discussions within SAWP. What emerged was the concept of a new standing committee composed of senior representatives of member companies, committee chairmen and the Secretary General. This new committee would report to and be responsible to the Board. The committee would focus on long-term strategic thinking and coordinate working party activities with working parties perhaps reporting to it. I believe the advisory group concept as just described is a viable option for making more efficient use of INFOTAB resources as well as the human resources of member companies. I feel strongly that we should main- tain standing working parties with working parties established by the Board of Directors, thus providing an ongoing involvement by member company key executives. Having a number of ad hoc project groups which would disband after each project was completed would, in my opinion, provide less efficiency and utilization of

Ms. Mary Covington Page Three August 6, 1981 resources. A proposed organizational chart is enclosed. At the Board meeting in October, I would also like the opportunity to make some suggestions with regard to reports from working parties. Sincerely. ; Edward A. Horrigan, Jr. EAH,Jr.:sjs Enclosure cc: Dr. Horst Wiethuechter 3:~~ •

Board of Directors Advisory Committee Secretary General SAWP DCG DAC EC 99Q0hQszQz