CIA CAREER SERVICE BOARD 33RD MEETING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01826R000600160007-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 31
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 17, 2001
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: June 10, 1954
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release .2Q,.i/0T/l9: [k6.6JM 2 ~60016~007-6
COPY 1 OF , COPIES
CIA CAREER SERVICE BOARD
33rd Meeting
Thursday, 10 June 1954
1:00 p.m.
DCI Conference Room
Administration Building
CCCtMMY He.
eo eL9s^ ;~?
1 CLASS p
k 'e
: TS S v
Rz:l i rM 4 ?I r! ATt:
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA 1 226R000600160007-6
CONFIDENTI L
 CONFIDENTIA
Approved For Release 2Q/07/12 -01826R00600164007-6
CIA CAREER SERVICE BOARD
33rd Meeting
Thursday, 10 June 1954
4:00 P.M.
DCI Conference Room
Administration Building
Charles P. Cabell
DDCI
Guest
Lyman B. Kirkpatrick
IG, Chairman
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
DC/PP, Member
DD/TR Alt. for D TR, Member
COPS-DD/P, Alt. for DD P, Member
DAD 0, Member
AD CO, Member
George E. Meloon
DAD/P-
Guest
Harrison G. Reynolds
ADP, Member
Lawrence K. White
DD/A, Member
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
By Invitation:
SA/DD/I, Alt. for DD I, Member
Executive Secretary
Secretariat
Reporter
Chairman, Insurance Task Force
Member, Insurance Task Force
Member, Insurance Task Force
* Also Member, Insurance Task Force
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: -01 I V Mf 4 ,
 Approved For Release 2WM/07/12: CIA-RQP
COI F1
RU0016 07-6
. . . The 33rd Meeting of the CIA Career Service Board convened
at 4:00 p.m., Thursday, 10 June 1954, in the DCI Conference Room, Admini-
stration Building, with Mr. Lyman B. Kirkpatrick presiding
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Gentlemen, shall we come to order?
We have two major Regulations to take up, but just so that we
don't get too big a backlog of minutes of previous meetings, are there
any corrections or comments on the minutes of the 31st Meeting, which
were distributed last week? Any comments or corrections? They stand
approved as submitted.
Any comments or corrections on the minutes of the 32nd Meeting?
If not, they stand approved as submitted.
Item 3 is "The Career Staff of the Central Intelligence Agency."
This is the Regulation which was discussed at length last week. There were
25X1A9a *certain editorial changes that Mr.- was instructed to make. I trust
you have all had an opportunity to read it. Does anybody have any changes
they would like to make at this time?
25X1A9a MR. - Yes, someplace here. It's paragraph 7.a.(l) at
the bottom of page 8, and then your next paragraph at the top of page 9.
I don't think they quite tie in,, do they? You say,
"Failure to apply for
membership in the Career Staff at the end of the provisional period does not
bar the individual's right to make future application." And on the next
page you say, "The individual will be required to make application within
90 days of the date of the notification...." or reply stating why he isn't
doing so.
25X1A9a MR. That doesn't mean that later he couldn't also--
25X1 A9a MR. If he writes a long memo - then he can change his
mind a year later and apply? Then couldn't we eliminate the reply stating
why he doesn't want to do it?
25X1A9a
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Eliminate it? Why?
MR. I am thinking of the paper work involved.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: But we don't assume that there are going to be
such a large number, and I think it is quite important that we know why
they are not going to do it.
25X1A9a And that has no effect on their re-application
later?
- 1 -
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIWW82IMPNFIVETITIAL'
 Approved For ReleasV011141'07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000600169"7-6
SECRET " .
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Last week the point was it would be individuals
who for certain legitimate reasons would not join at one time but might
join later, and you wouldn't want to prejudice their opportunities to join
at that later period.
25X1A9a MR. - But once having joined then their opportunity for
getting out is extremely dim. Isn't that what was agreed to?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: That is right.
25X1A9a
. I don't know whether this would be read as meaning
that it would supercede the preceding paragraph, that if they wrote a memo
they could take that back and apply later.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any other comments?
GENERAL CABELL: I have a point on the last sentence on page 9.
I am still a little bit worried about this acting automatically on the
people on duty 1 July 1954 This now states that the Board will determine
whether or not an Examining Panel will be convened. I should think if we
want to possibly utilize this occasion for eliminating any undesirables, we
would want them to be caught up in the screening process. Therefore, we
would have to lay on the screening process. But as it is written now, you
only pinpoint a guy you want to get rid of, and then you have a Panel on
him. So I should think you would want to have something like this, and I
would suggest that the last sentence read: "Abbreviated reviews will be
given by the Examining Panels to those applying who were on duty as of
1 July 195+ and had fulfilled the length of service required."
25X1A9a MR. -: Does this also imply, General, that the Panel will
interview the individual?
GENERAL CABELL: It implies that abbreviated review will be given.
Now what form that abbreviated review will take, will be up to the Board to
25X1A9a
determine in the light of the practicabilities of the matter.
I should think it would facilitate the work
of the Selection Panel if there was unanimity, for example, on somebody
that has been with us for five or six years, or something of that kind, but
if there was no disagreement it would not be necessary to go through the
motions because there would be only the formality of an Examining Panel
in that case. There must be quite a number of people in the Agency who
would be well-known to the members of the Selection Board.
25X1A9a MR. -: This is the paragraph I was instructed to draw on
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RD'8b-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Relew2911/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01826R000?0 1 AAd07-6
SECRET
the basis of the policy that was agreed to, and my device for providing the
screening, General, is, "After considering the recommendation of the head
of the appropriate Career Service...." In other words, there would be a
decentralization of the screening review to the various Career Service Boards,
and if a Board recommended that there be no further review, then the
Selection Board would consider that the review had been made by, let's say,
the FI Board or the 00 or ORR Board, and so on.
GENERAL CABELL: But somebody has to decide, under your. formula
there, that Joe Doaks, who has hereby applied for consideration, should not
have his case reviewed either because he is going to be accepted or because
he is going to be rejected. So it would look to me like you would want the
review to take place, and that review would decide whether he was to be
accepted or rejected, rather than to make your decision in advance, which
sounds to me like this wording would require.
25X1A9a MR. -: It is intended that each Career Board would make
the recommendation, in passing this on to the Selection Board, as to whether
there be a Panel convened or not, and that the Career Board would have review-
ed each case before it sends it forward. That is the intent of that wording.
MR. MELOON: I think that is covered in (L+)(a), the preceding
paragraph.
25X1A9a MR. _ I think our concern has--
25X1 A9a MR. There are about 3,000 persons eligible on 1 July.
25X1A9a MR. We're worried about keeping current.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: On the other hand, it's a Heaven-sent opportunity--
MR. MELOON: The Career Board, in (l+)(a), has reviewed the appli-
cation and-forwards the application with the recommendation to the Selection
Board.
MR. KIBKPATRICK: Well, George, my impression of what General
Cabell is driving at is that he recognizes that review, and then he says -
assume that the FI Career Board comes up with several 8-balls that they
want to get out of the service, he thinks that should be reviewed by the
Selection Board. Is that not right?
GENERAL CABELL: I think it should be reviewed by the Selection
Board to determine that they are 8-balls.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: As far as the Agency as well as FI is concerned.
GENERAL CABEIL: To find they are 8-balls in the process rather
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For. Release @64/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01826R00060000-10W07-6
SECRET
than have somebody tell them they are 8-balls - and the Board acting on
I felt it would be easier for us to cushion the impact
of any dismissals at that time.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Then your last sentence would read: "After
considering the recommendations of the appropriate Career Service, abbreviated
reviews--
GENERAL CABELL: "--will be given by the Examining Panel to those
applying - to those who are on duty as of i July 195+." And I introduce a
new feature at this moment, "and have fulfilled the length of service
required."
25X1A9a MR. They can't apply until they have.
GENERAL CABELL: No, but as I get your formula here, all one has
to do to qualify for this automatic or abbreviated review is to be on duty
on 1 July 195+ - one day.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. That is not what is intended.
GENERAL CABELL: But that is what it says.
MR. But they are not eligible to apply--
GENERAL CABELL: No, but it becomes automatic for them when they
have served their 3 years,
25X1 A9a MR. You could take care of that by adding the word
"eligible" after "any" - "any eligible person."
GENERAL CABELL: I think you need to get the idea across that
you are not talking about anybody becoming qualified just by being here
one day.
25X1A9a MR. -: Yes, of course.
MR. KCRKPATRICK: Any further comment on that? Is that acceptable
to the Board? Are there any further comments on this Regulation?
MR. REYNOLDS: Is this the appropriate time to bring up the
conference that George and I had this morning? We went over to see a Mr.
Glen Stahl at the Civil Service Commission, who gave us his personal opinion
on our general Career Service setup. George can tell you Glen Stahl's
background and then I can give you these notes that I have, and have him
fill in on any technical matters which enter into it.
MR. MELOON: Well, Stahl is one of our foremost Government personnel
officials. He was formerly with TVA and Personnel Director for the Federal
Security Agency. His job for the past several years has been Executive
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RD080-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Relea fi81/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R0006p0 1'9Ab07-6
SECRET
Director of the Personnel Council. A year ago the Federal Personnel Council,
as such, was dissolved, and the function is being performed by the Civil
Service Commission at the present tune, with Stahl in the capacity of Special
Assistant to the Commissioner, carrying out the coordinating functions of
the Personnel Directors in the various Agencies.
MR. REYNOLDS: I can give this to you with reasonable brevity. We
explained to him the setup of the Career Service Boards in the DD/P complex,
and his comments on that--when we came to the end--were that he liked
"multiple groups" - he liked the way the system was set up. He thought it
gave an opportunity for a screening in groups and that the recommendation of
an operating division to a group that contained elements of other groups, was
a sound process. He likes the 3-year period. He said that it was being dis-
cussed in the Civil Service Commission as the best medium - in their own
Career Service program. And then he made a statement which I want to be sure
is accurate, George, that if the Civil Service Commission's 3-year ruling
goes through it probably would mean that people would be favored who are in
that group, in the event of a reduction-in-force. Of course, it is possible,
however, that the Commission would rule against it. Is that substantially
correct?
MR. MELOON: Yes. Although the thinking of the Commission is
somewhat similar to this proposed 3-year period, after or including the 1-year
trial or probationary period the normal Government employee would have served
his 1-year probationary period and then would serve the other two years as
a trial period, and the Commission's reduction-in-force regulations, he
indicated, would probably be amended so that any individual serving these
next two years after completing their probationary period would be placed in
a different sub-group than any other individual who had completed the 3-year
trial period, and that would be done on the basis of the type of appointment
they had. It would not affect us, however, because our appointments are
absolute, they are separate appointments, and everyone is serving as a
Group A employee. The distinction we would have would be a veteran and non-
veteran, and any appointment action the Commission would take pursuant to
putting their new plan or Regulation into effect, would not be applicable to
this Agency.
5X1A
MR. REYNOLDS: We reviewed this proposed Regulation - and
had a mild criticism to make, which I think we answered. He said that it
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDPa0-01826R000600160007-6.
SECRET
 Approved For Releas OW07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R0006Q60GQD'7-6
SECRET
looked to him as if there might be difficulty in moving between the service
designations of Career Service. He felt there was a great fault in Govern-
ment to have too much specialization. We attempted to correct that when we
went over it--you remember, General?--by having other MOS's, other service
designations, if they had skills other than the one in which they were
presently engaged.
Then we went into promotion policy. He started talking about it,
we didn't bring that subject up ourselves, and he said he thought that the
general principle of promotion in Government was over-simplified, and that
categories of occupations were the key to a promotion policy. In other words,
as I heard him he followed approximately the pattern which we have set up
in our own promotion policy. He said that in large groups, for example, he
felt promotion should be within those large groups rather than in an attempt
to search into a whole set of other groups, unless there was some special
reason to do so, but that in a smaller group you might have to search in
other places to get a competitive group. He liked the Career Board.concept
in promotion policy. He thought it was sound, which I stated before when I
said he liked multiple groups.
Then we got into the Fitness Report. He said he thought as a tool
for a narrative evaluation of a person, that it was all right, and he liked
it. He said he particularly liked Section 5. But he said, "I would warn you
that if you were so foolish as to attempt in any way to get either a numerical
or alphabetical rating out of this report, you will run into endless diffi-
culties, and you just cant do it." But he said that as a narrative evalua-
tion it was all right - "You will be able to evaluate a person satisfactorily."
Is there anything else, George, that we need to mention on this?
was called from the Meeting . .
MR. MELOON: I do think we ought to stress that was his informal
opinion and was not given as a representative of the Civil Service Commission,
because the Commission has a unit headed by Mr. Ross Pollock to consider
career development plans, and so forth, on any agency, and he did not want
to be caught in between any proffered advice and Mr. Pollock's new field.
MR. REYNOLDS: He was very emphatic about that, and therefore his
remarks should be considered as his personal opinion and not an expression
of the policy of the Civil Service Commission in any sense of the word.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA RlP80-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000600160007-6
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000600160007-6
 Approved For Relea&0i/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01826R000 60M7-6
SECRET
MR. MOON: He went on to say, however, that if we wanted an
official expression of opinion he felt it would be the same as his, even
though it came from a different office down there.
MR. WHITE: What were you talking about on the 3-year period the
Civil Service Commission is working on? Is that going to be legislation?
MR. ?LOON: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: When are they going to introduce it?
MR. MOON: It's on the verge of being put in now.
MR. WHITE: It wouldn't be in this session of Congress.
MR. MELOON: No. It's the "career-indefinite" group. That is
designed to not have too many "permanent" appointments in the event they
later on want to reduce, they don't have too many people with permanent
status. We gave some thought to it here for the past 2 or 3 years, on some
type of temporary appointment, but we ran into the business that we would
be required, if we offered temporary appointments during this 3-year period,
to cover the individuals under a Social Security kind of system instead of
Federal Retirement System, and therefore be required to report their names
to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and then the Board, and we thought we
better not dabble with that.
MR. KIR TATRICK: Well, I gather, then, this gentleman thought
the direction we were going was correct?
MR. REYNOLDS: That is correct. He thought we were going along
all right.
MR. MELOON: He was quite pleased with it, as a matter of fact.
GENERAL CABELL: That gives us a little courage. Now, do we need
to formalize that in any way?
MR. REYNOLDS: I don't believe we can, General, because it was
just his personal opinion.
GENERAL CABELL: Do we need to take the next step, to go to Mr.
Pollock and seek a formal opinion on this?
MR. MELOON: I wouldn't see why. We are not violating any Com-
mission Regulation or going contrary to any regulation that they have in
the thinking stage, and the thing that we have is the Performance Rating
System, and we're asking for exemption from that.
GENERAL CABELL: The point is that what we got from him this
morning is unuseable for us in any form because we can't quote him, so it
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-FID''80-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Relea e?09+N07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000600011609e7-6
V"Wr
SECREt
just gives us courage that somebody from. the outside said it's all right.
Do we ever need to quote the fact that we have discussed this with the Civil
Service Commission?
25X1A9a MR. No.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I don't see any purpose in it, frankly - the
fact that we,have consulted with them informally. I would hate to set the
precedence of asking for their opinion in writing because then they might
25X1A9a
think it was their right--
MR. There is no legal requirement for it.
MR. KIRKPATRICK; It's fine to be in harmony with them but I
wouldn't like to see the Civil Service Commission getting the feeling that
they have a control factor over the way we organize our Career Service.
Then I gather that this Regulation as it is now drafted, stands
approved by the Board? Any dissent?
25X1A9a MR. - What action shall we take on it?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Do you see any necessity of this going to the
Director for formal approval?
GENERAL CABELL: Yes, I do. This is a major policy change in
the organization. I laid a copy on his desk this morning, and he had planned
to come here, and planned to read it before he came here, but both of
those schemes got thrown out of the window. Congressman Kersten got in
ahead of that. But the Director promised he would read this over the week-
end. But I do think we ought to give him the option in this case of approv-
ing it before it is published.
25X1A9a MR. - If possible, since there are these time factors
involved, it should be published prior to 1 July.
GENERAL CABELL: He promised to look at it over the weekend.
So, Kirk, I would suggest that you ask him, as Chairman of the
Board, at the first meeting or your first opportunity, whether he approves
this thing.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I don't think I will suggest that he take it
up to his reunion to read, though.
General, are you pressed for time? Would you care to hear the
Insurance Task Force report, or would you prefer to go to the next
Regulation?
GENERAL CABELL: I would prefer to sit in on that training
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RtP80-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For ReleWse 24f1/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01826R00060 1107-6
SECRET
Regulation and hear the talk about that, if you don't mind, and then I have
MR. KIRKPATRICK: That is Item 6 on the agenda. Do we have any
comments on this suggested Notice?
25X1A9a MR I have one on the first sentence. I think I
know what it was written for, but under this it would be possible for any
individual whose services have been satisfactory, for somebody to determine
that his reassignment to another component or another job is desirable.
Who determines the desirability?
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. REYNOLDS: That would be the Assistant Director for Personnel.
Well, if the AD for Personnel decided that one
of my people should be reassigned, which he could do under this, I would
strongly object.
MR. REYNOLDS: Would you object to it if it was after consultation
with the head of the major component?
I would object unless I recommended that I
couldn't use him and recommended that he be reassigned or for "shopping",
but I wouldn't want anybody to reach down into my Office, for any kind of a
25X1A9a reason, and say,
25X1A9a
"I want to assign
over to 00" or something of
MR. - I agree with that.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Wasn't the purpose of this Notice basically to
see if we can't salvage people?
MR. REYNOLDS: The purpose of this Notice is the step before the
Agency Reassignment Board.
MR. WHITE: But the way it is written, it is all-inclusive, and
25X1A9a it allows the action which anticipates as a possibility,
25X1A9a to be done without any consultation with or any con-
sultation with the gaining component.
MR. KIRKATRICK: It seems to me the reverse is just about as
STATSPEC
dangerous. In other words, if it is determined that- has somebody w ose
reassignment is desirable, he might be trained for an assignment in Commo
25X1A9a
and after the training is completed you might not care to have him in Commo.
MR. I think that is the second problem. But I very
definitely think if we are given somebody he ought to be with us for six
months on a trial basis.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RoPP0-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release ?,1/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01826ROOQ6Qfli 07-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. 1,4ELOON: These were surplus. So I would suggest that if we
add to the title - "Retraining for Reassignment of Surplus Personnel" - it
would meet the objection as voiced here.
MR. PATRICK: I don't think we want to call personnel "surplus".
In the second place,. I don't think we want to issue a Notice such as this.
It will blow the morale of this place, which in certain places is not too
high already, all to pieces.
I have a legitimate case in point here. We
took an employee on when we were dealing with an interdepartmental advisory
committee that had frequent communication problems. Then that job washed
out. But we retrained her. But if it hadn't been possible to retrain her
we would have had to say, "We will help you get a job someplace here." We
would have had to throw her in your lap, and then this would have applied.
MR. REYNOLDS: What can you call them? "Unassigned personnel"?
MR. KIP ATRICK: Either "available" or "unassigned". I think of
surplus guns or surplus ships, but not "surplus personnel".
MR. REYNOLDS: "Available for reassignment." The whole purpose
of this Regulation is to solve the problem which is known by all of us to
be present within the Agency, and if we can take people who come back, say,
into the DD/P complex and they have no place for them or we find that they
are not being assigned, we say, "Now what are the capabilities of this
person? Can he not be retrained for another position in the Agency?"
MR, KIRKPATRICK: I think the purpose that the Notice is pointed
toward, Harry, is perfectly all right, but I raise the question of issuing
an Agency-wide Notice on this particular subject. If it could be issued
say at the Division Chief level, even though we recognize that knowledge of
it will probably go a little further than that, it won't get a general, all-
employee reaction which I think would be fairly unfavorable. Secondly, a
Notice like this, to my mind, would attract individuals who aren't really
doing too well in their jobs and who would like an opportunity such as this
to try to move elsewhere. My point is I think if we can get the ground
rules laid down so that it is known across the board how it is going to
work, then issue it to all the supervisors who need to know of it, would
accomplish the same purpose.
I ought to make it clear that when I said I
objected to that first sentence I didn't mean that I objected to it as a
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDp801826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 21/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826ROOG0107-6
SECRET
statement of policy, but it doesn't say down here under "responsibilities"
who initiates the action when persons are no longer required in a component
because of reduced workload or other reasons.
MR. REYNOLDS: I would think that 2.a., with a few minor changes,
answers your question on it, It states there definitely
that the AD/P would participate with the head of the Career Service and the
Director of Training in establishing a training program which would be con-
sistent with education, experience and potential of each individual concerned.
I don't object to that. That part is all right.
MR. REYNOLDS: In other words, there is no intention to do anything
but improve morale and to hold on to good people who may have skills which
are other than those they are presently using in the assignment they are in,
and it's a form of holding on to a good man by giving him some retraining.
That is what Matt and I went over in great detail prior to our discussing
this with General Cabell.
MR. _ We propose, Harry, . . . Inaudible . .
as needing this sort of person.
MR, REYNOLDS: I agree with you, John, that is not clear in here.
No, it would be when you say, "I have a good man here but I have no place
for him."
MR. I wasn't clear as to why you don't use the Reassign-
ment Board procedure.
MR, REYNOLDS: I consider the Reassignment Board as pretty much
of a "last resort".
MR. I don't see where you would need it if you have
the power to put anybody into a position.
MR. REYNOLDS: But a Reassignment Board is a very difficult thing
to get going.
I don't like the "b." here, Harry, that follows.
MR.
I mean, if I can get rid of deadwood because they don't work out, then
that puts the burden on Dick to take action. I think it ought to be on a
trial basis for six months, and if at the end of six months we don't want
them then we should return them to you for further training.
MR. KIR1TATRICK: If you were following current Regulations
you couldn't possibly get rid of somebody, because the current Regulations
say you will write an Evaluation Report for that individual.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP8O1826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For ReleW. 2Dp1/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01826R000,011007-6
SECRET,
25X1 A9a MR. ~ A temporary holding period of six months.
25X1A9a Under this first sentence the AD for Personnel
could give me a man regardless of how little I needed him or wanted him.
This would give him that authority.
MR. And he might be totally unsuitable for you.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. Wouldn't you buy it on a "trial" basis?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: If carried on somebody else's T/O?
MR. Return him to AD/Personnel for reassignment.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: How many times is this going to happen? This
starts to look like a merry-go-round. I would say if he misses on his
basic assignment and then is given an opportunity in another assignment
and he misses on that, that he then is out of the Agency. Isn't that the
intent?
MR. REYNOLDS: That is the intent. I think we are responsible
for monitoring that.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I am not disputing that for a moment.
MR. REYNOLDS: One thing we don't want to do is to follow a
system that was set up for this man Webb that was quoted the other day
at the AD's Meeting.
25X1A9a
rejoined the Meeting . . .
MR. KIRKPATRRICK: Dick, we are talking about Item 6 - Training
for Reassignment.
25X1A9a MR. -: If he fails in his first assignment and is re-
assigned, let's say to us, and he doesn't work out again, then what is the
mechanism?
MR. REYNOLDS: By that time he will have had a couple of pretty
bad Evaluation Reports and we will have to take the next action - in
conjunction, I mean - it wouldn't fit in very well with the DD/A's power
for us to take him over and put him in the pool and dispose of him, would
MR. WHITE: No.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: It seems to me the sense of the Board is that
the policy enunciated in here of using training as a vehicle for better
qualifying an individual whom we are attempting to reassign from a service
where he has not proved to be satisfactory, for one reason or another,
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RD1'>3-00 826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For RelWss 2,W1/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01826R00G O1' 007-6
SECRET
perhaps beyond his control--
MR. MELOON: We say in the very first line that his services have
been satisfactory. We don't propose to use this device for people to shove
their deadwood off on somebody else. I don't think we can be fooled on
whether they are deadwood or not, particularly with that 7-point evaluation
you are going to have to issue on an individual.
MR,, KIRKPATRICK: Whether they can be fooled or not, the point I
was getting at is that I don't think anybody on the Board basically disagrees
with the policy laid down. There is just need of clarification for the
procedures to be followed in it. In other words, I think all the Board
wants is reassurance that the AD for Personnel is not going to arbitrarily
pick up and push somebody on to an Office against their will.
25X1A9a MR, - I don't think it should be the policy that Personnel
could give us anybody they want to.
MR. WHITE: Combine it with the present Reassignment Board - I
mean, it's a forced reassignment, no matter how you slice it, and then you
make a decision as to whether or not he needs some training before you do
it. So it seems to me you don't need this plus the Reassignment Board.
You could put them together.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I got the distinct impression from Mr. Reynolds -
was the mechanism to be able to do that without a Reassignment Board?
MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to do it without putting him before a
Reassignment Board. Maybe there is a point that Red makes there, that we
could mold the two into one, but I don't think so. This is primarily con-
cerned. with training.
MR. WHITE: But the practical facts are - and I know of one or
two incidents that I can cite, where two or three people that my Career
Service Board considered and recommended for the Reassignment Board machinery
have been to practically every course they've got, simply because they
don't know what else to do with them.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: That is the point I brought up in the AD's
meeting the other day.
MR. WHITE: And these people have "satisfactory" ratings. On
paper they are "satisfactory." And I think that whatever the procedure is,
we don't want to just use this training to further prolong the agony, even
if somebody has to take one of those people, if I have to take him myself.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-1826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For ReleW 24p1/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01826R000W11K007-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
I would rather face up to the problems than to go through a further training,
unless it is a really bona fide case.
I also know of one other man that formerly belonged to Sheff
Edwards who is looking for a job now, who is a very good man. I think he
could probably be fitted without training. But I hope we don't lead our-
selves into a trap here of just using training to prolong the business, and
fail to face up to it. Most of these cases I frankly believe, personally,
if they are really good and not marginal, they are going to be retrained on
the job rather than in a formal training course.
MR. KERKPATRICK: What you have just said, in effect, is that you
are against the policies enunciated here because you think it is going to be
used as a device for evading the issue.
MR. WHITE: I would like to see the Regulation issued so that it
can't be used as a device to evade the issue.
GENERAL CABELL: Red, maybe I am wrong here, but I read this like
Meloon does, that the 2nd line, which says, "....whose services have been
satisfactory...." - that that eliminates this matter of being concerned
about these deadwood people that you are talking about.
MR. WHITE: General, I can--and so can the Personnel people--cite
you many, many instances, perhaps hundreds of them, in the past few years,
where a man's record on paper down in the Personnel Office says he is
"satisfactory", yet you can't find a job for him because nobody wants him.
And when you get right down to the hard facts in the case, they don't want
him because he really isn't satisfactory. I realize you have to face up to
that problem, but what is in the man's personnel file in a number of these
cases that we have on our hands now, doesn't reflect the true situation,
and I think, George, you probably agree with that. 25X1A9a
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Well, couldn't we get rid of a little of the--to
coin a word--"nebulosity" by getting back to point and
specifying two words in the first sentence - "reassignment" and "desirable"?
Who desires the reassignment?
The head of the component.
MR. MELOON: There isn't any need for this Regulation if we are
going to put that in. We're not going to get them placed anywhere, we're
just going to have them running around the halls until they're retired.
25X1A9a MR. It's not the-head of the component. He knows
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDA0-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
3
 Approved For ReleaW2ap'l/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R0006W07-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
he doesn't want him in his own shop. We're talking about the guy who is
just good enough to stay on a job and go plodding along. That man should
be fired for unsatisfactory performance. It's just that he is not good
enough to keep in this outfit year after year after year. Those are the
marginal people we are talking about, really.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Then what are we Going to do? Are you talking
about the ones covered by this - the ones not good enough to keep in Train-
ing but that you would be delighted to have Commo have?
MR. I think the component--to get rid of him--is not
in a position to say, "This man should be separated or moved elsewhere."
All the component can say is, "This man is surplus to my needs."
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I agree with George that is meaningless, because
nobody is going to specify a guy for reassignment unless there is something
wrong with him.
MR. REYNOLDS: That is exactly right.
MR. WHITE: I think that is right, Kirk, and aren't we just pro-
longing the thing by going through this training period? If these people
are satisfactory they could carry their weight in some job. Now this
doesn't preclude training. I mean, if you have a man and through your
Reassignment Boaxd machinery you say "Component X must take this man" -
now the head of Component X might say, "If I have to take him I want him to
25X1A9a have certain courses that is going to give him before I take him."
I don't see why you don't combine the two, because I honest-to-goodness
think this is just stretching it out.
25X1A9a
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think the thing we should avoid at all costs
is anything that could be construed as a perpetuation of mediocrity.
MR. I think that is exactly what this will do.
MR. MELOON: I don't agree with that at all. I think we have "x"
number of people here at the present time who either have the label, because
of some circumstances they are "surplus", and they are tabbed with this so-
called "no-good" label, and we can't get anyone to take them, although their
record shows they are good employees and have been promoted several times
since they have been with the Agency. There isn't any way that we can get
rid of that individual at the present time. Now this device at least
proposes to give them a chance, and give the Agency a chance to weed out
those people. Once they have been aimed at a specific assignment and Given
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDPb-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For ReleW QW1107112 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000 O 007-6
SECRET
specific training for that job, then they are given a trial on the job,
and if they fall down then we have got an excellent opportunity to lower
the boom and get rid-of them, if they don't measure up to that job. At the
present time we cannot take one of those people on that surplus list and
prefer charges or do anything else with them. They are just as good as you
or I or anyone else around this table, based on their official record with
this Agency, and we have to do something, and this is the only device that
we can come up with. It gives those people a fair shake and the Agency a
fair shake, and unless we do something like that they are going to be around
for the next 25 years.
25X1A9a
MR. Doesn't Red's suggestion take care of that?
25X1A9a MR, - I think what we are asking, for is that all parties
concerned be considered, and that is what the Agency Reassignment Board is
doing.
MR, KIRKPATRICK: We have one specific recommendation as to what
should be done with this Notice, and that is Colonel White's recommendation
that this be combined with the procedures of the Reassignment Board.
MR, REYNOLDS: I think we could try to combine the two. I think
the suggestion has some merit. However, I would like to point out to Mr.
25X1A9a that Matt Baird's concept of this is entirely different from yours.
25X1A9a
He feels about it as we do, and he does not look upon it as a continuation
of mediocrity.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: "Perpetuation",of mediocrity.
MR. REYNOLDS: We should make those people useful to the Agency.
I'd like to ask a question. How does an in-
dividual enter this area? How do you know when it is desirable to do this?
MR. MELOON: Well, we are working on a definition at the present
time - of when a person gets on a surplus list. As far as we are concerned
we are going to recommend that an individual who remains unassigned to a
current T/O position for a period of at least 90 days, as far as we are
concerned he is surplus to the needs of that organization; and we propose,
at the end of that time, to have him assigned to a current position or put
him on the surplus list.
25X1A9a MR. -? That is about what you said - that is virtually the
head of the component declaring him surplus.
MR. MELOON: No, sir. We have people who have been in this
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP801826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Rele 2QA4/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000?W16'U607-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
suspended state for at least 18 months, some people around here not assigned
to current T/0 positions.
I would buy that.
GENERAL CABELL: Kirk, may I make a comment there? I don't quite
get Red's point about it being part of the Reassignment Board. It makes
little difference, as far as I can see, whether it's a part of that Regulation
or a part of this one.
Red, you must have a feeling that there is something intrinsically
wrong with this thing when you say it is just a device to put off a decision.
What is intrinsically wrong? - whether it's published in a Regulation or by
itself, or whether it be incorporated in the Reassignment Board Regulation.
MR. WHITE: General, quite frankly it wasn't until a few minutes
ago when somebody called my attention to the fact that this was beamed at
surplus personnel, that I even recognized that. It's not written that way at
all. You can read into this a very noble aim, taking everybody in the Agency
who is surplus and making sure that he is moved into other vacancies, and
that he receives the training that he needs to go into those vacancies so as
to benefit him personally, and I think that is the way the Regulation struck
me when I first read it. Now that isn't the intent at all. So basically I
don't think it is a good Regulation because I think it conveys the wrong
impression as to the point you are trying to solve. Insofar as combining
this with the Agency Reassignment Board machinery - we labored with that
Reassignment Board machinery for sometime, and as far as I know we have made
no test of it. I have put three people into the machinery and I don't know
what has happened to it, but as far as I know we haven't used it at all.
I think this is what we are talking about, we are talking about reassignment
with or without training, and what I am proposing does not preclude train-
ing in any way whatever, it would merely state clearly the problem we are
talking about and how we propose to go about solving it, and whoever is
given the authority to decide that Mr. "X" is to be assigned to position "Y",
if that decision is made and it is considered necessary that he have certain
specific training before he goes into it - I am all for that; but I don't
think this Regulation faces up to that, and I frankly am afraid that
through this mechanism we will put people into training and keep them on
for another six months or so, and that the end result will be exactly the
same. I do have that fear.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDPt6-O'1826R000600160007-6
SECRET,
 Approved For Rele sWe 24P,1/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000 (1ftt07-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. With the exposure, in the meantime, to that much
more activity, training, etc.
opportunity to get such training as he needs in order to perform his job
MR. _: What we are really trying to say here is that when it
is determined that a man shall be reassigned, that he shall be given the
properly.
25X1A9a
MR.
25X1A9a
That really doesn't need saying. That should go
without saying..
MR. REYNOLDS: I'm afraid it does need saying.
MR. MELOON: It sure does. The reason we have not invoked the Re-
assignment Board procedure at the present time is the tremendous amount of
work that goes behind it. We have six cases at the present time that we
are about ready to haul before the Reassignment Board to work on. But in
all fairness to the offices that we term as the "receiving offices" of those
assigned individuals - we have even gone to the extent of having a security
file check, a medical file check, and have asked an assessment on each of
those individuals, beamed at a specific job that we feel the person can
fill. And there is a tremendous amount of work behind that before we would
want to come up here and jam somebody down your throat that is coming out
of Commo or DD/P, or someplace else. But people should face up to their
responsibility and give us an evaluation so that-we can prefer charges and
get rid of the person, rather than to bring him before the Reassignment
Board. The only people we would propose under this thing are not these people
notwithstanding their files, Red, we've got to have something on them.
MR. WHITE: Well, George, you know the one case you and I have
discussed. This fellow has had every course in the book. If I have to
I'll take him in my Office, because there's no point in training him anymore.
Somebody has to take him and give him an unsatisfactory efficiency report
and get rid of him. And if the ones I have seen before my own Career Service
Board, and I think I have given you three recommendations, are typical of
the group we are talking about, then my fears are justified.
MR.~ Can't you substitute for the Reassignment Board -
that the AD for Personnel will cause the individual to be immediately re-
assigned, after consultation--
MR. REYNOLDS: It's actually placing the two categories of people
into one, for the Agency Reassignment Board procedure. I don't think that
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 CIA-RDl0-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Relea 2QQy/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01826R0006QW 6bdb7-6
SECRET,
is impossible, but I had looked upon these as two, final categories and
this group that will be covered by this Notice would be those who were easier
to handle than someone who came before an Agency Reassignment Board. We
know a lot of people who have been unassigned for a long time and in look-
ing over their files there are indications they would have some usefulness.
25X1 A9a I have talked to three or four of them.
25X1A9a
25X1A
25X1A6a
other day that I an. very sure, with a certain amount of retraining, would
be very valuable, and he has been surplus for a long time.
MR. That raises the question whether the mechanism
for bringing the person to other offices is good enough. I would like to
speak to that for a moment. C. . . Inaudible . . .J As you know, the
T/0 was cut very drastically, and as soon as it became clear there were
going to be several hundred people "surplus" in the a great
many of the parts of the outfit went to work, especially Personnel, to find
out where these people could be used elsewhere in the outfit. The result
was that a good many of them with considerable promise but no special
experience along those lines, were almost immediately placed in a wide variety
of jobs in the DD/I, and certainly in a wide variety of jobs in DD/P. Train-
ing has picked up a good many of those people, not because we were sold a
bill of goods about them, but because they were actually desirable. That
process has gone on for roughly a year and a half or more. I question whether
out of all the "surplus" in the
there is any really outstand-
ing man - where the Agency would really suffer if it were to lose his
services - who has not been placed by the processes that already exist. The
ones who are left are pretty good people who might have some service some-
place but would not represent any serious loss to this Agency.
I believe another method which has not been sufficiently used in
this Agency is the frank statement to the man, "Look, you're pretty good. We
have no complaints against you. You have done your work satisfactorily.
But the fact is that you have no real call for this business, and you would
be doing yourself a favor, as well as the Agency, if you left." That has
been done and it has succeeded in a number of cases, and I am sure it could
be tried more often:
GENERAL CABELL: What happens when that man says, "I don't agree
with you."
25X1A9a MR. It has worked in quite a number-of cases for
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET:
 Approved For Release 2Q,W/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01826R000f09,16Wb7-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
people you don't have serious complaints against but who are not good enough,
and they have been persuaded of that and left, and at a time early enough
in their careers so they wouldn't lose anything by leaving. I think that
could be used more often.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Harry, you have heard the views of the Board on
this Notice, and you have heard Red's suggestion. What would you care to
do with the Notice now?
MR. REYNOLDS: I think Red's suggestion has merit. I don't think
we are going to get any further here with this Notice unless we investigate
the possibility which Red suggests. I would therefore recommend--
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I would suggest that as one alternative; and the
other, perhaps tightening up the language of this particular Notice to make
it a little more specific.
I would be satisfied with that.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Because of the large amount of skepticism raised
by the members of the Board.
MR. .REYNOLDS: I think we will find that it will not fit in too
well with the Agency Reassignment Board Notice. But if it is the wish of
this Board that we make a restudy of this, we will proceed to do so.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I would suggest, then, that that be followed.
Now I'd like to revert back to the Insurance Task Force report
item on the agenda, seeing that we have had Mr. _ sitting here on
tenterhooks for the last hour.
. . General Cabell retired from the Meeting . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. - I would like to say that I checked with legal
counsel to see if it was proper for us to put on the record a monitored
telephone conversation without the consent of both parties, and Mr. _
said that it was perfectly okay providing this does not leak to the press.
MR. _ I would like to do as I did before in the other
and more complicated report, take you through it reading as little as
possible. In order to bring you to the point where you can consider these
final recommendations, I need to pick up four sentences shown here in the
first section. At the last meeting that we were here, the Task Force
proposed these four actions: (1) secure term life coverage on a better
basis than now offered by WAEPA; (2) ask United Benefit Life of Omaha to
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDPU20-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 241107112 : CIA-RDP80-01826ROOQJH' O7-6
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
SECRET
make a firm offer on a better plan; (3) ask WAEPA to bid on it; and (Ii) ask
th to assess these two bids as such, and as against self-
insurance.
You must have in mind that the Omaha Company named here is the
sister company under the same ownership as is one of our hospitalization plans.
These are the people we have been dealing with for six years in the hospitali-
zation field. They know us and we know them.
Now, Omaha has now put forward a better plan than WAEPA. I propose
to demonstrate it in a comparison of principle features. And you might note,
in passing, their observation that had they underwritten the WAEPA Plan last
year we would have gotten back $135 thousand dollars in dividends.
As to that action of asking WAEPA to bid, WAEPA refused to bid,
and the embodiment of their views is shown in the paper at the very back of
the papers attached to the agenda, and I don't need to take you through it
at this stage.
Now the - you all remember them as our insurance
consultants and actuaries - they lean to more research and to get more bids.
That is the natural commercial tactic. We don't. We want to sign off
commercially with Omaha, the Task Force does, for security reasons primarily,
and the fact of their excellent handling of our claims in the past in the
field of hospitalization, and their attitude, their willingness to tailor
and Five us anything we want, and show us the price for it.
I need to carefully take you through this second page dealing with
the attitude and view on self-insurance. They say:
"While we feel that self-insurance might be feasible,
a very considerable amount of research would have to
be done in order to satisfy ourselves (and you) that
it is the preferable course to take in this instance.
The unusual nature of the coverage, the potentiality
of catastrophic loss, the facilities for claim admin-
istration, the legal aspects in establishing a self-
insured system (questions relating to possible conflict
with state insurance laws, development of a 'contract'
or vehicle through which the benefits would be offered,
etc.), the actuarial considerations (fixing a proper
rate of contribution, handling of refunds to participants,
establishment of contingency funds and reserves) all
require careful study. We will, of course, be glad
to carry out the parts of such a study as fall within
the actuarial and insurance fields. However, we be-
lieve that heretofore the merits and shortcomings
of self-insurance have been broadly discussed in our
meetings, and we hesitate to embark on an exhaustive
survey along these lines unless very serious con-
sideration is being given to the self-insured route."
The Task Force agrees that they all require careful study. They go on to
- 21 -
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RSDP 880-- 26R000600160007-6
CRET
 Approved For Rele she 2QA1/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000Q01'07-6
SECRET
say they would be glad to carry it out if we wanted them to. I'll deal with
that possibility in a moment.
Now, then, here it is - this is the Task Force Plan which Omaha
is willing to underwrite, and I'll tell you the premium cost later. The
heart of the plan is contained right here in the beginning, the establishment
of classes of benefit as opposed to the inflexible requirement of WAEPA.
Now I did an opinion poll in the past few days and asked 94 random people
in OCD, DD/P, Personnel and DD/A, to answer two questions. The first question
I won't touch here, but in this opinion poll 89 of the people--out of 94--if
they wanted insurance coverage today, would be required to buy $12 thousand
of term and $15 thousand accidental death, which is the essence of the WAEPA
coverage. They would be required to because of their salary. 69 of the 94
want less than WAEPA requires. In other words, this flexible schedule fits
the varying needs of the Agency. The only requirement I put on these people
in doing the poll was to pick a young man.
Now, the contract terms. This a., b., and c., I put in here
because this is the probable wording that will go into the insurance contract
if you will buy this Omaha deal, and I'll take you through that because it is
the heart of the whole business here. (Reading) "The minimum benefit for
which a member is eligible may not be less than selection of class coverage.
However, ...." and this is where we meet WAEPA - "....instead of the above,
under this plan the member earning $3200 or less annually may select Class 2
benefits...." - which, you see, is the WAEPA minimum for $6 thousand - "....
and the member earning $3201 annually, or more, may select up to and inclusive
of Class 5 benefits...." In other words, initially he can buy anything he
wants to, initially, with a minimum retention requirement of one year. That
is to avoid the fellow taking an air trip and he buys Omaha for the period
of the air trip and then drops it. Of course, in that process he selects
against the company, which they won't permit, and rightly so.
Now, then, (reading): "Members initially selecting insurance
benefits on the basis of the class coverage nearest the individual's annual
base wage are eligible to advance to the next highest class if an upward
change in the employment grade alters the eligibility...." "....or by
medical examination at any time, to any class, above that presently held."
There is no selection against that process because of the protection of the
medical examination.
22-
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA- $ ;,c.1 826R000600160007-6
 Approved For Release 220QU07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R0006QOr 1,60Q}7-6
SECRET
25X1A9a
Now the rest will go a little faster, I think. This next is just
a re-statement of the previous, so we can skip it. Eligibility - it's
exactly the same as WAEPA except with WAEPA's disadvantageous phrasing
which contains the implication - overseas service. Omaha will offer this
term coverage to anyone in the Agency with no implication of overseas service
or any other requirement. Accidental death coverage is important here. The
fellow who buys WAEPA has to take $7500 or $15 thousand, and most of these
on this opinion poll will have to take $15 thousand under WAEPA, and hence
pay for it. We propose, and Omaha agrees, to put a double indemnity on a
straight d.i. basis - a straight double indemnity - twice salary. Now if
he wants more than double the face amount he can secure it by raising his
term coverage, by a medical examination. The important feature there is he
doesn't pay for more than he needs - again, in the d.i. as well as the term.
Exclusion: Omaha will give us a better deal than WAEPA, although
WAEPA is pretty damn good. As you see, WAEPA requires that the coverage be
limited to a passenger in a recognized Government-licensed plane, a plane for
carrying passengers. Omaha will cover on any kind of aircraft.
Conversion: the same as WAEPA.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: What do you mean - it covers for any aircraft?
It says, "except as a passenger".
That is the way he worded it. As a passenger he is
covered in any kind of aircraft. This is a peculiar way that the actuary
25X1A9a wrote it. Do you agree with that, -
25X1A Yes, sir. That is fine. This is an exclusion so
it's a double negative. It's a double negative, Kirk.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. It's the way they do it.
MR. Picking up again - conversion is the same as WAEPA.
Premium waiver - we get it and WAEPA doesn't give it. Payment of benefits -
any kind of cut-out or security arrangements we want with Omaha, and not
25X1A9a so broad with WAEPA, even though could lay on a cover operation -
you've got it anyway in the guarantee here.
Dividends, and this is the second most important point, and it
needs to be read because you will touch in here on the question of self-
insurance, to a degree. So, they will give us back all of the premiums
after having taken out the Company retention, the incurred claims, the
conversion costs, if any, the contingency reserve, which we get cash for,
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RD O- 01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Relea 2W1/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000Q01MD07-6
SECRET
for disposition by the master policy holder in any way we want. And the
retention, which is what Omaha gets, is 12.2%o at initial laying on of the
contract. There is the total target of self-insurance. So, have that
figure in mind - the total target. If you pay $3.75 for a month of certain
coverage - 12.2% maximum, the 12.2% is for Omaha, and that is the total
25X1A target of self-insurance. That is all you could possibly eliminate. And
advises us that probably if we had self-insurance--
25X1 A9a MR. And that includes taxes.
MR. Their taxes and their overhead.
25X1A9a
MR. -: It includes Federal and State taxes. So they are
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
really only keeping 10 percent for themselves.
MR. : 5% of the gross premium comes to the Agency.
Now this is the third and last important feature - the pay-off.
Now there are two plans here. The first one is what is called in this game
a "flat-level premium". There is no change, unless you get a bad experience.
A flat rate of 53 cents. The other one is the translation of the Omaha
plan against the WAEPA step-up system. Now I would like, unless you wish
otherwise, to take you through only one, the first one, because that is
the one the Task Force is recommending - the flat-level premium. In my
opinion poll 79 out of 9)4 want this one - the "a"; and the others I think
are crazy. So, note, under Omaha for coverage at the flat-level 53 cents
per $1000 of face amount per month - get these comparisons with the monthly
difference on the extreme right. I had to use the WAEPA dollars, you see -
the face amount dollars and accidental death dollars in order to make a
comparison. Now if a fellow buys less than six thousand, or less than
twelve, of course his monthly outgo is substantially less, but if he buys
these particular face amounts why then he saves as shown on the right-hand
side there.
Now we will skip the next page, page 7 - that is just a technical
piece of business.
MR. : May I ask you one question? Is this just, say,
around $90 a year? 12 times $7.50 - about $90?
MR. That is right.
MR. I neglected to say to you that the Omaha coverage
is larger, however.
MR. KIR1 ATRICK: About a third of commercial life insurance.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12: CIA-RDP0-01826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Release 0,WO7/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R0006Q 6'9 07-6
N&V
SECRET
. 25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. : I don't need but a minute more, or a minute and a half.
I want to take you through the summary of the advantages of Omaha. Larger
total term coverage - $15,000 versus $12,000 - with flexibility of choice
by the member initially and there on. In particular, the member may relate
his coverage to salary if desired, but in no event does he secure less than
WAEPA now offers, if he desires so to avail himself. Of great importance
is the fact that a member does not have to buy and pay for more insurance
than he really needs, as is the requirement under WAEPA. Omaha removes the
important overseas service limitations of WAEPA. Omaha relates the accident-
al death coverage to salary, and the person who doesn't want $15,000 need
not take nor pay for it. The air-flight exclusion is superior, as noted.
The premium waiver we get, and don't have in WAEPA. Omaha security is
practically--well, I'll call it 100 percent. They will do anything we want.
Omaha contracts for dividends based on annual experience, where WAEPA does
not so contract. Omaha's attitude couldn't possibly be improved. Omaha
is cheaper under a level premium or step-up plan. This is most important,
of course, for a young man with a family when he earns less and his respon-
sibilities are heaviest, and his coverage needs are greatest. The Omaha
plan offers this contrast. Under WAEPA we are subject to the whims, desires
and persuasions of others in their association, plus their own unilateral
decisions. In addition we get no benefit from our own experience and get
no flexibility to suit our needs. Omaha is completely cooperative and
flexible to tailoring to suit us.
W On point "b" up here, what are the important overseas
MR.
go overseas some day.
People are eligible who have the expectation to
MR. _: The words are these: Any United States citizen member
of the Agency, paid directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from
appropriated funds, who may go overseas at some future time.
Now, the recommendations: (1) that the Agency avoid any life
insurance plan on a self-insurance basis, at this time; (2) that AD Personnel
assume responsibility for closely following the proposed life coverage
features in the Government Plan and report developments; (3) that the Agency
accept the Omaha proposal as shown under the level-premium basis and direct
that DD/A and General Counsel complete the contract; (4) that AD Personnel
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RETP90-cf1826R000600160007-6
SECRET
 Approved For Rele W 2Q V1/07/12: CIA-RDP80-01 26R000W1bO07-6
.1VOW CONFIDENTIAL
take charge of an information campaign to the employees on the Omaha Plan
and also assume responsibility for the self-insurance study, if it is
approved; and (5) that the Insurance Task Force now go out of business in
respect to life insurance.
25X1A9a MR. M. It sounds good.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: What happens to WAE'A? Does WAEPA go out of
business if our people drop out?
25X1A9a
25X1A9
a
25X1A9a
per se?
MR. M They will suffer. They will cry.
MR. They will give a squawk, though, Kirk.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Will they attempt any action against the Agency
MR. What do you think?
MR. No, definitely not.
MR. Have you seen the income statement? They wouldn't
give this to us and they wouldn't give it tt so we went to the
25X1A
25X1A
Insurance Commissioner and they showed it to us. Their earnings over the
years are shown. I pulled these figures out of a complete
balance sheet.
MR. KIBKPATRICK: Why is there such a variation in their excess
of income over expense? They go from a quarter of a million dollars down
to $37,000-00-
NR,It would be for claims, but within the last couple
of years they bought a building, and we understand they paid for the build-
ing out of that year's profits.
25X1A9a , MR. _: They are trying to soak up their surplus.
25X1A9a
25X1A
25X1A9a
MR. KIRKPATRICK How about Omaha's financial solvency?
MR. passes them. They are the largest hospitali-
zation company in the world, and this is a sister company to that. They
are very substantial in the field of life coverage. Joe, do you want to
comment on whether they're 7th or 8th--
MR, _: They are among the first 50 out of 600 companies in
life, and with their other assets through Mutual of Omaha - which is the
largest of its type in the world - they own several hundred million of
assets.
25X1A9a MR. - We asked- that question.
25X1A MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any other questions on that Insurance Task
- 26 -
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA;
? TIAL
 Approved For Release/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000fQ ,1007-6
CONFIDENTIAL
25X1A9a
Force report? Is it the will of the Board this be approved as submitted?
MR. M So moved.
MR. REYNOLDS: Seconded.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I also would like to move that a formal note of
thanks be issued by the Board to the Task Force members, including the usual
statements to go into their records, with our very great thanks for a long
task arduously pursued.
MR.: The really complex one is yet to come, the hospitali-
zation. I have written most of the stuff on it and the Task Force is con-
sidering the writing now, and all that is
due is a matter of composition
and some dealings with Omaha on betterment of their own plan. Both Omaha
and GEHA have many deficiencies.
MR. When will that be?
MR. Not until we're ready to offer something. When the
General Counsel can wrap up this activity they will send their actuary from
Omaha. John does it in 15 minutes.
MR.~ Is there any question of installing this?
MR. When you're writing an insurance contract it's going
to take a little while, because they get pretty complicated.
25X1A9a MR. -: The big problem is the installation in the Agency.
25X1A9a
retired from the Meeting . . .
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Gentlemen, we have one item on the agenda
still remaining.
25X1A9a MR. _ Are you going to lash us tonight in considering that?
MR. REYNOLDS: If you decide to adjourn, I'm going to be away the
next two Thursdays, and the third Thursday is 1 July, and if I'm not here
I want to go on record as saying that that Regulation as written is
entirely satisfactory to me as the AD/P.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I would think so. You drafted it.
MR. REYNOLDS: And I have gone over it with General Cabell in
great detail.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Are you leaving Monday?
MR. REYNOLDS: No, I am leaving at 11:00 o'clock next Thursday
morning.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Then why can't we schedule a meeting before you
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP~6-01 6R0~6Q0160~~7+6 ENTIAL
 25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved For Releas 004t07Q2QCIA ML WDAJ6004$0w-6
ZFIQW
go? I think that would be preferable. Mr. what free morning is it
that you have?
MR. That disappeared.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any preferences by the Board?
MR. WHITE: Monday is a bad day.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: What about Tuesday? What do we have on Tuesday?
We have an IAC in the morning. Does anybody object to Tuesday afternoon at
4:00 o'clock? All right, Tuesday afternoon at 4:00 o'clock will be the next
.meeting, and this will be Item 1 on the agenda.
Any new business anybody has to bring up this afternoon? If not,
we stand adjourned.
. . . The Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. . . .
28
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-F DP
6001 0007-6
80-01826 6NF1DENTIAL