NOTES FROM MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 4 FEBRUARY 1976 OP'S PROPOSAL FOR A NEW APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT OF AGENCY SUPERGRADE POSITIONS, CEILING AND PERSONNEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00357R000600080027-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 5, 2000
• Sequence Number: 27
• Publication Date: February 4, 1976
• Content Type: MIN

r... .r. r i~sp-?' 9f1 /
ApproveGOd For
Release 2002/05/01 CIA-RDP82-0(7R000600080027-3
4 February 1976
NOTES FROM MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
4 February 1976
OP's Proposal for a New Approach to Management of
Agency Supergrade Positions, Ceiling and Personnel
? C. Duckett opened the discussion by inviting any observations
relative to the D/Pers proposal of 23 Jan 1976.
STATINTL
? alerted the members that their "package" contained STATINTL
STATINTL the original 9 Dec 75 OP paper, a memo from one from
and the current OP proposal dated 23 Jan 76. He asked
that the original 9 Dec 75 memo be disregarded except as a reference
to the revisions adapted in the 23 Jan 76 proposal.
STATINTL
STATINTL
STATINTL
STATINTL
? Mr. Carver stated that as Chief, NIO he agreed wit STATINTL
point (in his memo) that the Intelligence Community organizations
should have supergrade allowances separate from the Agency per se.
Mr. Duckett stated that ICS, NIO etc. got their SG allowances
based on previous justifications (ONE etc) and were part of the
Agency's current
? J. Blake stated that the purpose behind the current proposal was
to establish a new structure for management of supergrade allow-
ances and suggested that the ICS, NIO ceiling topic be reserved STATINTL
for subsequent discussion by the Management Committee. 0 and
Carver agreed,
stated that ICS must have a T/O structure that can accommo-
date the type of senior level officers necessary to do the work of
ICS. He'd like to see SG positions established on the T/O over
and above the SG allowances for ICS.
? Jack Blake, AD/Pers and several other members advised)
OP proposal recommends that this be permitted.
that -_~ATINTL
? J. Blake explained to the members that II had changed the
policy in 1972, requiring that the number of SG positions cannot
exceed the allocated SG ceiling for the component.
0 +'I,t,n rP1 r rrPd to changes made in the current OP
paper that were based on a er teiiminazion ul LIM;
SG Panel) and inclusion (based o paper) of exceptions
to elimination of formal SG status for Contractual officers where
the role of the officer required such status.
Approved For Releks .~QQ2/=01 : clA,_RD.P$2!00357JR0 ,600080027-3
v ui "
 j. h
. 4li
. ~' ' %'l'
ApprovdF- reease 2002/05/01 CIA-RDP82-007R000600080027-3
Mr. Proctor stated that the proposal did not address a problem
he has encountered as regards DDI supergrade careerists on assign-
ment to O/DCI elements who are promoted while on these tours but
whom he simply can't accommodate at their grade level when they
return to the DDI.
? C. Duckett stated that he has had the same problem from time to .
time.
G. Carver stated that it appeared to him that the new SG Board
should have a "say" regarding SG promotions.
? J. Blake asked Mr. Proctor if he had been consulted and given the
chance to coordinate on such promotions when they were initiated.
Mr. Proctor stated that he had been consulted and in effect indi-
cated non-concurrence but the promotions were approved by the DCI.
J. Blake stated that the Board might eventually expand their charter
to review of promotions but suggested that the Management Committee
consider the initial charter as contained in the OP proposal. Once
this is working then consider expansion.
? Mr. Proctor stated that future career assignments must be considered
when people are "detailed" out to other jobs but indicated agree-
ment that that subject could be discussed further rather than in
the context of the current proposal.
? Mr. Duckett stated that the OP proposal stressed oversight by the
Board of SG positions but didn't address SPS position management.
He asked that the concept be expanded to assure SPS'ers the same
consideration as SG's since SPS positions had comparable status.
It was generally agreed that such changes should be made to include
SPS position and ceiling management in the Board's purview.
? stated that he was - without sounding critical concerned
over MUD'S role in SG position reviews. In essence he was con-
cerned with the need to improve PMCD's professional staff capabilities.
He stated that a GS-12 survey officer simply didn't have the experience
to have familiarity with the real scope and impact of substantive
senior level jobs and tended to follow the rules of how many people
were supervised and so on. He believed more senior officers might
be assigned to PMCD to evaluate SG jobs.
? G. Carver added his agreement with views based on his
"experience" that SG jobs were evaluated on " ead--counting" of
subordinates, rather than the functional substance of the job itself.
Messrs Carver) commTINTL
? stated that these (i.e.,
regarding how PMCD arrived at position classification judgments
were not accurate and required his response. He stated that PMCD
.-r, n Ae ~~?r.
Approved Fob-Release-2002/05/ 1 : CIA" RDP,82a.0'03 OQAQQA30027-3
2
 P ?.~r.1j'DLj`,.._ , , I?. q - r I