AGENDA ITEM FOR DEPUTIES MEETING ON 8 DECEMBER 1971

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 120
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 21, 2006
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 4, 1971
• Content Type: MF

[proved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003
TRANA(IITTAL SLIP
Chief, DDS-SOS
Please review the attached and
give me your comments by Wednesday
morning - 8 December 1971.
FROM:
Acting DD/S
FORM N 5 24 I REPLACES FORM 36-8
WHICH MAY BE USED.
EXTENSION
5
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
4 December 1971
L. K. White
Executive Director -Comptroller
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Intelligence
ans
f Pl
SUBJECT
Deputy Director or
Deputy Director for Science & Technology
Deputy Director for Support
General Counsel
Inspector General
Agenda Item for Deputies Meeting on
8 December 1971
You will recall that last spring the Director asked that we
again consider the possibility of changes in our "Information
Processing" activities. On 6 August 1971, I forwarded a draft
memorandum for your consideration and comment. I have read
and considered your comments with care and I am enclosing here-
with a draft memorandum which I want to send to the Director, in
its present or modified form, sometime very soon.
I think we should get together and discuss this one more time
before the memorandum is finalized. I would appreciate it if you
would be prepared to do so on Wednesday, 8 December, 2:30 p. m. ,
in the Director's Conference Room.
Attachment
Draft memorandum
"Information Processing"
cc: D/DCI/NIPE
D/ONE
D/PPB
Cable Secretary
D/Personnel,
Approved For R l sP 9nn6i19/77 M1R1Ra-nn7RnPnn4nn'?Innni_R
nw :rt`iaL~ ~S ati
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
DRAFT:LKW
6 December 1971
SUBJECT: Information Processing
1. With the constantly increasing volume of information received
.by the Agency (and the community), Information Processing is getting
25X1
to be a major and costly program. In total, the Agency program uses
roughl
25X1
With current ?
budgetary constraints and reduced personnel ceilings, it is essential
that we do what we can to manage this program as efficiently and as
cheaply as possible--and I think that continuing on our present course
is unlikely to bring about this result.
2. We have been studying this problem for many years --for the
last two with considerable intensity. The key question is, and has always
been, whether we centralize, decentralize, or do something in between.
To date we have consciously chosen to follow the decentralization route,
attempting at the same time to keep the several centers in tune through
an Information Processing Board chaired by an appointee of the Executive
Director with membership from all the Directorates. This has worked
reasonably well, overseeing the need for new equipment, ensuring
compatibility, etc. It has made little impact, and cannot, on the
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
problem of ensuring that the total machine and people capability of
the several centers is used and operated with maximum efficiency at
the lowest cost.
3. Considering these past years to have been years of relative
plenty, we haven't done too badly and have developed a considerable
capability; in many respects, we need not take a back seat to anyone else
in the business. For several reasons I don't suggest that we change
radically overnight; I do think, however, that we are at a critical point
in time. It is time that we make a major policy decision as to the direc-
tion we want to go and take some steps in this direction now.
4. In my judgment, that direction must be toward centralization.
It is too early to decide whether you want total centralization, but I am
convinced that, for efficiency and cost effectiveness, this is the direc-
tion in which we should be tending.
5. It is understandable that Deputy Directors are reluctant to
lose command of their computer centers. I understand fully their fears
that they might not get the same service. At the same time, I think
their fears are unfounded. The DD/S is already completely dependent
upon the Office of Computer Services for its computer support, and
some of the Clandestine Service's most sensitive programs are also
handled by the OCS computer center, with due regard for security and
compartmentation. Both the command line and the Information
Aooroved For Release 2006/1 29 4t RrlPR4-Clrl7RClRnnic)nn7I001)1-R
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
,Processing Board are vehicles for use if priority service appeals are
necessary. I conclude that the historic negative arguments citing security
protection or priority conflicts are really not well founded.
6. We have in the Office of Communications an outstanding
example of a centrally controlled service to every component of the
Agency, none. of which are in command of the communications facilities
or people who serve them. The' same principle could in time apply to
computer service, and in fact, technology may well force it.
7. What we now call communications and our computer operations
are so closely related that I think there is a distinct possibility that one
of these days these functions may well be merged into a single com-
ponent under a senior officer charged with the Information Processing
function as a whole.
would involve roughl
This is probably too extreme
to think about now, but at the same time, we should not make organiza-
tional or- functional changes or procure new equipment which would make
this impossible or extremely costly at some later date.
8. Whether we call it centralized control or centralized coordina-
tion, we need to take some steps in this direction now. I suggest we
make some changes in our dissemination activities and in the manage-
ment of our Headquarters computer equipment.. ;
25x1
AnnrnvPd Far RPlPasP 2fl16/1 7Cr,n.PP--RfPR4-nn7RORffl:lgffl21ffll1-R
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
-6-
13. With regard to equipment management we have three computer
centers in the Headquarters building (There are other components with
small computers not constituting centers):
a. in the Office of Computer Services--a general purpose
center which serves the Agency as a service of common concern
as well as the specialized needs of DD/S&T;
b. in Records Integration- -(predominantly a name trace
system for the DD/P); and
c. in Central Reference Service--(a document retrieval
and dissemination system for the DD/I).
All these have grown, but there is a tendency on the part of the latter
two to grow beyond the size and purpose for which they were originally
intended. An argument can be made that total consolidation of the
three centers would result in space, manpower, and dollar savings
without a deterioration of service. For the moment, I think we must
accept the fact that. physical consolidation is premature.
r
14. We should, however, be trying to link up our computer centers
so that they can complement each other. Since automatic dissemination
appears to be feasible and is in fact working now in CRS, we should be
developing a system, not two or three. It also ,seems abundantly clear
to me that we should be developing compatible, not competing, systems
SECRET
000r-110/07 - r1n-RnPR4-nn78fR00800210001-8
 Approved FQr Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
whether or not we. ever consolidate physically, and this obviously
requires compatible equipment and standards common to all centers.
Theoretically, this can be done by an Information Processing Board
responsible to the Executive Director-Comptroller. Others would
prefer a Special Assistant to the Executive Director-Comptroller for
this purpose. Another supported position is centralized line manage-
ment. If there really are strong differences of opinion among the
Directorates, only the Executive Director-Comptroller can make a
decision or a recommendation to the Director. This is not to say that
a Board or a Special Assistant is not useful, but neither can settle the
tough ones, and sometimes a lot of time and effort are wasted before
the problem can really be decided. There is also the likelihood of a
compromise which really does not represent the best solution. I would,
however, suggest that the Information Processing Board, possibly
with more senior representation from the Directorates, be retained.
15. In addition to the dollar and space problems, there are other
things to consider. The level of technical expertise varies among the
centers, there is competition among them for recruits, and career
opportunity varies considerably. We are not talking now about systems
analysts and applications programmers--those who in concert with the
user define a problem and design a solution by machine. We are talking
about the machine operator and the so-called systems programmer, the
P84-nn7RnR003 I~nne~f90 n0n
rrr~iro'J Cnr Rclca'CC ~nnnr~9/7 '?..Ltf r~ 10001-8
 Approved Fpr Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
latter being knowledgeable of the insides of the machine and the control
programs to make it operate without regard to the specific application
or project.
16. I therefore recommend that:
a. we leave the three existing computer centers in place;
b. with due regard for security and compartmentation, the
centers be linked to an in-house network to provide both backup
and a more effective utilization of machine resources;
c. management responsibility (including budget control and
career development) for ADP equipment acquisitions and operations
and for the operators and systems programmers related thereto
be transferred to the Office of Computer Services, DD/S&T; and,
d. the Information Processing Board, with more senior
representation from the Directorates, be retained to advise the
Executive Director-Comptroller and the Director on Information
Processing Policy.
L. K. White
Executive Director -Comptroller
The recommendations in paragraphs 12 and 16 are approved.
Director of Central Intelligence
annrrnrcrl Pn RaI ca 7nnr,i1 /5f F iI -RfPR4-on7RQR003g00 1ooo1-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
25X1
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27SE"
Mr. Wattles :
I don't know whether I can be helpful to you in the time available
on this information processing paper or not, and I don't know how much
of what I might say about it would be something that Mr. Coffey would
be willing to carry forward. I can try to tell you what I think but the
whole question has so much background and history and so many complexities
that it really seems unfair to put you in a position of having to respond on
such short notice.
As usual we have a bevy of solutions, partial and incomplete, searching
madly for problems to which they can relate. To begin with, I do not accept
the definition that information processing is a major and costly program.
Information processing is not a single program. A collection of computers,
centralized or decentralized, does not constitute an information processing
program. Just because the Office of Finance uses a computer to produce a
payroll doesn't mean that the production of the payroll is an information
processing activity.
I would quarrel with the contention that we have been studying this
problem for many years--the fact is we have studiously avoided studying
the problem. We have been discussing for many years organizational
changes and centralization of computer hardware as solutions to a problem
which has never been defined. We have not consciously chosen to follow
the decentralization route--we have consciously avoided the confrontations
which would be necessary to centralize. The fact is we have simply
accepted the situation as it existed each time the question has been
circuitously addressed.
I would not agree that the Information Processing Board has worked
reasonably well, I am not even sure it has been very much better than
nothing. I can't recall attending a Board meeting where there has been
a negative vote. I can recall several where at least one and usually more
than one of the members have declined to vote because the information
available to it was too sparse to permit its rendering a reasoned judgment.
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27 SEC
The Board does not have available to it the staff support necessary to produce
the documentation necessary to permit intelligent, knowledgeable, and
reasoned judgments. The Executive Director-Comptroller approved the
acquisition of the IBM 370/195 by the Office of Computer Services without
Board action. A second PDP-11 computer was approved for the Office of
Central Reference also without Board action. I was not asked to vote on
the PDP-11, nor was anyone in the Support Directorate as nearly as I can
find out, because I was on leave at the time the action was taken. In the
case of the 370/195 the Board had been given a couple of informational briefings
on OCS plans but the specific proposal for acquisition was not submitted for
Board action. A telephone poll of the membership was conducted and my
response was that we needed to know more about the requirements before
we could make a judgment.
In short, most actions of any import have been taken by the Executive
Director-Comptroller without a Board action, presumably on the recom -
mendation of the Board Chairman. The Board has never attempted to imple-
ment the memorandum issued by the Executive Director-Comptroller in
October 1969 (copy attached).
No one has ever demonstrated that centralizing computer equipment
to serve the diversity of needs of this Agency will, in fact, be cheaper or
more efficient. There has never been an analysis to show that the hypo -
thetical economies attributed to centralization are either real or sufficient
to offset the loss of effectiveness of service which follows removal of a clean
and tidy operation from the control of the management it serves and submerges
it in a huge conglomeration of activities serving diverse interests. On the
other hand, no one has ever demonstrated the converse--that the loss of
responsiveness--effectiveness resulting from giving control of computer
operations over to a central organization is so great that it cannot be
offset by the hypothetical savings in costs.
Other than the fact that Colonel White is retiring I don't know of
anything that makes this anymore critical a time than the earlier occasions
when the question has been raised particularly when we still don't have a
clear idea of what it is exactly that we are trying to achieve other than an
evasively hypothetical improvement in economy and efficiency.
In paragraph 5 the statement is made that the DD/S is already com-
pletely dependent upon the Office of Computer Services for its computer
support. The implication is that we have no problems and we have not lost
effectiveness; in short, everything is roses. This is not true. Although
it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible to document, the fact is that
scientific and technical applications have always taken priority over our
interests. In fact, the present management of the Office of Computer
SECRET
Approved For Release 2006/12/27 IA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/~ A RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
Services does not appreciate, and some would say does not even comprehend,
the magnitude or significance of Support interests in information processing.
The Office of Computer Services acts unilaterally in the selection and
installation of hardware and software and in the process Support applications
have suffered. When the Office of Computer Services installed a software
system known as CP/CMS (Control Program/ Cambridge Monitor System)
the adverse effect upon the SANCA system was so great that the Office of
Security reverted to manual searches. In saying this we have to acknowledge
that OCS did in fact make a monumental effort to correct the problem and
they did eventually correct it but it took an uncomfortably long time. Since
then another software system has been installed and while the SANCA service
is acceptable it has never been as satisfactory as it was before the first
major software change was made. The ABC (Automated Budget Control
System) has suffered during the settling-in stages of the new software
installation with the result that the system gets a bad press and public
relations for the whole SIPS effort are shot even further toward hell.
The fact that most of these problems are eventually overcome does not,
in my judgment, completely offset the inconvenience and disadvantages
which accrue to the Support customers. The software systems that have
been installed improve service to the scientific and computational applications
but have not yet done anything to improve service to the Support applications.
These allegations have a basis in fact which is extremely difficult to document.
I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that the paper holds the Office of
Communications up as an outstanding example of a centrally controlled service
which might serve as a pattern for Computer Services on the one hand with the
recommendation on the other hand that automated dissemination be split.
There seems to be something conceptually wrong, or at least inconsistent, here.
The fact that "what we now call Communications" (what else would you
ever call it) must communicate data does not to my mind establish such a
close relationship with Computer Services that a merger might one of these
days be contemplated. Data has to be moved from one place to another.
The fact that it is now going to be done electronically instead of by courier
or pony express doesn't lead me inevitably to the conclusion that the data
processors should be merged with the communicators. I don't know that
there is any harm in such a merger but neither do I know what problem
it would solve. As a matter of fact, who is going to address the problems
it would create and w will they be addressed? Are we talking about
mergin Ishop, which is really the only piece of the Office
of Communications directly related to computer services functionally in
that it is the shop that transmits the data that has to be communicated, or
are we talking about all of the Office of Communications? Presumably the
latter.
SECRET
-3-
Aooroved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-For Release 2006/12/27: CIARDP8400780R003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27 : S R
I suspect you will get some words from Scotty about the allegation that
the Central Reference Service already has in operation a system which would
be incompatible with the proposed automation of the Cable Secretariat function.
As far as I know the CRS system is still under development and is not in fact
fully operational. They have done some experimentation and testing but they
really haven't proven much of anything. One of the irritants here is that CRS
went at their system in the manner in which one does when one has available
to him the equipment and facilities to permit experimentation and experimental
development while those who do not have the facilities attempt to develop plans
and programs systematically forthrightly and reasonably are prevented from
following through to their reasoned conclusions. Commo and the Cable
Secretary went at their proposal in the "right way" by doing thorough system
analysis and studies and producing carefully thought out phased plans while
CRS proceeded one piece at a time without the careful preliminary work.
Having said all of this, it is probably useless to pursue it in the face
of what seems to be a firm determination to do something. There probably
is no useful purpose to be served by our becoming involved in the hardware
discussion. We are already functioning as though equipment were centralized.
We are vitally interested, however, in paragraph 16c and our interest there
is not so much with what is said but what is not said. If that recommendation
is accepted the machine operators and so-called systems programmers would
be transferred from RID and CRS to OCS leaving behind systems analysts and
applications programmers. The Support Directorate has none of these
capabilities now except as they reside in the SIPS Task Force and, specifically,
in the OCS Management Support Division piece of the Task Force. If the logic
that analysts and applications programmers who work in concert with the user
to define a problem and design a solution by machine should reside with the
user Directorates then the Support Directorate should have that capability.
The only way we can get it is if the Management Support Division of the
Office of Computer Services is transferred to the Support Directorate and
recommendation 16c should be rounded out in that fashion.
The intent and purpose of paragraph 16d recommending the retention
of the Information Processing Board with more senior representation from
the Directorates is not clear. In most cases more senior representation
can only mean that the Assistant Deputy Directors would constitute the Board.
Another possibility is that the intent may be only to change the DD/S&T
representation. At the moment Jack lams is the Information Processing
Coordinator for DD/S&T. He is also the Director of Computer Services
which puts him in a peculiar and not entirely satisfactory position. Regardless
of membership, however, I don't see how the Board can be an effective
mechanism (1) if it is not going to be used by the Chairman and the Executive
Director-Comptroller and (2) if it does not have available to it the staff
assistance necessary to dig into the detail and develop the documentation
required to form the basis for reaching reasonable conclusions and decisions.
I wish you good luck.
AnnrnirPrl_ Fnr RJ se 2DORii1?/?_~Z'IR=R1?P84-OI)780R003 00 10001-8_
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
AOR~I ~ISTR ??t -- I=IITERNAL USE ONLY
DRAFT
30 September 1971
Mr. Coffey via Mr. Wattles:
Reasons--rationale--for transferring MSD to DDS.
1. Management- -Span of Control
DD/S and his Office Directors must maintain control over their own
systems--what goes into them (input); what happens to it while it's there (processing);
and what the systems produce (output). The scope of the systems must correspond
with the scope of the manager's responsibility for those systems. Having MSD
in OCS gives OCS responsibility for determining the process and the output.
2. Establishment of Priorities
DD/S must be in a position to decide and control which applications
among competing interests of the components of the Support Directorate should
receive computer support in what order. Having MSD in OCS means OCS decides
the order of priority for dealing with DD/S requirements or that our requirements
are handled first in--first out.
3. Maintenance and Development
a. SIPS systems are highly integrated- -they cut across functional roles
and responsibilities of individual offices; consequently they must be managed
and maintained under Directorate management. Maintenance and responsiveness
ADMINISTRATIVE - LNTERNAL USE ONLY
AnnrnvPri Fnr RPIPase 2006119127 - C lA-RIlP84-00780R003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 20i~~~ u14-Rgfr700210001-8
to current requirements must not be allowed to become the all
encompassing concern. We must be in a position to keep current
with the state of the art, even push it when desirable, and this can
only be done if we have all of the resources under our own management
control so we can determine their appropriate day to day allocation
between maintenance and development.
b. SIPS systems, as large and inclusive as they are, still represent
only a fraction of the data processing requirements of the Support
Directorate. The EPIC system is only one example of a large on-going
system outside the scope of SIPS.
another; the Headquarters space allocation system is yet another. Other
requirements are in the offing; OMS has a contract to develop a Medical
Information system; OTR is interested in computer assisted instruction
and in using the computer to apply and teach the application of DELPHI
techniques; and OMS/PSS is interested in test scoring and the production
of assessment summaries on-line. These are but a few of today's known
requirements. We are certain that there will be new ones evolving
continually. We must be in a position to evaluate them not only in terms
of operational and managerial benefits, but in terms of technical feasibility,
practicality and cost. We must then be in a position to allocate resources
accordingly rather than rely on OCS in another Directorate to make these
determinations.
AONf~ iS ATF - i E NAL USE ORY
-2-
Annrnvarl Fnr RPIPacP 9nnri/19/77? (-:IA-RfPR4-(1O7R0ROd:39Od210001-8
 Approved For Release 2009MR(ffiTRft, ERDPIIAI if ff q Mp0210001-8
4. Pre-SIPS and Early SIPS Experience
a. Before the SIPS project was undertaken the Support Directorate
was totally reliant on OCS for all aspects of ADP support. Our require -
ments were served by direct relationships between the individual Support
Offices and their established contacts in the Management Support Division
of OCS. Problems were dealt with piecemeal. MSD resources were fully
committed to responding to individual requirements as they were identified.
There was no planning or control at either the Office or the Directorate
level. Fully committed resources not under our management control
precluded our reallocating or diverting them to work on new broader
systems development.
b. When the SIPS project was undertaken agreements were reached
with OCS that personnel in agreed upon numbers with agreed upon skills
would be made available at agreed upon specified times to work full time
on the SIPS development. This didn't happen until MSD was placed under
DD/S direction in the Task Force. There were a variety of reasons for
this; some good and some not so good; the fact remains. DDS/SIPS people
were in contest with DDS&T/OCS people. Adversary roles evolved;
personal rivalries developed; cooperation was retarded because these
problems had to be overcome. They have been overcome by having all
resources under single management in the Task Force- -but it has been
a long hard pull.
ADMINISTRATIVE - 6HEUHAL USE ONLY
-3-
Aooroved Eor_ Release 2006/12/27 IA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27 2006/12/27? , IA-R P. 4Q0jf0 (3900210001-8
5. Support Applications vs All Others
a. We should be in a position to evaluate and select software
and influence the selection of hardware to be used in support of our
applications and we need the competence available in MSD to do that.
OCS adoption of new software last year without complete prior
coordination with customers caused serious deterioration of system
response to the SANCA application, for example. OS had to revert to
manual searches for several weeks and months elapsed before the
software problems were overcome and response times reached a
consistently acceptable level. The system never has returned to the
level of performance achieved before that software was installed.
b. Recent installation of another software package resulted in
serious deterioration of the ABC system. Report production deadlines
were missed negating the value of the system for at least one report cycle.
c. We have had some very difficult negotiations with OCS management
relating to their hardware plan, the scheduled installation of new systems
and timing of changeovers in relation to scheduled implementation of
the GIMS software and SIPS systems generally, OCS promises stability
during the period of SIPS testing and implementation but we continue to
be nervous about it.
d. Without the technical competence available in MSD to comprehend
all of the hardware and software nuances we would be unable to comprehend
the potential impact/ consequences and represent our interests adequately
in any OCS actions affecting our systems.
ADMIMSTRfis iVE - I'V r ER AL USE ONLY
-4-
Aooroved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 200;
II D IFEao
V
6. General Observations
a. DDI and DDP have both justified their own hardware on the
basis of its being an integral part of the operations it supports. They
have their own programming and systems capability as well. They
haven't had the problem of making a case for having the "people"
resources without the hardware as we are attempting to do. I am
quite confident, however, that they would agree that the "people"
resources need to be with the management systems they serve rather
than with the hardware. I believe we can say that MSD "people" resources
have been almost fully dedicated to DD/S throughout their history; that
ADP technical people function most effectively when they have indepth
understanding of the components they are serving and the functions they
perform; and that the role of the MSD people would not change significantly
by transfer to DD/S.
b. The centralization vs decentralization issue is drawn with economy
and effective use of hardware on one side and effective support to component
operations and management on the other. It seems to be generally accepted
that decentralized computers serve operating interests best and that
centralized computers would serve Agency space and budgetary interests
best. There has never been any attempt to evaluate the overall cost
benefit of centralized computing against the aggregate operational benefit
of decentralized computing or--stated another way--to evaluate the comparative
operating benefit of decentralization against the degradation of service that
might result from centralizing.
ADMINISIRATI?JE - I siERNAL USE ONLY
Aooroved For Release 2006/12/27 ~IA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 :Approved For Release 2006/1
4 August 1971
Mr. Coffey via Mr. Wattles:
Attached are three memorandums dealing with the subject of managing
support information processing activities for your consideration and signature
if you approve.
The rumor mill has been saying for some time thati as 25X
presented to Colonel White a memorandum for his discussion with the Director
which would recommend that computing equipment be under centralized manage-
ment and everything else transferred to the Directorates. I asked_h f he 25X
would be willing to confirm, deny, or refraJ from comment about these
rumors and he told me that Colonel White has had-a memorandum or some
time which would do approximately what the rumors said. I as now been 25X
tasked to rewrite the memorandum to shorten and sharpen it considerably to
say essentially that the Cable Secretariat is abolished; responsibility for
dissemination will be split between the Office of Communications and the
Central Reference Service; that responsibility for the acquisition and manage-
ment of hardware and systems software would be under the Office of Computer
Services. The memorandum does not deal positively with the remaining
functions of OCS. It will not meet that issue head-on but will carry the
implication that the MSD type of functions should be performed in the Directorates
by the detail from OCS of the people necessary to do the job. has been 25X
charged with having this memorandum ready for Colonel White to circulate to
the Deputies for coordination before he goes on leave Friday re uesting that
comments be ready for him when he returns from leave. Iwill be on 25X
his world tour from about 15 August until the latter part of September. )
From conversations with about other things
I would expect the DD/I to take a very strong position against any form of
centralization. As a matter of fact, they chide me about the DD/S position
implying that it tends to weaken theirs.
centralized management of equipment but when he says such things he is always
careful to make the point that he does not speak for DD/P. I would expect DD/P
to take a position against centralization particularly since he has just gone
through a reorganization to create an information division.
when he is speaking for himself, seems to lean toward
CONFIDENTIAL
 Approved For Release 2006/1 fftRII At0078OR003900210001-8
DD/S&T will probably be forced into a "favoring motherhood" position
or one of neutrality, particularly with Climenson away for a year or two.
I believe the position taken in the attached correspondence is a reasonable
one for DD/S to adopt unless you feel we should go after the whole ball of wax
and ask for the hardware as well.
RHW
 'Approved For Release 2006/12/2
DD/S 71-3034
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Science and Technology
SUBJECT : Management of Support Information Processing Activities
1. If we are not already overdue, the time is at least fast approaching
when we have to have a solid plan and commitment to a management structure
which will permit the Support Directorate to operate and maintain SIPS applica-
tions after they have been implemented; respond to new requirements; respond
to support information requirements outside the scope of the SIPS applications;
and insure that we are able to stay reasonably current with the state-of-the-art
in applying computer technology to our functions. The SIPS Task Force has
served us well over the past three years but task forces are not suitable as
permanent organizational entities for all of the obvious reasons.
2. Looking forward to the time when the f& ould have served
its purpose, we contracted wit bout a year ago to
survey our requirements and a vise us about how we should structure ourselves
for the long term. They submitted their first report last October and said in
it that information processing requirements of the Support Directorate could
best be met by having all of the hardware, software, and human resources
necessary to develop, implement, and operate our systems under the command
jurisdiction of the Deputy Director for Support. Bowing to the apparent trend
in the Agency toward centralization, they did not recommend transfer of hard-
ware to the Support Directorate or even the dedication of some hardware con-
figuration to support requirements. They did recommend, however, that all
of the Management Support Division of the Office of Computer Services which
is now a part of the SIPS Task Force be transferred to the Support Directorate.
We were unable at that time to get the agreement of the Director of Computer
Services or the Chairman of the Information Processing Board. In deference
to this lack of agreement the consultants modified their recommendation to
C~i!?L'P ~ _~~
CONFIDENTIAL
deelassitlcatla4
- 1-8
 :Approved For Release 2006/12/27 80R003900210001-8
say that requirements of the Support Directorate could be met by transferring
a substantial portion of the Management Support Division to the Support
Directorate and arranging for the detail or rotational assignment of OCS
personnel. Further discussion among the principal parties of interest led
to the conclusion that DD/S should state his position and proceed from there.
3. To get on with our planning I have prepared the attached memorandum
to the Executive Director-Comptroller. It says that I believe the information
processing requirements of the Support Directorate would be served best if
we had all of the hardware, software, and human resources under our command
jurisdiction. I have prepared the paper in this way to put on the record what
I believe would be the best solution but I have only recommended that the
Management Support Division be transferred. I would like to have your
concurrence with this recommendation but if you feel you cannot agree with
it as stated I would be pleased to discuss it with you at your early convenience.
John W. Coffey
Deputy Director
for Support
F E T Al
 Approved For Release iflMIM78OR003900210001-8
DD/S 71-3015
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Director -Comptroller
SUBJECT
: Management of Support Information Processing Systems
1. Paragraph 9 of this memorandum contains a recommendation for
your approval.
2. Before the end of this year we are scheduled to begin implementation
of information processing systems as major increments of the SIPS project.
The new payroll system is scheduled to become operational in late fall or early
winter. The Generalized Information Management (GIM) System is expected to
be ready in February or March and the next significant increment of the SIPS
systems is scheduled for implementation immediately after GIMS is installed
and tested. The impending implementation of these and the remaining SIPS
systems make it imperative that we prepare ourselves with the resources
and organization necessary to ensure their maintenance and continuing
modernization after they have become operational.' We cannot afford to get
into a position ever again where another effort in the magnitude of the SIPS
project might become necessary. Additionally, we must be able to provide
for the systematic consideration and development of new systems to support
requirements not included in the scope of the present SIPS projects, and we
must be able to provide for the systematic management and control of all of
these activities.
3. Systems developed as parts of the SIPS program are integrated systems
designed in the concept that we would minimize duplication of data entered into
the systems and stored and processed by them. Under this concept one collection
of data is manipulated in a variety of ways to serve the requirements of multiple
users. In one way or another these systems are to be used by every component
in the Agency, hence every component of the Agency must be considered a user.
In a more narrow focus, single systems must be equally responsive to all
management levels in the Support Directorate. One system will serve equally
EX 0 eo nom outemsne
CONFIDENTIAL _ U~aai
dD>7ngraotog aD0
dectaSStuc itgR
Aooroved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R0039002 1-8
 Approved For Release 2006/1
AID
the management requirements of the Directors of Logistics and Finance; another
system will serve equally the Directors of Personnel and Finance; and a third
will serve equally the Directors of Personnel, Security, Training, and Medical
Services. The systems must serve each of these offices without detriment to
the needs of the other; they must be responsive to the requirements of one
Office Director without allowing that responsiveness to dictate changes which
might affect adversely the operations of another office. Because the systems
cut across organizational and functional lines of individual Support Offices they
are Directorate systems in the broadest sense, yet at the same time they are
office systems in the narrowest sense. Systems which are as closely integrated
as the SIPS systems are unique in Agency experience and we must plan a new
system and structure for their management that will be fully responsive to
that uniqueness.
4. There can be little question that these requirements would be satisfied
best if all of the resources necessary to meet them were under a single command
jurisdiction in the Support Directorate. Agency experience in other Directorates
seems to have proven that systems function most satisfactorily in terms of
operational effectiveness if all of the resources, including the hardware,
necessary to their functioning are integral parts of the operations they serve.'
A strong case can be made to support the contention that support information
processing systems would function most effectively and that we would be in
the best position to ensure that our systems capability stays current with the
state-of-the-art if we had direct management control over all of the hardware,
software, and human resources needed to meet our requirements. Short of
that, the next best way to meet our needs would be to have the resources fully
dedicated to supporting support systems.
5. As you know, in the interests of overall Agency economy and manage-
ment of computer resources the Support Directorate has accepted a philosophy.
of centralization of computer resources even at some cost to the operational
effectiveness of our systems. We can continue to live with that philosophy if
the Agency pursues the policy of centralizing the management of computer
centers. If, on the other hand, the computer centers operating independently
in the other Directorates continue to grow and expand as fast or faster than
the "Central" facility I feel that the Support Directorate would be remiss in
its responsibility to provide the most effective systems possible if we did not
request a re-evaluation of our current posture.
6. Accepting some sacrifice in the total effectiveness of our systems,
I believe we can continue to function in a reasonably satisfactory fashion without
complete control of the hardware and without even having a suitable configuration
of equipment dedicated to our systems. We can rely on the Office of Computer
CONFIDENTIAL
-2 -
Aoorov d For R .I .asp 2nnEi12I27 - ('IA-RnPR4-nn7RnRnn'lQnn91nnn1-R
 Approved For Release 2006/12/270 tAL80R003900210001-8
Services to furnish the computer support to meet our needs as we have been
doing since that Office came into existence but within that framework we must
be in the strongest possible position to represent our interests in the hardware-
software environment and in the evolution of these tools whether or not they
are under our control.
7. Experience with the SIPS program in the early days of its development
demonstrated that all of the technical competence necessary to develop, design,
and program applications to meet our needs must be available within the Support
Directorate. In recognition of this need to bring to bear competence in computer
technology together with competence in substantive Support areas; in recognition
of the fact that these combined competences are necessary to the maintenance
of current programs, improvement to them, and the need to respond to new
day-to-day requirements as they occur; and in recognition of the fact that the
satisfaction of all of these requirements is dependent upon the allocation of
resources according to priorities which can be equitably judged only by the
management served by these systems, the DD/S and the DD/S&T agreed in
November 1968 to the establishment of the SIPS Task Force. The Task Force
consists of the Management Support Division of OCS and the Information Pro-
cessing Branch of the Support Services Staff. The Task Force Director reports
to and takes direction and guidance from the Deputy Director for Support. The
Task Force Director has full responsibility for the SIPS developmental projects
as well as the maintenance of on-going systems and he has full authority to
deploy the combined manpower to satisfy overall DD/S needs at any given time.
8. The Task Force arrangement has been a reasonably satisfactory
means of making available to the Support Directorate the competence it needs
to satisfy its information processing requirements.' It has demonstrated the
need for the Support Directorate to have this collective capability available
permanently.' Task Force arrangements, however, are not suitable as
permanent entities.
9. It is recommended, therefore, that you approve the transfer of
the Management Support Division in its entirety from the Office of Computer
Services to the Support Directorate and the transfer of the Information
Processing Branch from the Support Services Staff to be combined with the
Management Support Division into a new Support Information Processing
Staff reporting directly to the Deputy Director for Support.
John W. Coffey
Deputy Director
for Support
CU 1 E T[ [
-3-
Annrovpd Far Release 7nnR/17/77 ? C:IA-RnPRd-nn7RnPnn'~Qnn'3^ nnni_P
 Approved For Release 2006/12/tt- n-Ifftf
nr780R003900210001-8
Deputy Director for Science and Technology Date
The recommendation in paragraph 9 is approved.
Executive Director -Comptroller Date
Distribution:
Orig - Return to DD/S
1 -ER
1 - DD/S Subject
1 - DD/S Chrono
1 - DD/S&T
C 4FI E 'IAL
 Approved For Release 2006112/27 :
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Communications
Director of Finance
Director of Logistics
Director of Medical Services
Director of Personnel
Director of Security
Director of Training
DD/S 71-3071
SUBJECT : Management of Support Information Processing Activities
1. We are fast approaching the time when we must have a definitive plan
for the management of Support information processing activities after the current
SIPS developmental effort reaches the stage of implementation where the task
force arrangement will have served its purpose. Systems developed as parts
of the SIPS program are integrated systems designed in the concept that we
would minimize duplication of data entered into the systems and stored and
processed by them. Under this concept one collection of data is manipulated
in a variety of ways to serve the requirements of multiple users. In one way
or another these systems are to be used by every component in the Agency,
hence every component of the Agency must be considered as a user. In a
more narrow focus, single systems must be equally responsive to all manage-
ment levels in the Support Directorate. One system will serve equally the
management requirements of the Directors of Logistics and Finance; another
system will serve equally the Directors of Personnel and Finance; and a third
will serve equally the Directors of Personnel, Security, Training, and Medical
Services. The systems must serve each of these offices without detriment to
the needs of the other; they must be responsive to the requirements of one
office Director without allowing that responsiveness to dictate changes which
might affect adversely the operations of another office.
2. Because the systems cut across organizational and functional lines
of individual Support Offices they are Directorate systems in the broadest sense.
Systems which are as closely integrated as the SIPS systems are unique in Agency
GROUP I
eafj
Iram arooi ateg aaA
CONFIDENTIAL doww~n ~xc-agr
j
aecrass-ttcatiaa
 Approved For Release 2006/12/ t 780R003900210001-8
experience and we must plan a new system and structure for their management
that will be fully responsive to that uniqueness. We must have a solid plan and
commitment to a management structure which will permit the Support Directorate
to operate and maintain SIPS applications after they have been implemented; to
respond to new requirements; to respond to support information requirements
outside the scope of the SIPS applications; and to ensure that we are able to stay
reasonably current with the state-of-the-art in applying computer technology to
our functions. We cannot afford to allow ourselves ever again to get into the
position where another effort in the magnitude of the SIPS project might become
necessary.
3. Because SIPS systems are uniquely integrated and serve equally the
interests of the Agency, the Directorate, and the individual Support Offices
we must provide a management structure which will serve those interests
correspondingly well. I have submitted to the Executive Director-Comptroller
and the Deputy Director for Science and Technology a proposal to make available
to the Support Directorate the technical competence we need for the future after
the task force has served its purpose. I would see this as a staff structure
reporting directly to the Deputy Director for Support. I would like to see
attitudes and relationships develop which would permit this group to serve as
a staff arm of each of the Support Offices as well as the Deputy Director for
Support. Each of you should use it as though it were a staff within your own
office. I would expect that individual staff officers in each of your components
who are directly concerned with the planning and development of your informa-
tion systems to work very closely with and take direction from the Chief of the
Information Processing Staff. All plans and proposals for experimentation
with information processing techniques; for the development of new informa-
tion processing applications; and for the change or modification of existing
systems including such actions as are currently handled by the processing
of work orders, would be submitted to the Chief of the Information Processing
Staff and would be discussed with him in the earliest formative, information
gathering stages.
4. To ensure that information processing plans, projections and proposals
are fully coordinated; priorities are equitably adjudicated; the merits of on-going
systems are regularly evaluated; the worthiness of new proposals is properly
judged; and the impact of proposed changes or new developments receives
appropriate management consideration I am hereby establishing an Information
Processing Review Board composed of the Chief of the Information Processing
Staff, the Deputy Directors of each of the Support Offices, and Chaired by the
Support Directorate Information Processing Coordinator. The Information
Processing Review Board will meet biweekly or at the call of the Chairman.
61FITIAL
-2-
Approved For Release 2n06/12197 - ('IA-RnPR4-nn7RnRnnRann innni-R
 `Approved For Release 2006/1 2 fj ~00780R003900210001-8
5. All personnel in the Support Directorate who are engaged in information
processing related activities will be members of the Support ("S") Career Service
but will be managed separately from the Support generalist category. The
Information Processing Review Board will function as the Career Board for
Support Information Processing careerists. The Board will be supported by
the DD/S Career Management Officer. Personnel presently incumbering
positions to be incorporated in this career management system will be offered
the opportunity to elect to retain their present career service designations or
be transferred into the "S" service. Personnel who elect to retain their present
service designations will be replaced by Support Information Processing careerists
when the present incumbents are reassigned. Exceptions to this general rule
will require the approval of the Information Processing Review Board.
6. The provisions of this memorandum become effective immediately.
John W. Coffey
Deputy Director
for Support
G N.F UE TlAL
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR00390021000
Having in mind "communications" as a topic
of interest at the Support Conference, here are
three "policy" tidbits that might be passed along
but for the "tradition" that items raised at Deputies'
meetings are not widely discussed.
Do you think we would cause any eyebrows to
raise if we put these in a "newsletter"?
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP0078OR003900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For ReleasS E /27 : CIA-RDP84-0078OR0039
7DDuYivo
1 October 1971
D D / . S F 1~ ISTRY'
F I L E
Cam/
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Study - "Organization of Former Employees of CIA"
REFERENCE: Memorandum to Executive Director, same subject,
from S. Herman Horton
The referent study was discussed at some length at a
meeting of the Deputies on 22 September 1971. The minute of 25X1
that meeting relating to this subject reads as follows:
25X1
"8. The final to is was a discussion of the study
prepared b on the possible organiza-
tion of former emp ogees o CIA. x-
plained that he attempted to present the facts as he
saw them without endorsing any particular approach.
There was a very full discussion of the subject with
a general recognition that there were positive aspects
to the establishment of an Alumni Association which
must be balanced against certain real disadvantages.
On balance, the consensus appeared to be negative
but not conclusively so. There did appear to be com-
plete agreement that if an association of former em-
ployees is to be formed, the organization of such a
group should be handled by former employees rather
than by the Agency. Colonel White agreed to brief
the Director on the group's reaction to this proposal
and report back. "
I subsequently discussed this subject with the Director,
reporting to him on the discussion by the Deputies at our meeting
.on 22 September 1971. As a result of these. deliberations, it has
been decided to take no further action on is time.
L. K. White
Executive Director -Comptroller
SECRET
fRO:F~' 1
fit?ada~ ~a~ r::{i aL'c
tln:~~;ridirts a~S
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003902ff D-8
SECRET _
1 October 1971 ,
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Leave of Absence to Permit Agency Employees to
Accompany Their Spouses to Other Geographic Areas
This was a subject of discussion at a Deputies Meeting
on 21 July 1971, and at a subsequent Deputies Meeting on 22 September
. 1971. The minute of that Meeting relating to that subject reads as
follows:
" 2. The group reviewed the regulatory changes
necessary to implement the previously agreed policy
relative to female employees who accompany their
husbands on overseas assignments. There was no
problem with the revised wording of HHB~ but all 25x1
present believed that the Agreement to be signed by the
spouse before her departure should be more specific
relative to job availability and the grade of the position
available. It was agreed that the wording would be
modified by D/Pers and forwarded to the Executive Director
for discussion with the Director. "
I subsequently discussed this subject with the Director.
At the moment and until we know the full impact of personnel
strength reductions, average grade rollback, etc., the Agency
needs to maintain maximum flexibility in the administration of our
personnel program. The proposed change in policy would ob-
viously leave us less flexibility than we now have. For these
reasons, no further action will be taken on this proposal at this
time.
L. K. White
Executive Director-Comptroller
Ez' t G~CI't '"
S ~jRE ssr'i1 t
Annrnv?d For Release 2006112127 TA-F~ P84-00780R003900210001-8 ^----
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
u aET
K
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Intelligence
Deputy Director for Plans
Deputy Director for Science and Technology
Deputy Director for Support
D/DCI/NIPE
D/ONE
General Counsel
Inspector General
SUBJECT: Agenda for the Deputies Meeting on
22 September 1971
At our meeting at 2:30 p. m., on Wednesday, 22 July,
we shall discuss the following subjects:
1. Study - "Organization of Former Employees of CIA" -
2. Leave of Absence for Employees tuAccompany Spouses
-to Overseas Assignments. HHBIUI (attached) 25x1
cc: D/Personnel
Attachment
L. K. White
Executive Director -Comptroller
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
22 September 1971
NOTE FOR: Mr. Coffey
Canvass for Spouses' Visit was initiated by phone calls to Directorate
representatives on 8 September with replies requested by 16 September.
Conditions for Canvass Expressed to Representatives
I said that:
1. Some interest evidenced in program similar to last year's.
2. Canvass necessary to determine if sufficient number of employees
Interested to justify effort.
3. Estimate of number interested required to decide if general, rather
than by Directorate, briefing would suffice.
4. Not restricted to spouses, but could include immediate family; e.g.,
mother, father, and mature, responsible children.
5. Wanted total number only, including employees.
Reactions of Representatives
1. DD/P - SSA said that DD/P was restricting to spouses
only and was not especially pleased over the prospect of visit. Harry responded
to my request without making any supplementary comments.
2. DD/I - Believe he said that Intelligence Directorate showed
considerable interest. STAT
3. DD/S &T I
I Also indicated that S&T Directorate STAT
employees quite interested.
4. DCI & Independent Offices
reported considerable interest as evidenced Fy-total of 245.
 pproved F6r.Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-
DID z_
lroved..For.. Release --006/.12/27 _C;IA-RnP84-nn7RnRnn-Agnn2I nnni-
NOTE FOR: Mr. Coffey
17 September 1971
In response to your question about the origin
of the spouses' visits to headquarters, the first
five paragraphs of Attachment A succinctly des-
cribe the origin of the program. STAT
Attachment B records the results of a June
1971 meeting chaired b Your
comment on the routing slip suggested a canvass
in September 1971. This, together with the. cur -
rent availability of the Reber display of various
Agency memorabilia, prompted me to initiate
the survey.
Although I did not expect much interest to
be shown so soon after other spouse visits, I
must confess that I am impressed by the response
(Attachment C) and believe it should be an indica-
tion that employees consider this a very worthwhile
annual event.
 proved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR0030001-
STAT
16 September 1971
LD.P/es:
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
TAB
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
DD/S 70-2948
C~ r,o
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: - Visit of Employees and Spouses to Headquarters Building
1. At least ten years ago (nobody knows exactly when) it was suggested
that the Agency should provide a briefing to employees' spouses on the role
of the Agency in the national security structure and what the Agency and, in
turn, the employee does. This was apparently accepted in principle, but no
action was taken to do it.
2. The first evidence of positive steps to accomplish such a program
was in March 1966 when Colonel White advised the DD/S that Mr. Helms
wanted a ro rammed visit that makes a real impression (Tab A). Mr.
(AEO-DD/S) was tasked to develop a program. In April
1966 Mr. Vance drew up a program and a memorandum dated 20 April 1966
was addressed to the DDCI outlining details of the program for briefings and
visit to headquarters building (Tab B). This memorandum was not approved
at that time because Mr. Helms felt that the climate was not good for such a
program and directed that the proposal be deferred until later in the summer.
3. On 13 July 196 (ADD/S) signed a memorandum to
the Executive Director-Comptroller proposing that "in view of recent develop-
ments, we believe It would be even less appropriate to have an open house. "
and proposing "therefore not to posal until next year." (Tab C)
This was approved 14 July 1966 explains that Mr. Helms had
just been appointed DCI a couple weeks before, and there was considerable
comment circulating in the press at the time.
4. No further Interest was stimulated in this subject until 3 May 1970
when Mike Causey's column "The Federal Diary" appeared in the Washington
Post sharply criticizing CIA for not briefing wives or letting them visit the
building. This article was occasioned by the fact that the Agency had recently
briefed the wives of White House Fellows (Tab D). The Director then decided
we should proceed with a program.
5. (EO-DD/S) was tasked to develop a program..
On 27 May 1970 a "blind memorandum" was prepared detailing the scope and
nature of a program (Tab E). On 2 June 1970 the DD/S called a meeting of
the Deputies and the General Counsel to discuss the program (Tab F). They
all agreed to the concept and suggested that It start in early September and
the DD/S be first so as to work out any problems that might develop and other
Qtr .cto:rntes could observe. The Executive Director-Comptroller had some
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
suggestions for changes. They were (1) why wait until September, (2) don't
badge wives, will take too long, (3) have lunch served In cafeteria with one
group before lunch and one group after, (4) leave out FMSAC, Signal Center,
and Computer Center from tour, not so much for security reasons as for
-administrative difficulties In handling a crowd. This resulted in a' new memo-
randum to the Executive Director-Comptroller dated 18 June 1970 revising the
program to incorporate his suggestions and st.ting that the program would
begin 11 July 1970 rather than September (Tab G). This proposal was approved
by the Executive Director-Comptroller on 25 June 1970 and by the Director on
29 Juno 1970. S TAT
6. The first session. Saturday, 11 July 1970, would be conducted by DD/S for employees of.his Directorate. A meeting was held by
on 6 July with representatives of each of the other Directorates and the Office
of the DCI to arrange a schedule of what Saturdays each Directorate would
tetra IN, .,.~ ., -A ., t..t ~ r..... 2 5 X 1
Responsible Officer
11 July
18 July
25 July
1 August
8 August
22 August
--- 29-Augu
DD/S a v'3o, i vino
O/DCI and Indepen-
dent Offices
DD/S&T ro$o
DD/S 10 30
DD/P
DD/I
DD/I
DD/I
9B4-
1.9 September DD/P
( o3o1j Ivoo
3. o c't e bet --
V ' "f . tT
`.t 4 00-T D 1 1 r'3 G, t vc o
It Is recognized that this is to accomplish the maximum: possible and probably
every Saturday will not be used depending on the number of employees avail- 25X1
able and Interested.
8. Almost immediately the Offices were reporting difficulties in meeting
their quotas for people to attend even though we were only looking for less than
 1/3 of our total. This difficulty seemed to be because of the short lead time
(less than one week) when employees had made other plans for that Saturday
and because so many employees were either on vacation or would rather par.
ticipate with their families in recreational activities so desirous on a beautiful
'warm Saturday in July.
_ .._s.a Wv.,514Ya. ? AOAIW& 0 iiUU Q-LIDWCi LIUWDL VL& . LU %:fi.LCLCL Ut bCI"YCU Oyu
people but the variety and quality of food was not up to the standard that we
find Monday through Friday. 2 5 x 1
11. At 12:00 noon a new group of between 275 and 300 arrived at the
auditorium. Mr. Bannerman's talk and the movie proceeded exactly as the
an interesting tour displaying and explaining some of o ouinment,
e
library was opened with arrows directing a route a was
quarters Signal Center was opened an s staff provided 25x1
Monday. They got. a dishwasher in and china was used.
10. The group from the auditorium then proceeded to the building via
the main entrance and browsed at will, not by any conducted tour. There 25x1
were two guards on duty and no back up occurred as employees and spouses,
moved quickly into the first floor. Mr. Walter Pforzheimer's historical in-
telligence documents display (Tab J) and photo display.
both In 1D corridor, attracted much interest and drew crowds. The head-
them to use china and either get a dishwasher in or save the dirty dishes until
on paper plates because they did not have a dishwasher on duty. I directed
who gave them some administrative matters relative to the program and an
excellent briefing on the background of the formation of CIA. Its role in the
national security structure, and the role of DD/S and its seven Offices. He
then introduced the Office Head or his Deputy and wives. This took about 30
minutes. He was immediately followed by the film "Need To Know" which
took about 35 minutes (the projector broke down at the end of the film, but a
second projector is in the projection booth and was used for the second ses-
sion at 12:00). I then learned that the cafeteria was planning to serve lunch
for the 10:30 a.m. session. They were greeted by Mr. Robert L.. Bannerman
9.. Approximately 400 employees and spouses assembled in the auditorium
10:30 a.m. session (except for the oversight In not introduci
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
and wife which was done at the concludion of the film). The 12:00
- group proceeded directly to the main entrance and followed the pattern of 25X1
the earlier group.
12. Comments made directly and overheard reflected pleasure and en-
thusiasm for the frankness and openness of the sessions, the opportunity to
be told about, the Agency and to visit the building with no visible "strings
attached," y.3:0p p.m. practically all participants had left.
employee's and spouses.
14 TM %ataa . hm. tstlftal .4.v .o,4 a %tarn.a ra.nwaor h.iriran v%cw%aiasoA nhhnt 7(W)
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
TAB
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
'j `'i:% a. J r r./ u i Y l l j..
-1 ~ JUIIJ 19711
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Support
SUBJECT : Meeting of Directorate Representatives Dealing
with Spouses' Visits to Headquarters Building
1. I advised the group that consideration was being given to having
annual visits of spouses to the Headquarters Building to provide an opportunity
for such visits by returnees from overseas and new EOD's, I explained that
the annual program would not be handled by each Directorate but instead would
be an Agency affair. I then asked for reactions to this approach; the responses
were: 25X1
a. Clandestine Service, had discussed this
thought with DD/P, and he felt that a running this fall was too early on the
heels of the runnings last summer and fall. He stated that DD/P felt it
would be better to skip this year and also consider having them every
other year. 25x1
' 25X1
noted that they had a double session in July 1971 which was well
atten e , 436 at 1000 hours and 304 at 1200 hours. They received indi-
cations of interest following the July session, so set up a follow-up session
in October 1971--onl 175 attended. He felt that they had pulled from the
for their October 1971 session. 25X1
. c. Intelligence Directorate, felt that those who
wanted to attend had attended their four sessions last year, but he was
sure that they would have some from the new EOD's who would like to
attend an Agency session. 25X1
2. It was the group's feeling that we should test for interest in each of
the Directorates'before we decided to go ahead with a fall 1972 session. In
this way, we would know whether we should set up a single or double session.
It was also the feeling that attendance would be better during the winter (after
September 1972) when the weather would not attract people to other outside
activities. 25x1
3. If you agree, I will ask the Directorate Representatives to test for
interest in their Directorates and report the numbers back to us.
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
TAB
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
832
DD/S
- 832
DD/I
- 500
DD/P
- 408
DD/S&T - 620
2360 TOTAL
LDP/es
16 September 1971
Estimates for Spouse Visit:
OC '-'
128
OF
'107
OMS-
63
OTR w
71,
OS - 108
OL - 220
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780,900210001-8
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Denied
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
20 September 1971
NOTE FOR: Mr. Coffey via Mr. Wattles
Some random and not necessarily connected thoughts about the
Alumni Association appear below:
1. A sizeable percentage of former employees or retirees would not
be interested in an AA because of purely personal reasons (simply not
joiners), because of lasting cover considerations, or because of lack of
time.
2. Some employees would undoubtedly derive much pleasure from
an AA, particularly those remaining in the Washington area.
3. The formation of an AA is basically an interesting idea, but it
should not become a pawn of the Agency. It should be independent of
Agency bureaucracy, except for a minimum of friendly cooperation where
serious matters of security develop.
4. It could be useful to many former employees when traveling
(special rates), recruiting for other employers, and for maintaining
social contacts.
5. A serious consideration would be whether or not the Agency could
sit idly by without exerting strong control over such a group. (NOTE: The
FBI did not sanction the former agents' organization for its first 20 years
of existence.)
6. Unlike the FBI association where loyalties seem to be strongly
among its members, hopefully the loyalties of ex-Agency employees would
be more toward the Agency. Consequently, it seen inevitable that the
Agency would actually end up controlling the AA whether it wanted to or
not.
7. We could almost predict that there would be a continuing problem
about eligibility for membership, especially if the Agency, rather than the
AA, set the standards.
8. The Director's reaction to the AA proposal could well be, what will
the Agency get out of it? The conclusion very possibly would be that the
potential headaches far outweigh the benefits that might accrue. Therefore,
he might not interpose any objection to the organization of an AA, but would
Er. ..
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
C"~ u \l a ,:.r "V tl ~
offer no encouragement and very little assistance in getting it started. An
enthusiastic endorsement from the Director seems remote, at least until
the AA developed into a well-disciplined, independent and popular activity.
If, indeed, it ever did.
Aooroved Fnr RPIPasP 2006/19/97 flIA-RfPR4-nn7RnRnn'~Qnn71nfinl-Q
 Approved. For Release 2006/12/ fttff84-0078OR003900210001-8 ~P/s 7"-JC5"b
17SEP1971
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Support
SUBJECT : Organization of Former Employees
of CIA
1. This memorandum is submitted for information only.
2. This Office has reviewed the proposal of
~to establish an organization of former employees of CIA.
If favorable consideration is given to the proposal, we believe
that it should be reworked to provide for the elimination of security
concern as distinguished from the selection of ways to handle
security problems. This could be accomplished as follows:
a. Eliminate all procedures for (and concern over)
the screening of applicants for membership.
We cannot visualize a screening program in the
association which would not require a check
with CIA itself or the use by one of the asso-
ciation officials of information which he acquired
while in the service of CIA. This would be an
unfortunate and otherwise forbidden personal
use of officially acquired information.
b. Require the Agency to deal with the association
on a completely unclassified basis. The Agency
should not furnish classified information to the
association. (The proposal includes the recom-
mendation that the "SECRET" study itself be
furnished to the organizing committee).
c. Provide for the possibility that non-friendly or
unfriendly persons could obtain high positions
in the association. Attitudes of people change
over the years.
SECRET
GRUU? I
Excluded from aut9:12t14'1
downgrading and
declassification
 Approved For Release 2006/1 DP84-0078OR003900210001-8
d. Eliminate the hazard of circulating a list of
former employees.
3. If the organization is closely tied into Agency facilities,
records and support, there is a definite possibility the organiza-
tion will become known as a "company union" to the press and to
the public. The Agency may inherit problems when a policy clash
occurs that splits the organization's leadership and that of the
Agency.
4. From an overall policy standpoint, we question whether
the benefits to CIA outweigh the potential disadvantages of an
ex-employees organization.
Director of urity
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
'PMIA !ISTR&.TTVE I' `Tr 'TI.L US7 OIiLY
21 September 1971
identifies some of the potential disadvantages
of an umni Association in his "Discussion" on page 2. I see two of
the "benefits" as equally disadvantageous. I would. be seriously
concerned at the thought of retirees, possibly many years after
their separation, providing a public relations input for the
Agency or acting to counter a "Smear CIA" campaign. Knowledge
that an active "CIA organization" exists, with members living in
many of the states, could. indeed be counterproductive.
The implication that the Agency would screen membership is
loaded and. would. necessarily involve us officially in what should,
be a private association. As presented., there is a further
implication that the start-up effort and. even maintenance of the
program would result in an Agency workload..
As usual our cover problems will be present. Those who
leave under any type of cover would. not be able to participate.
I do agree that an Alumni Association would. give former
employees, and. particularly retirees, a sense of still belonging.
This might well make the transition from employment to retirement
easier. I do not believe, however, that this benefit outweighs the
disadvantages discussed. above.
I certainly do not see enough benefit to the organization to
warrant our taking the initiative to do what must be done to
organize. Normally such an organization is formed, because the
alumni feel the need. After 24 years of existence, the alumni
have not felt sufficient need, for an association to take any
initiative. Why then do we want to sponsor or endorse?
Harry B. Fisher
t! D?. IITISTR.A TT~'7' -._. IrT;',.~., r L'S ONLY
Anoroved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
 Approved for Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
SEC tri ET
9 July 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Deputy Director for Intelligence
Deputy Director for Plans
Deputy Director for Science & Technology
)Reputy Director for Support
D/DCI/NIPE
D/ONE
General Counsel
.Inspector General
SUBJECT: Agenda for the Deputies Meeting on
1/ ' 4 July 1971
1. has an idea which he thinks may be of interest
At our meeting at 2:30 p.m., on Wednesday, ~M July, we shall
discuss the following subjects:
to the Agency but which will require the support of the
Deputies if he is to undertake it. He will make a brief
oral presentation.
2. Task Force Report on the National Interdepartmental
Seminar to the Under Secretaries Committee.
Hugh Cunningham believes that we ought to reconsider
the decision made at the last meeting and he will be
present to present his thoughts.
/3. Status of Female Employees Who Accompany Husbands Who
Are Also Agency Employees on Overseas Assignments
25x1
4. HN
- "Civil Service Discontinued Service
Retirement and CIA Involuntary Retirement" 25x1
dated 3 March 1971. (Copy of memo. attached from
Director of Personnel, dated 8 July 1971)
L. K. White
Executive Director -Comptroller
Attachment
Executive Reg. 71-3123/1
. AnnrnvprlF.nr RI pacp,.gnnWid1277 . C;IA-RDP84-00780R003g00210001-5'
D/Personnel T
SECCE
cc., D/Training
 Approved,For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
SECRET
F_777, rls_f,tly
8
MEMORANDUMiFOR: Executive Director-Comptroller
SUBJECT . Considerations for Continuing Use of Liberalized
Procedures for "Voluntary-Involuntary" Retirement
REFERENCE HN "Civil Service Discontinued. Service
1e z.rement and CIA Involuntary Retirement" dated
3 March 1971
1. This memorandum is in response to your request for a paper on the
Agency's liberalized, voluntary-involuntary retirement policy.
2. It should. be noted at the outset that procedures have long existed
for extending discontinued. service retirement benefits to employees
involuntarily separated for reasons other than for cause on charges of
misconduct or delinquency. On 10 December 1969 the Civil Service Commission
extended this policy to "lighten the impact of current and. future reductions-
in-force (i.e., an employee may decide to forego his retention rights and
resign, thus enabling the agency to retain an employee who would. otherwise
be separated)." Accordingly, after an agency d.etermines'that a reduction-
in-force is necessary, it may request by letter the resignation of employees
in affected. competitive areas who meet all requirements for discontinued
service retirement on an immediate,annuity.
3. Following is a discussion of the Agency's use of "voluntary-
involuntary" retirement:
a. In January 1970 the Agency implemented the liberalized.
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) procedures for Agency
employees covered. by the CSRS. The only determination necessary
was that these employees met the age and years of service require-
ments for involuntary retirement, were employed in an organizational
component in which a surplus of personnel existed, and were willing
to be retired as surplus.
b. The Agency also expanded. CIARDS policy to provide for
involuntary retirement when the same circumstances existed. These
 _ Approved,For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
SECRET
liberalized procedures for "involuntary" retirement under either
system combined to provide a valuable tool in reducing the Agency's
on-duty strength.
c. it is significant that from the outset and through
30 June 1971, the Agency has applied. these liberalized retirement
procedures in the broadest sense, offering this option to any
eligible and interested employee, regardless of the strength
situation in his organizational component, occupational field. or
grade level, until the Agency at large has reduced. its on-duty
strength to authorized ceiling.
d. The contribution of this form of retirement toward.
attaining the authorized. ceiling in FY 1970 was relatively
modest (37 Civil Service and 8 CIARDS retirements) but the
separation of these volunteers who could. not otherwise have
retired. d.id, in fact, contribute to reaching the prescribed.
reduction. A much greater impact was made in FY 1971 when there
were 123 Civil Service and 42 CIARDS involuntary retirements.
e. In implementing this program and. providing the option
to all eligible employees, we recognized. that management lost a
degree of control. Some retirements were processed with regret.
Exceptional employees and some in occupational categories
actually in short supply have opted. to retire early. Obviously,
under the current broad. application all options are with the
employee rather than management. Management can encourage
individual employees to take advantage of the discontinued. service
option, but those employees can refuse while others, who would not
be considered. surplus under a more definitive program, may and.
have elected. to retire early. Under present policy, management
cannot prevent any eligible employee from electing this option.
Despite the undesired loss of certain personnel, it is probably
fair to say that the broader considerations have been served.
toward attainment of our goal to reduce on-duty strength to
prescribed ceilings by 30 June 1971.
4. Although we were underceiling on 30 June 1971, with further reductions
for FY 1972 we were again over strength in July. Actual over strength as of
3 July 1971, however, is only 119. It is predictable that the Agency will be
at or under ceiling on or before 31 December 1971.. It is appropriate, therefore,
that we consider a modification of our current "involuntary" retirement policy
so that the option to retire is not open-ended and unrestricted. This is
particularly true when we can no longer use total Agency over strength as a
basis for declaring an individual surplus. We,believe that management should,
be given the primary option in determining which individuals are to be offered,
 SECRET
the advantages of early retirement. In this connection, the following
considerations are offered:
a. "Voluntary-involuntary" retirement is a windfall to-
those employees who desire early retirement but who otherwise
would. not be able to retire until they could, do so voluntarily,
e.g., age 60 under CSRS. For CSRS employees the liberalized.
policy created an early retirement option not normally a part
of CSRS. A new retirement option was also made available to
CIARDS participants. They could, not elect to retire when they
had. 25 years of service regardless of age. There is a growing
tendency for employees to look upon these lower retirement
ages as a right. There is nothing improper in the. way we have
thus far administered. the liberalized. discontinued. service
retirement policy. We believe, however, that it would be
improper to continue the current liberal policy once the
Agency is at or below ceiling. At that time it will be
necessary to identify the organization level or occupational
category in which a surplus does exist.
b. Management can determine competitive areas and./or
competitive levels within competitive areas where a true
surplus exists. This will permit Deputy Directors to deter-
mine where in their Directorate a surplus exists and. to
thereby identify the employees to whom involuntary retirement
may be offered. A competitive area may be a Directorate as a
whole or a Career Service, Office, Division or Branch.within a
Directorate. If a more precise identification of a.'surplus group
is desired a competitive level may be used.. A competitive level
might be defined, as an occupational grouping within which
employees are essentially interchangeable (i.e., Supply Officers,
GS 12-13, Logistics Career Service, or Reports Officers GS-13,
Clandestine Service). Under these guidelines it would. also be
possible for a Deputy Director-to make voluntary-involuntary
retirement available to an individual in an area where there is
no surplus if the position vacated by that retirement can and,
will be filled. by an employee from another area, in his own or
another Directorate, where a surplus does exist.
a. The change would. give management a greater degree of
control in deciding to whom this benefit would, be extended..
This should allow us to retire individuals who are truly surplus
to our needs.
onnrnvadFnr RaIaaca2006/19/27 (;IA-RDP84-00780R00 900 10001-8
I . Approved,For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
5. In summary, there are advantages and. disadvantages to a more restricted.
use of the liberal "involuntary" retirement policy:
 k
Approved.For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
SECRET
b. It will not restrict Deputies from making "involuntary"
retirement available to all employees in their Directorates if
there is an overceiling situation at that level, but it will
also allow them to restrict this retirement option to
organizational or occupational groups where reduction in
strength is most needed.. This will minimize loss of good.
employees who must immediately be replaced, by recruitment.
c. This more restricted approach must be used, in any
event, once the Agency is at or below ceiling.
d. It will make it clear to our employees that the
"involuntary-voluntary" option is no longer a right available
to all which they may exercise anytime they so desire.
e. The suggested, change will require management to
identify areas or levels wherea true surplus exists rather
than make the option available to all. Obviously, this does
not provide the complete flexibility previously enjoyed..
f. It will make it more difficult for individual employees
to make plans for retirement unless we identify surplus areas
well in advance and establish dates by which employees must
exercise the retirement option.
6. Finally, there is one factor of some importance insofar as
involuntary retirement under CIARDS is concerned. At the end. of FY 1971,
we have used ;347 of the 800 quota available to us for the five-year period.
ending 30 June 1974. This is well above the projected. 320 norm. Although a
greater number-of CIARDS participants than anticipated. elected routine early
retirement, the 50 "involuntary" retirements in FY 1971 and FY 1972 were a
significant contributing factor to this "overage." It would appear to be
prudent to consider restricting "voluntary-involuntary" retirement under
CIARDS.'
is/Harry B., Fisher
Harry B. Fisher
Director of Personnel
4
6, 1
Annrnvarl Fnr RAIPasA 2ffA117127_' C lA-RIlP84-00780R0039002100O1-8
 Approved.For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
PUbLISHru iN ADVANCE Or INCQd'rQRA'110N
IN FPM F' Supp. 831-1 FPM L T R. No. 831- 23
L RETAIN UNTIL SUPERSEDED.
~[p UNITED D STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMM SS@ON
FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL SYSTEM
L .7 u ZEa
FPM LETTER? Washington, D.C. 20/15
831- 23 December 10, 1969
SUBJECT: Civil Service Retirement: Involuntary Separation for
Discontinued Service Annuity.
[leads of Departments and Independent Establishments.
The Commission has long held that resignation submitted in response
to a request, not based on misconduct or delinquency, by a responsible
agency official constitutes an involuntary separation for purposes
of retirement on an immediate annuity. This "resignation requested'
procedure has arisen infrequently, usually in cases of high-level
policy-making positions following a change of administration.
The Commission has now decided that a limited extension of this
policy is warranted so as to lighten the impact of current and future
reductions in force (i.e., an employee may decide to forego his reten-
tion rights and resign, thus enabling the agency to retain an employee
who would otherwise have to be separated).
Accordingly, after an agency determines that a reduction in force is
necessary, it may, before resorting to the prescribed reduction-in-
force procedures or while such procedures are in process, request by
letter the resignation of employees in affected competitive areas who
meet the age and/or service requirements for discontinued service retire-
ment on immediate annuity. Separation resulting from a resignation
submitted in response to such a request will be considered involuntary
for retirement purposes.
This procedure is not to be used as a device for coercing employees to
give up their retention rights (see discussion of voluntary vs. involuntary
character of personnel actions beginning on page 24.02 of FPM Supplement
752-1). Before an individual is requested to resign he must be fully
informed of his retention rights under the reduction-in-force regulations
and he must freely decide whether he wants to exercise them or to forego
them and retire. In order to avoid any misunderstandings that might arise,
each employee's written resignation must state that he is resigning in
INQUIRIES: Bureau of Retirement, Insurance, and Occupational Health
63-24684 or code 101, extension 24684
CSC CODE 831, Retirement
DISTRIBUTION: FPM Supp. 831-1
Annrnvad Fnr RPIr?nce 2006/12/27 - C;IA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
response to the particular responsible official`s request in the
r3e,uction-in-force situation and that he was not coerced into
giving up his retention rights. A copy of the resignation must
accompany the application for retirement submitted to the Commission
;n each affected case. Standard, Form 2806 in such case should re-
cord he separation as "RET RIF (Res Req)".
Nicholas J. Oganovic
Executive Director
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved for Release 2006/1 h
ft-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
94 L
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Intelligence
Deputy Director for Plans
Deputy Director for Science & Technology
Deputy Director for Support
D/DCI/NIPE
D /ONE
General Counsel
Inspector General
SUBJECT Item for Deputies Meeting Agenda
REFERENCES (a) Memo dtd 17 June 1971 to Ex. Dir.
fr D/Pers
(b) Memo dtd 28 May 1971 to D/Pers
fr DDP/OP
(c) Memo dtd 18 Feb 1971 to D/Pers
fr DDP
I suggest that we consider and discuss referent
memoranda at a future Deputies Meeting.
L. K. White
Executive Director -Comptroller
Attachments
Referent memoranda
"Status of Female Employees Who Accompany Husbands Who
Are Also Agency Employees on Overseas Assignments"
cc: Director of Personnel
9A- -
AnnrrniPriFnr RPIPaGP 2fl(78I1 I R?P84- ?Ci39IlII~10001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/ 7? C..7~-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
281971
SUBJECT . Status of Female Employees Who Accompany Husbands
Who Are Also Agency Employees on Overseas Assignments'
REFERENCE : D/Pers Memo to DDP/OP dated 23 April 1971
1. The following statements reflect our thoughts in relation to
the questions you presented in referent memorandum.
2. When a CS staff employee accompanies her husband (who is also
an Agency employee) to an overseas post and, the period of her absence
from duty at headquarters does not exceed three years, the Clandestine
Service will guarantee her restoration to a staff position at a grade
and step at least equal to that held at the time of her departure to
accompany her husband.
3. When the husband has been selected for an assignment overseas,
the wife will be initially considered for assignment to any appropriate
staff position at the post. (An appropriate position is one which
is within two grades of her grade level, one for which she is qualified,
and one which will require filling at approximately the time of her
arrival.) If she is selected for a staff position, she will be trans-
ferred to the post as a staff employee. If no appropriate staff position
is available, she will be granted LWOP for a period not to exceed three
years and will proceed to the post as her husband's dependent.
4+. After arrival at the overseas' post as a dependent, if an
appropriate staff position vacancy occurs, she will be considered for
assignment. (If the staff position to be filled is more than two grades
lower than her current grade and she wishes to be considered for the
assignment, she should expect that, if selected, she will be converted
to contract status.) If her services can be utilized in a staff position
and appropriate cover arrangements can be effected locally, a personnel
action will be initiated to return her to duty from LWOP and reassign
her to the position. Personal rank assignments will be justified in
accordance with criteria in HR
5. If no appropriate staff position vacancy exists at the post and
she wishes to work, she .will be considered for contract employment
against available contract positions. The terms of the contract
 -Approved-For Release 2006/12~27-~ f rRDP84-00780R003900210001-8
SUBJECT: Status of Female Employees Who Accompany Husbands Who
Are Also Agency Employees on Overseas Assignments
employment will be governed by the provisions o (copy
attached). Immediately prior to the execution of a con rac it-will
be necessary for the wife to submit her resignation from staff employee
status. Upon return to headquarters she will be reappointed at the
grade and step last held.
6. If no appropriate position vacancy (staff or contract) exists
at the post, or if the individual elects not to work during the husband's
tour, she will remain on approved IWOP for a period not to exceed
three years. Upon return to headquarters within that period, she
will be returned to duty at her current grade and step.
7. Each wife who would be returning to a staff position at head-
quarters within the three-year period would be required to submit a
Field Reassignment Questionnaire approximately 8 months prior to.
return to duty to assist in her placement into an appropriate position.
Personal rank assignments would be used as required to.effect such
restorations.
DDP OP
Attachments:
a. Referen
b. Copy of
T
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
18 FEB 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Personnel
Status of Female Employees who Accompany
Husbands who are also Agency Employees on.
Overseas Assignments
1. This memorandum submits in paragraph 6 a recommenda-
tion for approval.
2. Our current policy (HHB Tab A provides
that an Agency employee wife must resign w Fen er husband, also
an Agency employee, is assigned overseas and no appropriate staff
position is available for her assignment. Ninety days leave without
pay (LWOP) may however be granted to avoid a break in service
when contract employment at the post is a possibility. This policy
was developed in 1958 by the Director of Personnel, Mr. Gordon
M. Stewart, and ratified by the CIA Career. Council at its meeting
of 15 May 1958. Mr. Helms represented the Clandestine Service
at this meeting.- Tab B.
3. The above policy has been followed in the Clandestine
Service, and conscientious attempts have been made to return
female officers to staff status and previous grade upon return
of the family to CONUS. Many of the wives have been employed
in the field on contract, frequently at lower grade in accordance
with available positions. Some of the wives have lost the oppor-
tunity to qualify for retirement under previous law whereby con-
tract service performed under Social Security was not creditable
service for retirement. This fortunately has now been changed.
A number of wives have requested two years LWOP, but such re-
quests have been disapproved under the regulation cited. Tab C
describes a typical disapproval. The disapprovals have resulted
in the wife losing substantial LWOP benefits, FEGLI, Retirement
Service, etc. See Tab D.
 Approved.For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078013003900210001-8
4. To provide greater equity in our personnel management
of female employees married to Agency personnel, I believe it 25x1
may be advisable to revise or rescind the current policy on working
wives so as to permit LWOP to be granted when appropriate nder
the same conditions as apply to other employees. HHB par.
8 b provides sufficient standards for such determinatio der
this-regulation, the Head of the Career Service could approve LWOP
for 12 months for working wives on the basis that "The services of 25x1
a desirable employee will be retained" (HHB II par. 8 b (2) (c).
The approval of a second year (or more) will of course require
your approval.
5. I note that the Department of State has recently established
a policy on female personnel similar to that suggested above. In
their Newsletter, January 1971, the article entitled, A Progress
Report on Women's Programs, includes the'paragraph:
"Another woman officer's assignment problem led to
the determination that every effort will be made to assign married
women (both officer and staff) to the post where the husband is
assigned and, if no suitable openings are available, to allow them
to remain on LWOP without loss of career status during that assign-
ment. "
6. In view of the above, it is recommended that appropriate
regulatory changes be made to permit Heads of Career Services to
grant LWOP for 12 months to a female employee who cannot be em-
ployed at an overseas post to which her husband is assigned. It is
further recommended that the Director of Personnel adopt a liberal
policy in approving LWOP extensions when the wife states her in-
tention to return to Agency employment at completion of the current
tour.
7. If the above recommendation is approved, we will institute
the practice in the comparable situation where the wife was employed
overseas on contract or staff capacity at a lower grade of restoring
the wife to her previous grade in a staff position upon her return to
CONUS or upon transfer to another post where a staff position of
proper grade is available.
Thomas H. Karamessines
Deputy Director for Plans
 `r
.Approved. For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-00780R003900210001-8
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Support
SUBJECT : National Interdepartmental Seminar (NIS)
Jack:
1. This is the package of material which Hugh left for your review in
anticipation of another look at the Deputies' recommendation that we get out
of the NIS.
2. A good rule in amateur athletics is that to improve your own game
you should play against people who are better than you are. The collection
of comments from student critiques suggests to me that those who feel they
had the greatest benefit were those who knew the least about the subject
matters before they attended. The top people were less impressed. This,
of course, would suggest that we should select our participants accordingly,
but at the same time we criticize the other Departments for their low level
participation.
3. The one thread that runs through all of the comments, although
sometimes in a left-handed manner from the more critical senior attendees,
is that the other agencies' representatives leave with a much better under-
standing of CIA. If this is a valid purpose, then we should continue to
participate. I suggest it is a valid purpose, or at least it was last December,
for in Colonel White's memorandum of 14 December to the Deputies and
others he said: "The Director feels that attendance should be mandatory
and that appropriate representation gives CIA an important opportunity to
dispel misconceptions about Agency functions and objectives. " He said the
same thing in different words in his State of the Agency message last month.
If he considers this still to be a valid purpose, we should continue to participate,
but the Director should be urged to speak at the Senior Interdepartmental Group
level,on the matter of attendance. The seminars seem to be overloaded with
unremarkable military and under-represented from State and AID, both as to
numbers and level.
dEw..111i;Uad
Annrnvarl Fnr RPI ca 7nO8/12/?7 C;IA-RDP84-(l :3900210001-8
 - ` ? Approved For Release 2006/12/27.: OI;R='F`P84-00780R003900210001-8
4. It follows from what I've said that, in my opinion, if the Agency
image angle is not to be pursued, then the benefits from our participation
are not worth the time and money.
obert S. Wattles
Assistant Deputy Director
for Support
Atts
OTR file on NIS
 Approved For Release 2006/1?47 ;.R~0780R003900210001-8
&Catd
"3. The proposal for a senior seminar was discussed at some length.
Mr. Karamessines expressed concern with taking as many senior people
away from their jobs for as long a period as proposed. He urged that we
begin with a less ambitious approach in terms of numbers, length, and
frequency. Mr. Duckett urged that we review the mid-career age and grade
criteria as it appeared that at least for his Directorate the two courses might
overlap. Dr. Smith said that he was vaguely negative regarding the proposal,
saying that he expected his senior officers to be already fairly knowledgeable
of the subject matter proposed to be covered in the course. Mr. Bannerman
supported the proposal but suggested that perhaps the grade level be expanded
to include 14's. Mr. Coffey believed that a modest approach was in order; the
others present supported the general proposition. Mr. Cunningham responded
to the various comments. Colonel White received no objection to a decision to
commit ourselves to a first running next fall with the grades limited to GS-15
and GS-16. He will review with the Director and, subject to his approval,
Mr. Cunningham will go ahead with the planning for the course. "
"4. Colonel White reported that he had discussed with the Director the
proposed senior seminar which had been endorsed by the Deputies. The
Director agreed to one running only of the course with the understanding that
the results would be reviewed before a decision was made for further runnings.
Underlying the Director's reservations are the demands being made on the time
of senior officers. "
EXTRACT from 29 June 1971 DEPUTIES MEETING
"5. Colonel White's next subject was the Task Force Report on the National
Interdepartmental Seminar to the Under Secretaries Committee. Mr. Meyer stated
that the Clandestine Service was now obligated to provide three members to each of
eight annual courses. It was his opinion that the National Interdepartmental Seminar
(NIS) is now much less operational in content and he would like to cut back to one
member per course. Mr. Proctor expressed the opinion that this is now an exercise
to keep an existing program going. It was his opinion that the 48 people per year plus
speakers provided by the Agency is a large investment of questionable value.
Mr. Parrott reminded the group that the rationale,for this course at the outset was
that a counterinsurgency course was to be established and well attended. Today it
deals more with how national foreign policy is made. Mr. Stewart questioned
the value of the course to our representatives. In summarizing, the Executive
Director sensed that the consensus of the group was that the Director should not
support continuation of the course because it has probably outlived its usefulness. "
SECRET EVES ONLY
 Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-007801f)900210001-8
Approved For Release 2006/12/27: CIA-RDP84-0078OR003900210001-8
 Approved For Release 2006/12127 : CIAT- 4PEA_npQ7$2f}03900210001-8
gDMINISTRATIVE- N +A US,y,
1, , 1, l'%
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Intelligence
Deputy Director for Plans
Deputy Director for Science & Technology
Deputy Director for Support
General Counsel
Inspector General
SUBJECT : Agenda for the Deputies Meeting on
24 February 1971
At our meeting at 2:30 on Wednesday, 24 February, Chuck
Briggs will present a half-hour briefing on "Organization and
Management Operations in Information Processing, " which will
be followed by a discussion period.
L. K. White
Executive Director-Comptroller
cc: Chief, IPB
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USL N14
Annrn?nrr .car P_aJc. 4a