MEETING WITH OPM REPRESENTATIVES ON 9 OCTOBER 1987 TO DISCUSS MOU ON RETIREMENT ADMINISTRATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89-00066R000800200006-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 6, 2012
• Sequence Number: 6
• Content Type: MISC

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/06 :CIA-RDP89-000668000800200006-9
SUBJECT: Meeting with OPM Representatives on 9 October 1987 to discuss MOU on
Retirement Administration
- The Agency's intent to administer FERS and CSRS..."to the extent
permitted by law and not expressly excluded by this memorandum or any
subsequent memorandum of understanding."
I said that this change was made to reflect the fact that the Agency
would still look to OPM to carry out certain functions for us. I
mentioned specifically employees who transferred to other government
agencies. I said that OPM would have to handle certain categories of
resignees. There was some discussion about what the Agency would be
doing with regard to resignees. I indicated that we would spell those
out in the subordinate memorandum on retirement operations. We were
re-visiting some of these issues and would identify the types of cases
that OPM would continue to administer in a subsequent memorandum. The
Agency was trying to assess the security implications of turning over
administration of some resignees to OPM.
Mr. Titus and other OPM representatives sought and was given our
assurance that we would not ask OPM to do normal retirement processing
and related pay activities for our active employees.
- Consistency of CIA policies and procedures with OPM's administration
of CSRS and FERS.
I said that language regarding the DCI's need to protect sources and
methods was added in case the Agency had to do something different
from the normal retirement processing to accommodate a cover or
security consideration. I indicated that this was standard language
used by the Agency and did not indicate that we would provide any
different entitlement to our employees. Mr. Titus and Mr. M~nniear
asked for an example of such a situation. Alec and I
provided some general examples, which the OPM representatives did not
find totally satisfying. They were concerned that we would establish
a procedure different from theirs that they would have to use if we
turned some aspect of retirement administration back over to them. I
assured them that these exceptions to their procedures would be rare.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/06 :CIA-RDP89-000668000800200006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/06 :CIA-RDP89-000668000800200006-9
C O N F I D E N T I A L
SUBJECT: Meeting with OPM Representatives on 9 October 1987 to discuss MOU on
Retirement Administration
Mr. Titus asked if OPM could be notified if we were not going to
follow one of their procedures and some explanation provided as to why
we were not. He was referring to major departures from accepted
procedures. I indicated that such notification might be possible
although we probably would not be able to provide an exact reason. He
also asked that the wording regarding the DCI's prerogative also be
used in conjunction with the text covering other restrictions
elsewhere in the MOU.
- Payment of OPM for functions and duties performed for us.
I explained that we had deleted this reference because our legal
counsel indicated that its Agency should not be required to pay for
services that OPM provided to the rest of the government. After some
discussion, it was apparent that the OPM draft had not intended to
convey this meaning. We agreed to insert the following introductory
phrase in the sentence: "To the extent provided for in Title 5..." to
cover our concerns.
- Internal inspections and audit reports related to disbursements from
the Fund.
I indicated that we had changed the wording to bring it more in
conformance with the language of the law. Mr. Titus found the new
wording too restrictive. He felt that the new wording would only
allow OPM to review summaries of payments that were determined and not
how the amount of payment was determined. After some discussion, he
asked if we could insert the words 'and entitlement determinations"
after the words "disbursements" in the sentence discussed. I
indicated that I did not think that it would be a problem to make this
insertion.
- Complying with all reasonable audit recommendations.
It was agreed that the reference to "subject to security restrictions"
would be changed to language used elsewhere in the text reflecting the
DCI's requirement to protect sources, methods, etc.
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/06 :CIA-RDP89-000668000800200006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/06 :CIA-RDP89-000668000800200006-9
C O N F I D E N T I A L
SUBJECT: Meeting with OPM Representatives on 9 October 1987 to discuss MOU on
Retirement Administration.
- Providing statistical reports on CSRS, financial and administrative
activities related to disbursements from the fund.
I said that the earlier text was too broad and the use of the
expression "operational" in our vernacular meant something other than
OPM intended. The OPM representatives did not object to the change or
the addition of the statement regarding the Director's need to protect
sources and methods.
- Establishment of new procedures "related to the administration of
FERS and CSRS."
No objections were raised to this change.
2. It was agreed that we would prepare another draft with the proposed
changes and submit it to OPM next week. The draft would allow us to resolve
any lingering problems before we submitted the MOU to the appropriate
officials in each organization for signature. Mr. Titus asked if the
appropriate agency official could sign first, since it was our MOU. I said
that I did not think that this would be a problem. Once the basic MOU was
signed, work would proceed on MOUs covering financial transactions, retirement
administration activities, and audits.
3. We briefly discussed the disposition of the "lockup" cases. I
indicated our intention was to review all of the material in "lockup" over the
next six months and determine which material should be returned to the Agency
and which could be turned over to OPM. OPM would administer those cases that
we turned over and we would administer those that we kept. The Agency goal
was to eliminate the "lockup" by the end of the six month period. I said that
we had two annuitants with retirement administration experience who would be
reviewing the material on our behalf. The OPM representatives raised the
question about material at Boyers and we said that would also be disposed of.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/06 :CIA-RDP89-000668000800200006-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/06 :CIA-RDP89-000668000800200006-9
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/06 :CIA-RDP89-000668000800200006-9
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/06 :CIA-RDP89-000668000800200006-9
C O N F I D E N T I A L
SUBJECT; Meeting with OPM Representatives on 9 October 1987 to discuss MOU on
Agency Retirement Administration
Attendees
OPM
Frank Titus
John Webster
Dan Green
Woody Kerr
Andi Minniear
Moses Johnson
Ken Glass
Robert Loring
1. The meeting began with an explanation by that we had
modified their version of the MOU to take into account some areas of CIA
concern. Copies of their draft MOU with the areas of change highlighted, as
well as our revised version, were distributed. Before any substantative
discussion of the changes could begin, the meeting was interrupted by afire
drill. When the meeting resumed, we reviewed each of our revisions,
explaining why the changes were made. The following points were discussed-
- Delegation of authority to approve subordinate memoranda and the
D/PERS role in the approval process.
The OPM representatives raised no particular objection to this
change. I explained that the Director of Personnel had the
responsibility for administering the Agency's retirement program, and
all activities affecting this responsibility needed to be consistent
with his policies. John Webster asked who he should meet with
re9ardin9 the subordinate MOU on financial transactions. I identified
as the appropriate Agency officials.
I mentioned that someone other than the DCI probably would sign its
basic MOU for the Agency, possibly the Executive Director. Frank
Titus raised no objection to this possibility, but wondered if
references to the DCI in the text would have to be changed to EXDIR.
He also suggested that the words "or his designee" be inserted after
the Director of Personnel in the methodology section.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/06 :CIA-RDP89-000668000800200006-9