AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS WRITTEN BY PRESENT AND FORMER AGENCY EMPLOYEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP93B01194R001000030018-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: January 4, 2017
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: November 16, 1981
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP93B01194R001000030018-9
STAT
hll:.N]OIU1NI)lJb1 POR: Lk;puty llircctor for ncliru.nistration
FROh9 :
iil oal 1111U1mation Services
StIBJEC'1': AIi Alternative Procedurc far Reviewing Manuscripts
Written by Present and I'ormez� Agency Eniployees
l. Attached i.s a paper that proposes an alternative procedure f.or
reviewing mviuscripts written by present and former Agency employees. It was
pi�ompted by the Director's concern For the number of people invol.ved in this
type of review, and responds to that concerii by proposing the designation of
a centralized rev:iewing unit that would process the manuscripts. The unit
woul.d conduct its o�i review for clearance and coordinate, as appropriate,
supplementary reviews with Specific corrponents. In some cases, such as with
riovcls, poeins, aiid TV scripts that do not reveal actual sensitive intelligence
matters, review by the centralized unit may be all that is necessary. Where
further review is i.ndicatea, the manuscxipt would be reviewed only by those
Agcllcy compoilent.s directly involved witll tlie substantive matter. Considerable
savings i.n the manpower directed to this efEort could thus be realized.
2. A major objectiorl to this proposal may be concern by a directorate
that its equities may not be identified or properly assessed by the centralizEd
una.t. One means to alleviate this concern would be to ask the four directorates
to assigri personnel to the central reviewing Lm it on a rotational basis.
STAT
STAT
/lttaclunent :
Papex cnti.tlcd "M llltcrnai:ive
Procedure for Rev:icwing Manuscripts
lVritten by PreselZt and Former Agency
Employees"
ilistribution:
Adclresscc w/att ,
1 - OIS SuUject %V/att
~ - UIS LhI'0m) W/O "ltt
1. - C1LU 1111l>l:iccit:i i>n RcVi (2W F, 1'rur~dures ~a/~.itt
~005107112 : CIA-RDP93B01194R001000030018-9
(
~'UC 16 NUVC-nu,et' )
~
l
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP93B01194R001000030018-9
.AN ALTEi}2NATIVIi PROCrDUItE POR REVIEWING MAMISCRIPTS
WRITTL,N BY PRESIIqT AND FORbtER AGLNCY aff'LOYEES
1. 'Chis paper examines one metlzocl of increasing efficiency in reviewing
nanuscripts written by present and :former Agency employees. It is a procedure
designed to provicle reviews equally reliable to those accomplished uncler the
current procedLires hut using less manpotiaer by: (1) focusing the review effort
proportionately to the seriousness and seiisitivity of the material; and
(2) involving only those Agency components that have equities to protect. This
would be accomplished by creating a centralized review unit consisting of officers
experienced in all four directorates. T7iis group would complete review of the
less sensitive manuscripts and coorclinate, wlien necessary, with the appropriate
directorates or independent offices oii the niore sensitive and complicated oiZes.
The followuzg paragraphs look at tllis proposition in terms of the way in which
it might work, the advantages and disadvantages, and who might undertake it.
2. Briefly, the procedure miglit work as follows. Manuscripts from
.former Agency ernployees woulcl be received in the Office of General Counsel
(OGC) which would aclaiowleclge receipt to the author. Tlze manuscript then
would go directly to the centx�al reviewing unit. That unit would establish
aanuiistrative controls and assign the manuscript to one or more reviewers
within the unit. A full Agency review would be conducted by the unit,
researching any points that were questionable. If no questions arose or if
the questions that did arise could be resolved satisfactorily within the
unit, the results of the review would be forwarded to OGC. The latter would
coriduct their review and would notify the author of the results. If questions
arose that could nat be resolved within the central review unit based either
oii the cumulative expertise or research material available, the central review
unit would effect coorclination wit}i other Agency components that had equities
itivolved. Wlien this coordi.riatiorl was completed and all questions were resolved
to the satisfaction or concensus of: everyone involved, the central review unit
would notify OGC of the results. OGC would reviei,r the final results a11d notify
the author. I'he procedure currently in force tllat permits manuscripts written
hy current employees to be revicwed ancl passecl upon by the directorate concerneci
wotald be colitinued. '
3. In bricf, central_ized revi_ctv oC m,anuscripts would have the following
advantages :
a. Greater consistency irl reviei,ring actioiis resulting �rom:
(1) involvement of fewer people; (2) rnaterials being available to
the reviewers to researcll qLiestioris; and (3) review expez�ience
devel.oping at a faster rate because of the concentrated experience.
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP93B01194R001000030018-9
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP93B01194R001000030018-9
b. Greater efficiency resulting from: (1) involveiilent of fewer
persons and the directoratcs' liaving to revicia only those materials
which involve their equities; (2) less coorclination required;
(3) the reviewers, as specialists, wasting .less time; and (4) the
availability of reseaz�ch materials and access to the DECAL data
base, provicling ready answcrs a.ncl saving time.
c. Better supported revi.ew decisions resulting from: (1) fuller
lrnowledge aiicl understaiding of the review rec~uirements and
proceclur.es; (2) grcatcr cxpertise and professionalism developing
from concentrated experience; ajzd (3) researchecl decisions being
more typical.
d. Improved capa.bility to develop a data base of released information
through: (1) c.oncentration of expertise Emd experience; and
(2) narrow responsibility allotiving a focus of effort on the problems
taced.
c. Improved recorcling of review actions, particularly if the record of
tlzese actions is to be complrterized.
f. Contuiual iinprove�ierit atld enhaiicemeiit of review procedures and
teclnziques based oll the concentrated aiid focused experience.
g. Provision of greater expertise to lzelp the Agency find an answer to
the problem of the constaiit flow of insi.de infoxmation to the public
domain.
h. Elvrtination of con�usion caused by the multiple revietiJS and sometimes
overlapping equities of the four directorates.
4. Cen.tralized review would have the follawing disadvantages:
a. Breadtll of expertise wi.thin tlie central unit would be limited to
the experi.cnce and bac;kgraund of its staf-E.
b. 'I'he possibility of error could patezltially be greater because fewer
people woulcl review each manuscript, aiid the background that would
be brought directly to bear on suhstalitive matters could be li.mited.
c. ':C}ie interests of tlle directora.tes coulcl be overlooked if coordination
is nat properly effectccl and certain areas of lmowledge are limited
or lacking iri the centr. al tuli t.
5. 'I'lie Office of Information Services, DDA, already has sucli a wiit: its
Classificat:ion Review Division (CR1)). CRD consi.sts of officers from all four
clirectoratcs who rovi.ew doctunents uncler the Agency' s systemati.c review program.
In additioli, they review clocumcnts selec:tecl For� the Departmciit of State's
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP93B01194R001000030018-9
7
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP93B01194R001000030018-9
r
i
Foreign Relat:i.ons oi tlie tJnitecl States sexies, support the systematic review
progr~ans at other agencies t11at surface materials affecting Agency ec{uities,
and review mvzuscz�ipts for DDA equities. CRD already is establis}ied and llas
the expertise in reviewing and coordinating procedures and techniques that are
requircd by the ceiitralized unit in our proposal. The climunels and lines of
coimm.inication with other directorates and components of the Agency are already
tiaell estahlished. It would be an easy matter for CRD to assume t}ie additional
responsibiLity af reviewing froitt the AgencyTs standpoint the manuscripts oL
current and former Agency employees.
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP93B01194R001000030018-9