PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-04718A002600410152-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 5, 2001
• Sequence Number: 152
• Publication Date: October 14, 1954
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2001/08/10 ; qlq-RDP78-04718A002600410jj5 1-2
Director of Central Intelligence
: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
V Committee
1. As the proposed new regulation governing the C voi
195k
I have reviewed the regulation with care as well an all the written
nts on earlier drafts submitted by members of the PRC. I have also dig.
cussed. t subject informally with each of the Deputy Directors.
basis of these conversations and of my *wn study of the papers
cg to suggest. It seem to that this raegu-
dated ones concerning the submission of projects and programs
are skillfully drafted. It may be that after further experience I will
able to propose some simplification in the fit in which projects are sub-
mi.tted but I do not believe it would be worthwhile to reopen this question at
the present time.
3. Despite my belief that these docnte are technically n drafted
and embody effectively the present views of the Director and the Deputy Director
I have to state my emphatic nonconcurrence with them. Ian co i
shall be over-.ruled but wish at least to summarize reasons for believing
that this is an ancmalous and ill-conceived organizational arrangement. Basically
4. First, I think it in generally a bad Idea (end specifically so in
the case GMs Agency) to place upon a group of line officers of equal or
comparable responsibility for reviewing collectively decisions and program
each of which in the pricey responsibility of one or another of the officers
in question and h a s been made or developed in t h e first instance b y his subor-
dinates in the line o f command.
a. Both the DO a n d D D / P h a v e p o i n t e d o u t t h e anamay of asking then
as members of a c ttee to pass j nt on projects that they had already
endorsed as line officers. This bps been recognized in the new regulation by
providing that a Deputy Director does not sit as a voting member of the on
any project coming from his area in the organization. But this elimination of
one o .y merely underscores a more basic defect of the present arrangement.
b. The basic defect is that membership by senior line officers on a
reviewing committee is an invitation to each to concern himself with, proslpra
and decisions that am a ssly the responsibility of the others. Whenever
I have seen an efficient and harmonious or isation in the Government it has
been one In which the division of labor between different parts of the organize,
clear cut that each senior line officer could be expected to handle
Approved For Release 2001/08/10 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02600410152-2
 Approved For Release 2?00'16$/'1p'CliI78-04718A002600410152-2
his business without .. interference from, or the requirement of constant clearance
with, parts o f the organization not u n d e r his c . Govern ,
are so hideously complicated that it is rarely possible to achieve as to insist
upon such a clear cut division of functions and responsibilities. But
surely it should be rea ogized that "coordination" (i.e. the practice of
zonal" clearance as distinct from, successive "vertical" approvals as a decis:
travels u p t h e c ain. o f c - ) is the enemy of decisiveness and the thief of
Any organizational err nt which requires a decision of one part of
cleared with another when the nature of the issue or project is
not such as absolutely to require such "coordination" is therefore objectionable.
i tion like the F( ,a which is split into area divi-
a Agency in favor of requiring the signatures of all
every piece of business is the conrn,
division and one functional division. In
acute a form and with a little
s required an the average action
reduced. There is,. therefore, no c - .fling. functional
to maintain some degree of ccmWartmentation
n the case for baling business along not across
nts against the inclusion as members of a rev
cars of an organization. They would not a
a co itto rye up other individuals. To my a j, however, there is an
equally decisive er ntt against such an alternative. It is that a group of
staff officers should not be place:, as it were, between the senior executive
Ya under the best of sire mstasnces. At last they should be
is senior line officers on the other. Staff officers are
ice, it is practically impossible to avoid a great
projects originating in amy one area. On the contrary,
giving the chief executive advice when re-
be required as a precondition of aactt
the spy,
on all pro,,
open to a
one of the win
s committee or without a meeting should ever
be brought into a committee or made the subject of a meeting. Believing deeply
in this principle, I submit that most of the business of the C could be con-
duct without-the necessity for meetings and that such a manner of conducting
it would not only reduce the expenditure of man hours but minimize the - ta-
a of a x:evie co -ttee to second guess line officers.
of to projects which under the present procedure are
going arga nts are unavailing and that
ant voting, members of the PRC is going to be required
ess of $25. ,OW, the present procedure seems to me to be
cation. It sprite frem Perhaps the most universal wid
es of public administration, to wit; No business
ad by the umbers of the PAC without the need for extensive
explanati additional to that contained in the project description, there
will be an obvious saving of time and trouble by merely cixcu
ject for signature instead of considering it at a meeting. I
category includes a sizeable majority the projects that now ewe before the
Approved For Release 2001/08/10 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02600410152-2
 Ye-"k; rM("% !'kk;- A ;,
Approved For Release 2001108/10 : CIA-f bP78-04718A002600410152-2
is sc eel wavrising became nany
ly needed a at laasents je
c d
until It bad raeV
as d tr sv
ar ui r a e n t t t onre
the apassors oft h* project. I wWait '+
protection requirewat or .p ate.
Interference by me In anther's
h
rsei, re-
a. The rec _ solution d be abolish the subati.tu
every Pr,
crree
eats to ensure aadevate coordination (clearance) of pro, st*
(2) A do*
brespoxw1ble few revi
ject to the I mod the
requiring such further co es as I
.i -4r1L'rrP4 J'1AL
Approved For Release 2001/08/10 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02600410152-2
 Approved For Release 2001/08/10 : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02600410152-2
CONFIDENTIAL
?IGNED
2XStdjm
-Addressee
i-MCI
fA
1*/P
1?/.X
2-S&/PC/}CI (Chrozo) (Subject)
Approved For Release 2001 200,114/Q : CIA-RDP78-04718AO02600410152-2