LETTER TO PATRICK LEAHY FROM STEVEN GARFINKEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 10, 2010
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: April 3, 1985
• Content Type: LETTER

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optio
nal)
ST
FROM:
Dir
EXTENSION NO.
ctor of Information Services DIS 85-154
1205
S
Ames Bldg DATE
5 April 1985
TO: (Officer desi
building)
gnation, room number, and
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
$o whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
1. E0/
DDA
Y"
~j~
424
Harry:
2.
Attached is a copy of
Garfinkel's response to the
letter from Sen. Leahy.
3.
ADD
ST
5.
Attachments:
DDA
Letters
6.
7.
8.
C J\
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
/7
14.
1S.
FORM 61 O US -TR osus
I79
f- 2
AT
TAT
AT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186RO01001290016-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO: (Name, office symbol, room number,
I
~l / I g f
Per Conversat
Se
e Me
Signature
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions
FROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency/Post) Room No.-Bldg.
6-S 601k.
Phone No.
s3 S- 72S/
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
Prescribed by GSA
FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186R001001290016-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186R001001290016-6
April 3, 1985
Ger ii Information Security
Services Oversight
Administration Office Washington, DC 20405
Honorable Patrick Leahy
Vice Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Vice Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1985, concerning the Frank
Church papers at Boise State University. While I am concerned
that your letter suggests some misunderstanding of our
intentions, I believe that a continuing dialogue between
executive branch officials and the Select Committee on
Intelligence on this and other issues will aid in resolving them.
As the Select Committee is aware, the Information Security
Oversight Office (ISOO) is an unusual executive branch entity.
Specifically established by the President to oversee the
classification, declassification, and safeguarding of national
security information, ISOO is an administrative component of the
General Services Administration but receives its policy and
program direction from the National Security Council. ISOO
performs its.function with a great deal of autonomy, representing
no special interest other than the President's concern about the
credibility of the information security system itself. Many
diverse interests, including the Select Committee, have
complimented ISOO on its effectiveness and objectivity.
One of ISOO's primary functions is to receive and act upon
complaints, suggestions, and concerns about the administration of
the information security program from persons within or outside
the executive branch. On a number of occasions ISOO has acted to
resolve the problems that occur when classified information finds
its way into collections of private papers. Therefore, I don't
need to defend ISOO's interest in the Church papers at Boise
State. ISOO had recognized a potential problem area even before
officials at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contacted me
to express their concern. The available information, including
the existing finding aids and Boise-State's own press release,
led to the reasonable conclusion that the collection might
contain classified national security information. It was also
very clear to IS00 that the University was not fully aware of the
problems that the existence of classified information within the
collection would present or the steps that would be necessary to
safeguard it.
With these legitimate interests in mind, I communicated with
officials at the University, and then the Senate Historian and
Legal Counsel. Subsequently, officials of the CIA, including its
Director, William J. Casey, communicated with the Select
Committee. In every instance we have sought to explore available
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
alternatives in a fully cooperative posture. For example, in my
letter to the University Librarian,I specifically sought his
input about available initiatives to resolve the question of
whether the collection contained classified information and, if
so, how to go about protecting it. In Mr. Casey's letter of
November 21, 1984, to the then Chairman of the Select Committee,
he concluded: "I would appreciate any assistance that you and
your staff might render in determining whether classified
intelligence information is in fact in the collection and, if so,
how best to deal with the issue."
I very much regret, therefore, that first the University and now
the Select Committee appear to have overreacted to our concerns.
Our intentions have never extended in any manner whatsoever to a
confrontation over the ownership and custodianship of the Church
papers or to a debate on separation of powers issues. I simply
am concerned that reasonable efforts be undertaken to assure that
the collection does not include national security information,
or, alternatively, that classified information within the
collection be appropriately safeguarded.
To this end I again seek the Select Committee's assistance. I
would be more than happy to meet at your convenience with you,
other Members of the Select Committee, or its staff to discuss
the question of the Church papers or any other matter related to
the administration of the information security program.
Sincerely,
1(,P"i'giie3), Steven Clrfinke1
STEVEN GARFINKEL
Director
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
DAVE DWREMEROf0. &WORD TA CK#Am ll
PATIMM LE.Mn, VE3110M. VIM C 40d, MMI
WIU.MM V ROT", JR., OELAWA LLOYD DEMT'REtL TDA
WILLIAM S COME" MAIM[ DAM "Loft MOTION
OMIN MATCH, VTAM
PRAM[ MUIKOWf41 ALARRA TIIOMAE FEAOLSTOM. MIDROVRI
AI .LM $PtCTEl. PENM$YLVANIA EEEMEEV F NOLL_ ROVTM CAMLILA
C"K IKCM. NEVADA Diu RMDLI-. MEW JUI{EY
MTTCM $i cUI. LL, ReNTLO Y DAVID L DOOM oKLAIDMA
NO DOLL um". d 0 ao
ED/ER, C DYAD. WEgT V0106" oc OPPK30
united ~5tetes $enete
$VJCT COMMflTEE ON PfTEWGENCE
WASNINGTOK OC 20610
March 14, 1985
Mr. Steven Garfinkel
Director
Information Security Oversight Office
General Services Administration
Washington, D.C. 20405
Dear Mr. Garfinkel:
SS- iO I
Mrs. Bethine Church, the widow of Senator Frank Church,
has referred to me your correspondence of last September
with Mr. Timothy A. Brown, the University Librarian of Boise
State University. You requested access to the papers of
Senator Church for Executive branch officials, in order to
determine if the collection contains any classified information.
Prior to my becoming Vice Chairman of the Select Committee
on Intelli ence Committee staff were also referred a note
from Director of Information Services of
the Central Intelligence Agency. According to this note,
it was actually officials of the CIA who contacted you to
request this action, although these officials professed that
other federal agencies also might have "equities" in the
information contained in the papers.
As you know, the President has asserted the privilege,
in Executive Order No. 12356 on National Security Information
(paragraph 1.6[c]), to "reclassify" information already
released, rovided the information "may reasonably be
recovered.' On March 10, 1982, this Committee recommended
to you that ISOO's Implementing Directive under the
Executive Order should provide for "limitation of reclassi-
fication ... ordinarily to cases of mistaken disclosure
of information that is voluntarily returned, with exceptions
only for the gravest danger to national security." In
response to questions by Members of the Committee, including
Senator Durenberger and myself, dated February 26, 1982,
you committed your Office to "recommend inclusion of language
in the ... Implementing Directive which will ordinarily limit
the applicability of this provision to situations in which
the information can be retrieved voluntarily."
MAR 2 5
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
Mr. Steven. Garfinkel
March 14, 1985
Page 2
Even'if Senator Church had been an official in the
Executive branch, the current circumstances would, I believe,
be inappropriate for the Administration to seek such review of
his papers. My staff has examined about thirty pages of
written contents to the numerous boxes of records included in
the Frank Church collection. There is no indication in these
lists of contents, aside from the barest of entries concerning
"the CIA," "Vietnam," "foreign policy," or the like, that
there is any significant probability that the relevant records
might contain classified information. Indeed, for the most
part such entries appear to refer to such inherently
unclassified material as public statements, press clippings,
and constituent correspondence.
Furthermore, the University Librarian, in his letter of
reply to you, indicated that spot checks had been run on the
collection, as well as partial reviews in preparation for
allowing researchers to use the collection. The Librarian
and his staff found no classified documents during these reviews.
Furthermore, the Librarian has indicated that he will (as any
professional librarian would do as a matter of course) see to
it that any materials to be made available to researchers
are thoroughly reviewed by Library staff first; the Library
staff will be alerted to the need to protect classified
material.
Further, as you are no doubt aware, the deed of gift from
Senator Church dated March 7, 1984 requires the Librarian
to limit access to papers in the collection in accordance
with "the procedures established by law or executive order
governing the availability of such information." There is
every indication that the University Librarian intends to
take these responsibilities seriously.
Numerous government officials, from the lowest to the
highest, who have had access to classified material,
including intelligence information, have left public life
without having their papers reviewed for the presence of
classified information. Indeed, in well-known cases, senior
Executive branch officials have left government service
taking their "personal" files with them -- without any review
even at the time of separation. I am nevertheless not aware
of any other case in which the Administration has proposed
to review the papers of a former public figure for classified
material.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186R001001290016-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
Mr. Steven Garfinkel
March 14, 1985
Page 3
Frank Church was, furthermore, a United States Senator.
The Senate, through its Standing Rules and the rules of its
Committees, has an independent right to determine the
classification of national security information, including
intelligence information. The Senate Office of Classified
National Security Information was established in part for this
purpose. The Select Committee on Intelligence, which succeeded
Senator Church's investigative committee and holds its papers,
is entitled under Senate Resolution No. 400 (1976) to make
independent decision concerning release of classified informa-
tion including intelligence information, subject to final
determination by the Senate in case of Presidential appeal from
the Committee's decision.
It?should also be realized that the Senate committees with
which Frank Church worked have their own security systems which
provide for careful document control. I am personally familiar
with the procedures employed by the Select Committee on Intelli-
gence, which were originally developed by the investigative
committee chaired by Senator Church. These procedures provide
for centralized control of classified documents and do not permit
storage of classified material in the Members' offices. (The
Select Committee on Intelligence in fact holds a large volume of
files from Church Committee days.) His colleagues, congressional
staff and others who knew Senator Church indicate that he was
extremely conscientious in these matters and did not retain
classified information in his Senate office. While Chairman of
his investigative committee, he was furthermore advised on these
matters by a full-time Security Director and other security staff.
For the reasons above, I believe it would be inappropriate
to have Executive branch personnel review the papers of Frank
Church. The papers of this great United States Senator and great
American should not be subjected to such an extraordinary procedure,
which to my knowledge has never been applied to another figure
of equal stature in our public life. I hope, therefore, that
you will advise relevant Executive branch officials that you
recommend against taking any further action on their request that
these documents be opened for their review.
Sincerely,
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
Deputy Director
for Administration
DDA 85-1095
27 March 1985
FROM: Harry E. Fitzwater
Deputy Director for Administraton
SUBJECT: Church Papers - Classified Material
Stan,
I think this is a losing proposition and we
should drop it. What do you think?
DDA/HEFitzwater:rj (27 March 1985)
Distribution:
Orig - Addressee
1
- DDA Subject
(w/atts)
1
- DDA Chrono
(w/atts)
1
- HEF Chrono
(w/atts)
1
- DDA Suspense (w/atts)
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP
Date
1t4-. 2 4, F Iffy
TO: (Name, office symbol, room number,
Initials
Date
STAT
2
3.
4.
5.
ction
File
Note and Return
pproval
For Clearance
Per Conversation
As Requested
For Correction
Prepa re Reply
irculate
For Your Information
SeeMe
omment
Investigate
Signature
Coordination
Justify
~f ....~.c.a~ a ~.,u 0 ,t Wiz,.
-J_JL~ 14--_%_ '" "*~ .,gL, C41-L.-
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions
Room No.-Bldg.
as G6'j
-4500 Phone No.
S.3S--7
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
Prescribed by GSA
FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186R001001290016-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
M CWMWM
PAW= UL#.W. V
VALLAAM WALLNW V. POW M DKAWAft
HATCK =*CNT
1O M
"A OA soon"
Thom r L8M . nnow.
In ?. MOLLIIW. DOM CM CUM
SSLS ia.0aw jWMY
DAVID LD O W L Op y4CMA
D OM
Scomuffm ON Knux0ce
WASWKITON, DC 20110
March 14, 1985
Mr. Steven Garfinkel
Director
Information Security Oversight Office
General Services Administration
Washington, D.C. 20405
Dear Mr. Garfinkel:
$S? 101(0
Mrs. Bethine Church, the widow of Senator Frank Church,
has referred to me your correspondence of last September
with Mr. Timothy A. Brown, the University Librarian of Boise
State University. You requested access to the papers of
Senator Church for Executive branch officials, in order to
determine if the collection contains any classified information.
Prior to my becoming Vice Chairman of the Select Committee
on Intelligence, Committee staff were also referred a note
from Mr. Ben de Felice, Director of Information Services of
the Central Intelligence Agency. According to this note,
It was actually officials of the CIA who contacted you to
request this action, although these officials professed that
other federal agencies also might have "equities" In the
information contained in the papers.
As you know, the President has asserted the privilege,
in Executive Order No. 12356 on National Security Information
(paragraph 1.6[cj), to "reclassify"
inftion ale
released, provided the information "mayoreasonablyrbedy
recovered.' On March 10, 1982, this Committee recommended
to you that ISOO's Implementing Directive under the
Executive Order should provide for "limitati of fication ... ordinarily to cases of mistakenodisclosuressi-
of information that is voluntarily returned, with exceptions
only for the gravest danger to national security." In
SenatoreDurenberg ernand myself Members of Committee, including
you committed your Office to 1eC d February 26, 1982,
~~ ommend inclusion of language
in the ... Implementing Directive which will ordinarily limit
the applicability of this provision to situations in which
the Information can be retrieved voluntarily."
MAR 25
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
Mates senate
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186R001001290016-6
Mr. Steven Garfinkel
March 14, 1985
Page 2
Even if Senator Church had been an official in the
Executive branch, the current circumstances would, I believe,
be inappropriate for the Administration to seek such review of
his papers. My staff has examined about thirty pages of
written contents to the numerous boxes of records included in
the Frank Church collection. There is no indication in these
lists of contents, aside from the barest of entries concerning
"the CIA," "Vietnam," "foreign policy," or the like, that
there is any significant probability that the relevant records
might contain classified information. Indeed, for the most
part such entries appear to refer to such inherently
unclassified material as public statements, press clippings,
and constituent correspondence.
Furthermore, the University Librarian, in his letter of
reply to you, indicated that spot checks had been run on the
collection, as well as partial reviews in preparation for
allowing researchers to use the collection. The Librarian
and his staff found no classified documents during these reviews.
Furthermore, the Librarian has indicated that he will (as any
professional librarian would do as a matter of course) see to
it that any materials to be made available to researchers
are thoroughly reviewed by Library staff first; the Library
staff will be alerted to the need to protect classified
material.
Further, as you are no doubt aware, the deed of gift from
Senator Church dated March 7, 1984 requires the Librarian
to limit access to papers in the collection in accordance
with "the procedures established by law or executive order
governing the availability of such information." There is
every indication that the University Librarian intends to
take these responsibilities seriously.
Numerous government officials, from the lowest to the
highest, who have had access to classified material,
including intelligence information, have left public life
without having their papers reviewed for the presence of
classified information. Indeed, in well-known cases, senior
Executive branch officials have left government service
taking their "personal" files with them -- without any review
even at the time of separation. I am nevertheless not aware
of any other case in which the Administration has proposed
to review the papers of a former public figure for classified
material.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186R001001290016-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6
Mr. Steven Garfinkel
March 14, 1985
Page 3
Frank Church was, furthermore, a United States Senator.
The Senate, through its Standing Rules and the rules of its
Committees, has an independent right to determine the
classification of national security information, including
intelligence information. The Senate Office of Classified
National Security Information was established in part for this
purpose. The Select Committee on Intelligence, which succeeded
Senator Church's investigative committee and holds its papers,
is entitled under Senate Resolution No. 400 (1976) to make
independent decision concerning release of classified informa-
tion including intelligence information, subject to final
determination by the Senate in case of Presidential appeal from
the Committee's decision.
It should also be realized that the Senate committees with
which Frank Church worked have their own security systems which
provide for careful document control. I am personally familiar
with the procedures employed by the Select Committee on Intelli-
gence, which were originally developed by the investigative
committee chaired by Senator Church. These procedures provide
for centralized control of classified documents and do not permit
storage of classified material in the Members' offices. (The
Select Committee on Intelligence in fact holds a large volume of
files from Church Committee days.) His colleagues, congressional
staff and others who knew Senator Church indicate that he was
extremely conscientious in these matters and did not retain
classified information in his Senate office. While Chairman of
his investigative committee, he was furthermore advised on these
matters by a full-time Security Director and other security staff
For the reasons above, I believe it would be inappropriate
to have Executive branch personnel review the papers of Frank
Church. The papers of this great United States Senator and great
American should not be subjected to such an extraordinary procedure,
which to my knowledge has never been applied to another figure
of equal stature in our public life. I hope, therefore, that
you will advise relevant Executive branch officials that you
recommend against taking any further action on their request that
these documents be opened for their review.
Sincerely,
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R001001290016-6