PRM-29 AND THE REVISION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11652

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86-00674R000300070003-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 30, 2006
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: July 25, 1977
• Content Type: MF

- 7g "e, 5
Approved For Relei46/l44AL86-00674R000300070003-7
25 July 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR: Assistant for Information, DDA
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE:
Chief, Information Systems Analysis Staff
Records Review Branch/ISAS
PRM-29 and the Revision of Executive
Order 11652
Issues Paper for SCC Meeting on PRM/NSC 29
Comprehensive Review of the Classification
System
1. (U) The following represents the thoughts and
recommendations of the Records Review Branch including the
four Directorate representatives concerning the reference
paper. The comments are keyed to the paragraphs.
2. (U) In addition, I have included a brief description
of the Agency's Declassification Program at the end.
(U) Security Information Oversight Office (Tab 1)
Recommend acceptance of this proposal.
(U) Sanctions (Tab 2)
Although difficult to enforce, recommend acceptance
of this proposal.
(U) Secrecy Agreements (Tab 3)
Recommend acceptance of this proposal.
(U) Compartmentation Agreements (Tab 4)
Recommend acceptance of this proposal although I
believe that it should be expanded to give the DCI control
of all compartmentation arrangements dealing with foreign
intelligence.
Approved For Release 2006/04/19: CIA-RDP86-00674RI
CONFIDENI4AL
 Approved For ReleCOWN01174-RDP86-00674R000300070003-7
(U) Information Warranting Protection (Tab 5)
Concur with the continued use of the term "National
Security" as the definition covering material requiring
continued protection.
(U) Paragraph Classification Markings (Tab 6)
Concur with the proposal to re uire Paragraph classi-
fication marking. Believe ERDA and position
to make marking mandatory "to the extent practicable,"
would make the entire proposal rather meaningless.
(U) Requests for Declassification Review of Documents Less
than Ten Years Old (Tab 7
Recommend that this proposal be supported.
(U) Classification of Information (Tab. 8)
a. Limiting the period of classification of confi-
ntial and secret material to six years unless
classified by an individual possessing top secret
au',,t ority:
Strongly believe that the CIA should seek an
exemption from this policy or that the Agency be
prepared to increase the number of top secret
classi:Eiers. Do not think that six years would be
adequate protection for much of the secret and confi-
dential material now being classified by individuals
who do not have a top secret classification authori-
zation.
b. The 20 Year Time Limit for Review and Declassi-
(ration:
Over and over again, it has been pointed out that
the new 20 year time limit cannot be avoided since
it is mentioned in the PRM; however, if one takes
time to read the PRM, you find that the only place
where 20 years is mentioned is the below statement:
'"The committee should consider, which categories
of classified material more than 20 years old
could be declassified in bulk under appropriate
guidelines."
Approved For ReleaseU/ ~IA-RDP86-00674R000300070003-7
IDENTIAL
 CON PgML0674ROO0300070003-7
Approved For Release 2006/04/1
In no place does the PRM state that a 20 year time
limit for the review of all classified material is
requested by the President. What we have, I fear,
is a group of individuals trying to win presidential
favor by exceeding the goals set by the President
in the PRM.
In any event, I strongly oppose a 20 year time
limit from a practical point of view. I believe
that Agency management should be made aware of the
fact that such a reduction in the time frame would
present: the Agency with an instant backlog of an
estimated 28,500,000 classified documents. The
manpower and resources required to eliminate this
backlog would unnecessarily tax the Agency and
interfere with its primary objective of producing
intelligence.
Strongly recommend the retention of the 30 year
limit.
c. Automatic Declassification after 20 (or 30) years:
First, believe that this should be changed to
read mandatory review rather than automatic declas-
sification and secon ly, that due to the large volume
o records to review, it would be impossible to
review each document exactly on the 20th (or 30th)
year from its origination. Therefore, strongly
recommend that the new executive order be worded
so that an agency would not be penalized if it was
striving to obey the time requirement by conducting
a systematic review but had failed to review a part
of its records within the required time.
d. Review to be conducted in accordance with
r u'_ elines issued by the head of department
ie., DCI):
Believe that the development of guidelines
approved by the DCI is the only practicable way to
conduct the declassification review. The current
system of having the head of department verify by
signature each record that should retain its
classification is unworkable and ridiculous.
(See Tab 15)
Approved For ReleasMME 1.fAr6-00674R000300070003-7
 CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2006/04/19 : CIA-RDP86-00674R000300070003-7
(U) Classif'Lcation Criteria (Tab 9)
Recommend that CIA reserve judgement until exact
language is drafted. I do, however, have some comments
about the examples supplied.
a. Para B, line 4: Remove the word military.
This unnecessarily limits the type of possible
threat to the United States.
b. Para E, line 4: After the word attack, add
collect foreign intelligence information, or to
conduct: foreign relations.
c. Para G: Change to read: The information is
required by statute, treaty or international
agreement.
(U) Prohibitions Against Improper Classification (Tab 10)
Recommend continuance use of present executive order
language. This provides sufficient safeguard against improper
classification. CIA should reserve judgement of any expansion
of the wording until after the draft has been written.
(U) Declassification (Tab 11)
It is very important that the new executive order state
that only permanent records are to be reviewed for declas-
sification. It would be absurd to waste time and resources
reviewing records scheduled for destruction. Fully concur
with the recommendation to include such a statement.
Along the same lines, it may also be of value to allow
agencies to identify categories of records (e.g., Agent 201
files) that would not be subject to review and declassification
since the percentage of material that could be released would
be negligible. In the CD-2 Panel this was the unanimous
opinion; however, like many other items it has been eliminated
from the discussion. (Even though this was felt by the
panel members to be part of the answer to the question asked
by the PRM about bulk declassification.)
While on the topic of bulk declassification, RRB has
conducted a brief survey to see if bulk declassification
is possible within the Agency. Unfortunately, we have found
that the Agency's records are so mixed together, that bulk
declassification is impossible.
-4-
Approved For Releas /04/19: CIA-TIAL RDP86-006748000300070003-7
bftIFlDEN
 Approved For RCDB EJD~ 9 IAL RDP86-00674R000300070003-7
(U) Foreign (Government) Information Provided to the United
States 7W-1-72
Before discussing this matter, I would like to make a
couple of points:
a. The review and declassification of foreign
material is not mentioned in the PRM as an objective.
b. Having sat on the initial CD-2 Panel, I know
that this amendment was voted down six to one yet was
still presented to the Ad Hoc Committee as a desirable
recommendation by the representative of the National
Archives.
c. The sole purpose of this amendment is to aid
the National Archives in the "administration" of
foreign material. The individuals who support this
motion freely admit that there is a possibility
that foreign relations could be damaged but feel
that is is worth the risk!
With the above in mind, I strongly urge that the CIA opt
for the exclusion of foreign material from the declassification
)
review. (t is excluded in the present executive order.
The key element in collecting foreign intelligence is
to establish a mutual trust and confidence-with the source
that he or she will be protected from disclosure. If an
executive order is printed and signed by the President that
states that foreign source material will be treated by U.S.
criteria and standards for possible declassification, this
confidence and trust will be destroyed and will severely
hurt our intelligence gathering capability regardless of any
additional verbal or written guarantees the Agency provides.
(U) Standards for Trustworthiness (Tab 13)
Do not believe that this subject belongs in an executive
order dealing with classification and declassification.
This topic has been pushed by the committee chairman,
Mr. Art VanCook, of the DOD for personal reasons.
(U) 20-Year Declassification (Tab 14)
The only possible way to obey the executive order and
to provide adequate protection for classified CIA material is
for trained CIA personnel to conduct a document by document
review based upon review guidelines approved by the DCI.
Approved For Release 6/04/19 :'CIA-RDP86-00674R000300070003-7
dONFIDENTIAL
 Approved For Releas
tm
i JDE t1 A 886-00674R000300070003-7
The Agency cannot rely upon the National Archives to
conduct this review and in fact, has been so informed by
Mr. Edwin Thompson, Chief of the Declassification Bran- at
the National. Arc ives. He simply does not have enough
qualified personnel. Now there may be exceptions to the
above, such as the relatively non-sensitive FBIS material
which is already held by NARS. Guidelines are currently
being prepared by the Agency that would permit NARS personnel
to review this material. But this is an exception!
To support RRB's contention that a declassification
review within the Agency will be a rather complex effort,
we recently conducted a detailed records survey of the
1946-1956 material held at the Agency's Archives Section.
These record.s were chosen since they had been "retired"
and, therefore, from a records management standpoint, in
the best condition as far as shelf lists, supporting
documentation, etc. Our findings were as follows:
a. Many records were improperly retired resulting
in temporary files being mixed with the permanent
ones.
b. No one really knew what was in the Archives
including many records officers.
c. The volume of records to review greatly exceeded
expectations.
d. There is a horrible blend of good permanent
information mixed with worthless junk!
Because of the less than satisfactory con dition of the
files and the blend of material contained in them, strongly
recommend that the Agency's records review be conducted
only by trained, experienced CIA personnel.
(U) Classification Guidelines (Tab 15)
The Records Review Branch in cooperation with various
Agency Office Staffs, is in the process of writing declassi-
fication guidelines. As of this writing, those of the DDA
are almost complete and it is estimated that those of the
DDI and DDS&T will be completed by the end of August. It
should be noted that guidelines are "living documents" subject
to constant change. We picture our guidelines in the same
sense. This idea is reinforced byl an
RRB staff member. spent eight years working
at NARS, four of which he was a section chief with the
Declassification Division. He probably has more detailed
knowledge and experience in the field of declassification
than anyone else within the Agency.
Approved For ReI Q DP86-00674R000300070003-7
 Approved For Relea CQnFJi~it~T4At,,86-00674ROO0300070003-7
We strongly support the concept of declassification
guidelines with the following reservations:
a. That Agency guidelines be used by Agency
reviewers and not by National Archives personnel
except when reviewing relatively non-sensitive
material (e.g., FBIS).
b. The concept of changing or "living" guidelines
be accepted.
c. Guidelines developed for review of Agency material
be specifically internal documents and not be coordi-
nated with NARS for approval. Separate guidelines
for properly cleared and trained NARS personnel
can be developed as the need arises, as in the case
of FBIS.
(U) Balancing Test (Tab 16)
A completely ridiculous and unworkable concept which
CIA should oppose at all costs.
The opposition to the "balancing test" cannot be too
strongly stated. If any judgement would be "arbitrary and
capricious" it is a judgement based on subjective criteria
by a person not only uninformed in intelligence subjects
but downright hostile to the intelligence community. I
am worried riot only about the problems of a judge or a DOD
and NSC official trying to make such a subjective judgement,
but also about a reference archivist making such a decision,
since thousands of Agency documents are scattered in files
retired to NARS and the Presidential Libraries. The tab
writer refers to the idea being "difficult, burdensome,
and unworkable". Mr. Axelrad dwells on litigation problems.
We should, ]: think, say that, from an intelligence stand-
point, the "balancing test" is downright dangerous. Stressing
the obvious is very important here.
Approved For ReleasloJ 86-00674R000300070003-7
 Approved For Rele UFtIDENOI LP86-00674R000300070003-7
THE RECORDS REVIEW BRANCH
Established: 2 May 1977
Location: 15C25 Headquarters
Current Sta:Ff : l Full- time Employees
Specific Responsibility: Systematic review and declassification
of 30 year old classified Agency records.
Project Objective: Compliance with Executive Order 11652 and
11905 to make, "information regarding the
affairs of Government readily available to
the public."
Current Objectives:
1. Prepare declassification guidelines.
2. Coordinate with the Records Administration Branch, a
records survey for the purpose of separating Agency
records into temporary and permanent files based upon
approved General Records Schedules.
3. Establish liaison with declassification units in other
Government Departments in order to work out problems
of mutual concern.
(The first two objectives must be completed before an
actual declassification review may begin.)
Major Problems:
1. The large volume of records to review. There is an
estimated 1,500,000 per year for the 1946-50 period
and 3,500,00 per year for the 1951-56 period.
2. The many different types of filing systems within the
Agency.
3. The duplication of a large number of records and the
need for a consistent judgement during the review
process due to both legal and political considerations.
4. The scattered locations of the records to be reviewed.
5. The large numbers of CIA documents held by other
Agencies for which we retain review responsibility.
Approved For Release 2006/64/1&I 86-00674R000300070003-7
U PDENTI
 Approved For Rele~/~'o Y I, P86-006748000300070003-7
.6. Existing backlog of documents more than 30 years old.
(1946-47 material)
Requirement:5: Guidance from Agency Management Concerning:
1. What resources are to be committed for this task?
a. personnel
b. money
c. equipment (e.g. computers)
2. How is material to be released to NARS? the Public?
3. Are there any special instructions concerning the
r ever i ew?
Approved For Release 2006/64/19: CCV 1 i 6FQT900070003-7
IAL
 Approved ForF// 1 #A+IA-RDP86-00674R000300070003-7
If any additional information is required concerning
this paper please contact me 25X1
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2006/04/19 : CIA-RDP86-00674R000300070003-7
-10-