MEETING WITH SSCI AND HPSCI STAFF MEMBERS RE NAPA STUDY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00530R001002330031-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 14, 2013
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: December 17, 1987
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease2013/03/14 : CIA-RDP90-00530R001002330031-4
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
FROM:
Director, Planning and Policy Office, ICS
SUBJECT: Meeting with SSCI and HPSCI Staff Members re NAPA Study
17 December 1987
1. On 10 December, at the suggestion of Mike O'Neil, HPSCI Staff council,
D/ICS, DD/ICS, EO/ICS, and the undersigned met with him and other members of
the HPSCI and SSCI Staffs regarding the proposed NAPA Intelligence Community
personnel study. HPSCI Staff members Andrews and Humphrey accompanied O'Neil;
Battaglia and Hall represented the SSCI staff.
2. O'Neil opened the meeting with statements raising questions regarding
the "piecemeal" nature of CIA personnel management system changes implemented
and proposed recently. He also suggested that the study should cover CIA,
NSA, DIA, State/INR, FBI/FCI, and civilian personnel systems of the military
intelligence services. The NAPA study is to provide a baseline so that
Congress will better understand the various systems, their similarities, and
their differences. The study is to address areas of personnel acquisition,
management, retention, growth, and separation. The NAPA effort is also to
address matters of future personnel needs: demographic recruiting problems,
competition with the private sector for technical skills, language and area
knowledge requirements, HUMINT management skills, etc.
3. Other guidance from the Congressional staffers which did not receive
unanimous or even consensus endorsement included: suggestions that the study
downplay a review of "personnel systems" in order to em hasize compensation
and benefits; problems of FBI vs State vs CIA staffing; grade
structure and manning levels at community S&T centers; pros ems caused by CIA
request for tuition aids; the overall applicability of pay landing and pay for
performance systems; House concerns that CIA was too far out in front
regarding personnel initiatives, etc.
4. It was agreed that the NAPA report should be classified (probably
SECRET) but that the NAPA investigations should have "unrestricted" security
access to information they need. Both House and Senate Staffers endorsed the
idea that the NAPA study conclusions and recommendations should be
unclassified so that the could be used directly to support (or modify)
proposed legislation.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/14: CIA-RDP90-00530R001002330031-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/14: CIA-RDP90-00530R001002330031-4
5. The Staffers also suggested that the study be conducted in such a way
that the interim reports due 1 May and 1 August be completed efforts in
specific areas so that legislation in these areas could be addressed rather
than delayed until after the final report in 1989. There was absolutely no
agreement between Staff members on what these areas of focus and time priority
should be. Battaglia and O'Neil agreed to produce a paper which would define
the areas of major focus of the NAPA effort and assign time related priorities
(interim report) for the sub-elements of the study. At my suggestion they
agreed to have this paper back to me by Mond
STAT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/03/14: CIA-RDP90-00530R001002330031-4