MINUTES OF THE CIA CAREER COUNCIL 26TH MEETING, THURSDAY, 17 MAY 1956, 4:00 P.M. ROOM 154, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01826R000700190009-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 14, 2000
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: May 17, 1956
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2001/08/0MFRUOM00700190009-0
Ne
411111.111110116r"-
vasurss
OF THE
CIA CAREER COUNCIL
26th Meeting 3 Thursday, 17 May 1956, 4:00 Palo
Room 154, Administration Building
25X1A9a
Present: Harrison 0, Reynolds, D/Pers, Chairman
Matthew Baird, D/TR? Member
COP-BIDP? Alto for DD/P? Member
25X1A Lyman B, 109 Member
Ho Oatee Lloyd, ADD/S, Alt. for DD/S? Member
D/Commo? Member
A/MI/AD, Alt. for DB/I? Member
COMMIT NO.
en aims meum ive Secretary
LiCtIkViFIZO porter
45:z. CHANGED TO: TS S 627,011
NLXT !ILIUM UTE:
MITH: 1:.`?
DATt
AO 06 _REViEWER:_018995
Executive Officer, 0/Pers.
GUEST
25X1A9a
1? The minutes or the 24th and 25th meetings of the CIA Career
Council were approved as distributed.
2, The Inspector General distributed copies of a bill to amend
the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 (Senate Bill 3851), which had been
introduced into the Senate and referred to the Armed Forces Committee.
An identical bill has also been introduced into the Houseo Mro Kirkpatrick
quoted Senator Russell as saying that the bill stood a good chance of
passage. It contains All of the measures recommended by. the Career
Council except that which pertains to retirement? The Council agreed that
everything reasonable should be done to publiciee within CIA this proposed
legislation since it is the first time that meaouros designed to implement
the Career Service program have been olaced before Congress.
3. The Council briefly considered the bill to amend the U0S0
Information Agency Act (Senate Bill 3638) which contains proposed legis-
lation on retirement with respect to the question of whether action of
the Bureau of the Budget was consistent in granting approval to USIA to
seek liberalized retirement and withholding such approval from CIA? It
was felt that perhaps the USIA bill did not have a very good chance of
being acted on favorably by the Congress. he USIA bill has subsequently
been passed by the Senate and forwarded to the House for action
iitt2=111100
Approved For Release 2001/08/01 : CIA-RDP89-01826F0.0.07.0019D009-0
GONVIDLNTIAL
Approved For Release 2001108101C 90009-0
*try ,410isosaiwirm
sive
SUBJECTg Minutee of 26th Meeting of CIA Career Council
4. The Chairman transmitted a proposed Notice on Supervision to the
Acting Deputy Direct*r (Support) which had been approved by General Cabell
and which was to be signed by the Director. Copies were distributed to
the members of the Council. The Inspector General stressed the extreme
impirtance of improving the quality of supervision throughout the Agency's,
of being frank with the individual to let him "know where he stands o" and
of the necessity of carefully following an orderly procedure in documenting
sub-standard performance so that if separation of an individual from the
Agency becomes necessary or desirabloo the action may be carried out with
dispatch. Be also stressed theimpact of "ceiling" on the desires, of a
supervisor to improve the quality of his work force. The Council agreed
that the Notice should receive "All Employee" distribution and should be
classified Confidentialq.
50 The Council briefly discussed separations that occur each month
(Januarys, 7; February, 7; March 8; April., 4). These are technically
voluntary separations since the individual resigns but hat been induced
t* take this action through impending formal disciplinary actions or
impending formal Board hearings. The Council also considered the effect
of selection for membership into the Career Staff, wherein 113 persons
as of 30 April 1956 had either been denied membership in the Career Staff,
or their applications had been deferredo on the overall grounds of un-
suitability. It was tentatively agreed that at least all cases of denied
memberships - "C" cases = should be reviewed to determine whether
separation action should be instituted or not.
6, Item 3 on the Agenda which contained four topics (a separation
actions; b. the problem of handling mediocrity; c. bow can the fitness
report be more effectively used; d. dieciplinary actions) was discussed, by
the Council. There had been no background papers didtriheted. A chart
"Proposed Separation Procedures for Administrative ROMSODS" was distributed.
The flow of action as proposed in this Chart would result in streamlining
special employment review board cases that were brought before it on the
grounds of "mediocrity". The procedural flow would also ensure that each
employee bad a fair and equitable hearing but would at the same time
strengthen the authority of the Director to take the required action. In
detail the steps are as follows:
(a)
(b) Director of Z3rbonne1. reviews
and determines under which an
made.
(c) Supervisor prefers charges.
Supervisor initiatep Charges and recommends termination.
sufficiency and adequacy
ity final decision should be
(d) EMployee bas opportunity to request hearing in reply to
Oarges.
2
Approved For NFRIelease.20.011.00/01 :iiiiiiiMaa04826R000700190009-0
CODLN I EAL,
Approved For Release 2001/08/01 (TNITEMIR400700190009-0
Iwo Irv_ 'Nor
till."4"'"911
eearine, it requevted, before Advesory Committee appointed
by Director of Personnel.
Connideration of employee's reply and of recommendation of
Advisory Comittee, with decision and action by the
Director of Personnel.
(1) If the individual in ppt entitled to CSC appeal and
ceparetion is to be effected by normel Government-vide
authorities, the decision by the Director of Personnel mould
be subject only to appeal and review by the Director of
Central Intelligence if the employee concerned desires to
eppeal the decision.
(2) if the individual ie entitled to CSC appeal and
separation is to be effected through the authority conveyed
by Section 102(c) of the national Security Act of 1947, the
Deputy Director (Support) vill review the record and refer
the case to a special employeent review board or recommend
to the Director that separation be effected under authority
of Section 102(c), The decision of the Director of Central
Intelligence vould be final. If the case is referred to the
special employment review board, that board would make ito
recommendation to the Director.
7. In essence, then, the employee would always have the opportunity
of a hearing before a three man advisory comniteee appointed by the Director
of Personnel. If the case were subject to an appeal, the ease would be
reviewed by the special employment review board vhich would conduct a
further tearina of the employeo if he requested it but would certainly
reviev the recommendation of the advisory eammittee. Pet another vay,
the employment review board would review the record of the cane by the
advisory committee when it was deemed desirable.
8.. The Council discussed. the WO of the term 'mediocrity' and it
vas agreed that this term was enbject to nisinterpeetations and mis-
understanaings. The terms "marginel,"2 unzatisfactor "inedequater'
"incompetent0'' etc., are also vague and sehject todifferciatAeterpra-
tations. The Council,-therefere, recomendedsthat cretexte be developed
to implement a statement such ae the rollovinge ? "Below CIA standards
for the grade, for the folloving reesone.e It also mgreed that proper
supervision and adequate documentation of substandard performence in the
earlier steges were essential to the effective separation of substandard
employees. The Council resemeexoded that the Office of Personnel establish
e fecal point where intermediate or senior supervisors cuuld get authorita-
tive adviee on the te6valoves and procedures for hehdlim eases of aeb-
standard performance that miet,t lead to separation.
9. The Council discussed the use of ansessments be?the ALE Staff
to determine the cause of substandard performance and recommended that
assesements be used to az greet an extent as the AO surf was capeble.
The effect that too rapid proMotion in the paet with the resultant over
grading had on performance was noted.
Approved For Release 2001/08/01 : CIA-RDP80- lAnA
01826R000Thet arFriENTIAL
iseepies LAJ
25X1 A9a
Approved For Release 2001/08/01 GlOillig11181141100700190009-0
Nye
Nee'
10. There was introduced to the Council a proposed "Superior and
Inferior Suitability Watch List" to enable the Director of Personnel
more effectively to keep track of outstandingly superior as well as
outstandingly inferior performance as reported in current fitness
reports. 'The Council requested that this be revised to eliminate
reference to superior performance. LA:weekly substandard performance
watch list based on criteria contained in the Fitness Report as approved
by the Council has since been instituted in the Office of Personnel2
U. The Council concluded that the basic mechanics and procedures of
the Agency for handling substandard performance and separations existed
but that there was mueh still to be dome in the education of supervisors
and ndddle echelon executives. It also concluded that methods and pro-
cedures could be simplified.
12. The Council adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Executi e Secretary
CIA er Council
4.4.101114MaMagilli
Approved For Release 2001/08/01: CIA-RDP80-01826R0007001M09,0- ,
NI IDLNTIAL