(Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-05252A000100030006-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 17, 2002
• Sequence Number: 6
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2002/06/28 : CIA-RDP78-05252A000100030006-9
0
I don't see that the staff study or the attached documentation presents any
real basis for the Finance Division to concur in the write-off of this sum.
Although it may be decided by higher authority to grant relief on the basis
of the other problems associated with assumption of responsibility for the
station, I don't see that it is the proper function of the Finance Division
to recommend such an action.
0
The following points might be cited as a basis for non-concurrance:
1. Sufficifant importance was attached to the assumption of responsibility
for the funds to have bassist in the transfer. I do not see how
the COS could have failed to recognize such a basic control feature as
limited access to funds.
2. It is admitted that the funds were counted after his return from the
trip, and that the shortage was discovered after this count while the
COS was at the station. It must have occurred, therefore, at a time
when he was at the station and could have controlled the situation.
3. In para 1 of attached, he states: "I attributed (the
shortage) to some unrecorded transaction and questioned every member
of the Station closely as to whether any funds had been paid out and
not recorded." In para. 2 of the same dispatch he states "...the staff
would dra.v: funds out of the cash box without preparing necessary
vouchers and would finally submit vouchers frequently days and perhaps
weeks later". We can only assume from this that every member of the
station had access to the funds.
4. Although there may have been laxness and bad habits prior to the arrival
of the COS, such habits would have been obvious to him on the day of his
first cash count, and should have been discontinued immediately. To
let such procedures continue for even such a short period as three weeks
constitutes contributory negligency.
I can certainly sympathize with an individual who arrives at a station which has
been indoctrinated to lax fiscal policies, but I don't see how we can recommend
th=t his failure to institute immediate reforms be accepted as a justification
for the shortage.
TBA
Questions:
1. Would Finance Division concurrance be limited to amounts only??
2. Could the liability for the shortage be reduced by the amount of the
overage reported in January??
Approved For Release 2002/06/28 : CIA-RDP78-05252A000100030006-9