CIA COMPTROLLER COMMENTS ON DRAFT CFID NO. 1

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79M00062A000100090007-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 20, 2004
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: March 9, 1976
• Content Type: MF

P~R~[~P ~. .76,0261
Approved For Release 2004/10/12 ?EJ~ 9M00062A00010009D~1~'~-4
25X1
opy 1o
3 ywnr 1fl7r
MEMORANDUM FOR: AD/DCI/IC
SUBJECT : CIA Comptroller Comments on Draft CFID No. I
1. In response to a request from we
have reviewed the draft CFID No. I given to us on 27 February
and have the following specific comments.
2. The bulk of the draft CFID is devoted to the issue of
defining the National Foreign Intelligence Program. Comment
from CIA on this material is irrelevant since we are included
in all definitions of the NFIP. As a matter of form, however,
it would be preferable to combine Parts 2, 3, and the section
called "Composition of the NFIP" into one section in order to
eliminate much needless repetition. Second, I wonder whether
the first CFID ought not to be devoted entirely to the question
of defining the Intelligence Community, without treating any
other subjects.
3. On the reprogramming question we have no substantive
problem with the position you have taken. It might, however, be
desirable to take more time to consider whether the proposal you
have made for handling the reprogramming problem will really meet
CFI needs. In the case of CIA, I suspect it will. I am less
sure about some of the other programs. There is a phrase
in the Executive Order referring to the CFI's responsibility
for "management" of the Community. I understand that so far there
has been little agreement as to what such "management" may mean.
Possibly a separate CFID dealing with the question of management
could be developed around the reprogramming issue.
4. Most of our comments are focused on Part 4 of your
draft together with the graphic illustrating the CFI programming-
budgeting cycle. A general observation is that the cycle seems
designed primarily to accommodate to the needs of the CCP and
GDIP program managers. It is not particularly relevant to our
needs in CIA; in fact it is to some degree inconsistent with
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/10/10 _ u_ 79M00062A000110090007-4
 Approved For Release 2004/10/SEORET 79M00062A000100090007-4
our requirements. Nor would it appear to correspond to the
management needs of the NRP as I understand them. While this
problem probably cannot be reconciled in the very near future,
the addition of some general words in the draft to the effect that
you appreciate the differences in cycles and will attempt to
deal flexibly with the needs of the various program managers
in adapting to a new cycle might be helpful.
5. The resource review process spelled out in the draft
emphasizes the existence of separate program and budget cycles.
We are not entirely sure how these separate processes work in the
Department of Defense. At one time, CIA had similar separate
processes for arriving at an agreed program and, subsequently,
a corresponding budget. At the present time, however, we accomplish
both tasks simultaneously. As our present resource review cycle
is designed, we could not respond to a requirement this year
to present a program in July and a budget at some later date.
In this connection your draft provides that PMBRs (presumably
Program Manager Budget Requests) are to be submitted to CFI
by 15 September and reviewed by the CFI by 1 October. This pro-
vision seems geared to Defense participation in a joint review
process with OMB. CIA has never had such a requirement. As
noted, our budget decisions have generally been made by at least
the first of September, and they are not really separate from
the Program Review conducted in July.
6. On a related timing issue, the CFI program review
is scheduled between the middle of June and the last week of
July; our internal program review with the directorates, Management
Committee, and (in the past) the Director is scheduled at about
the same time--between 28 June and 10 July. Starting this
late in the year to adjust our timing will be extremely difficult.
If the CFI were to review our program after that, between
10 July and 23 July, and if it could issue its decisions rapidly,
our financial guidance letters could be issued, our data base
corrected, and our OMB budget submitted by 1 October. This is
practical, though OMB has been pushing us to make our budget
available on 1 September, not 1 October.
7. The draft places some emphasis on the existence of CFI
fiscal guidance. I suspect that fiscal guidance is a much more
important part of Defense's review of its intelligence and other
programs than it has ever been for CIA. CIA has generally received
fiscal guidance in some form from the Office of Management and Budget
but generally at a point in the year when it was very difficult
to take account of this guidance in any meaningful way. In
Approved For Release 2004/10/125 IF- 'T9M00062A000100090007-4
 Approved For Release 2004/10/1?@@EFT79M00062A000100090007-4
addition, the guidance has always been developed by OMB before
there existed any comprehensive understanding at OMB or even
within CIA as to what program managers wished to do in the forth-
coming budget year. The same is probably true of the guidance
Defense gives to the various DoD components. I think that it
is important to consider whether you want to place a fiscal
guidance "straight jacket" on the new CFI review process.
Certainly at a minimum there must be a way for program managers
to express needs which go beyond fiscal guidance. I ask you
to consider, however, whether you would not be in a better position
to conduct an intelligent CFI review without initially imposing
restrictive fiscal guidance.
8. The graphic chart mentions POMs and PMRPs. CIA does
not have these and has not yet discovered that it needs them.
Whatever a PMRP is, it is scheduled early in June about the
same time that CIA directorate programs are due in the Office
of the Comptroller. We will not be in any position to submit
anything to the CFI at that time unless we back our schedule up
a month, something which cannot be done for the fiscal 1978 cycle.
9. The above comments are focused on items now in the
draft CFID. There are, however, several points not contained
in the draft which might be considered for incorporation. The
first point we would make is that the draft provides for the
production of an NFIP budget document for submission to OMB.
We assume that this will be a summary document with supporting
detailed materials to be produced by the various program managers
for separate submission to OMB. If this is the case it would
be useful to spell this out. If you have another approach in
mind, that too should be spelled out.
10. Second, the schedule as we read it appears to imply
an end to the joint OMB/Defense review for the CCP and whatever
portions of the GDIP are ultimately included in the NFIP. This
point should be made more explicit. In so doing, it would be
useful to set forth a basic concept for the OMB review of the
NFIP. Our view would be that this review should be worked out
between OMB and the various NFIP program managers and that you
should participate in this process. If I am not reading the
draft correctly and it does not imply an end to the joint review
process, I would like to be on record as opposing any kind of
joint review between CIA and OMB. The procedure is an awkward
and cumbersome one, which should only be resorted to if no other,
better, procedural arrangement can be developed.
Approved For Rel
 Approved For Release 2004/10/1 EQ 79M00062A000100090007-4
11. Third, I believe that a CFID establishing a new resource
review process should make explicit the CFI's intention to have
a joint'Congressional budget presentation under CFI auspices.
As above, it would be useful to spell out the relative responsi-
bilities of the CFI supported by the IC Staff and the individual
program managers in the contemplated presentation. Again as
above, I assume that the CFI will wish to produce a summary
budget document which program managers will then support with
more detailed materials of the type traditionally produced.
If this is not your intention, we should understand what you
have in mind.
12. Finally, I think it would be helpful if the draft
could establish in at least a preliminary way what the relative
responsibilities of the CFI and the IC Staff on the one hand
and the various program managers on the other will be during the
proposed July program review. You will wish to maintain some
flexibility here, and that is understandable. It would help
everyone who will be a participant in this process, however,
if the role you plan to play could be made more explicit.
I believe, for example, that the most important function the
CFI can accomplish is to highlight issues which cut across the
entire Community in a. way in which no individual program manager
can. Approaching your task in this way would help ensure that
you are not duplicating the functions of the individual program
managers, and it would establish the basis for a constructive
relationship between program managers and the new Committee.
(The adoption of such an approach will also to a degree suggest
how the IC Staff should be organized and staffed to carry out
its responsibilities.)
13. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other
points with you as these plans proceed.
25X1
Comptroller
Approved For kelease 2004/10/12SEI W9M00062A000100090007-4