CIA CAREER SERVICE BOARD 13th Meeting Thursday, 5 November 1953 4:00 p.m. DCI Conference Room Administration Building

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01826R000500130001-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 3, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: November 5, 1953
• Content Type: MIN

ApproveVor Release 200 -RDP80-0426RD00500
airily Information
CIA CAREER SERVICE BOARD
13th Meeting
Thursday, 5 November 1953
4:00 p.m.
DCI Conference Room
Administration Building
Approved For Release
DOCUMENT NO.
NO CUMTS RI PLASS 0
o UnLMS1FIED
CLAM e,H:.4,sciu, TO: TS S CZ 0 //
NEXT REVIEWjivanDijA.TE
AUTH: 10-2
DATE REVIEWER: 029725
1: CIA-RDP80-01826R000500130001-6
pity Information
CON FIFTL:TIA}'
Approved Lori Release 2002/ -RDP80-0146R000500130001-6
Security Informattott
442F444C?FkionT4Okt
CIA CAREER SERVICE BOARD
13th Meeting
Thursday, 5 November 1953
4:00 p.m.
DCI Conference Roam
? Administration Building
In Attendance:
Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, Inspector General, Chairman
Matthew Baird, Director of Training, Member
n Chief, PP, Member
ice of General
Acting
Inspector neral
Acting Personnel Director, Alternate for
the AD/Personnel, Member
ef of Operations, Alternate for the DD/P0
b
er
Lawrence R. Houston, General Counsel
Assistant to the DD/A
/Communications, Member
Chief, Administrative Staff, DD/P
Huntington Sheldon, AD/CI) Member
Chairman, Legislative Task Force
Lawrence K. White: Acting DD/A, Member
Special Assistant, DD/I, Alternate for
the DD/I0 Member
cecutive Secretary
3ecretariat
acretariat
Secretariat
p Reporter
Approved For Release 2002
Ori?likir 841Jerh
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved
Se urity Information
INDEX
1. Minutes of previous meeting
80-0140R000500130001-6
? ? 0
Page
2. "Tenure, Job Security and Reduction-in-Force" 1, 5-8
1-5
8-13
"Restrictions and Obligations on Careerists ? 14-23
Retirement . ? 23-24
3. Agency Reassignment Board
4. Definition of the Career Service
Approved For Release 2002/05
P80-01Q64161111114444441
urity Information
Approved For Release 2002/05firealfROF'80-0146R000500130001-6
Nir
Security Informatka
. , . The 13th Meeting of the CIA Career Service Board convened at 4:05
p.m., 5 November 1953, in the DCI Conference Room, Mt. Lyman B. Kirkpatrick
presiding . .
MR, KIRKPATRICK: Gentlemen, we come to order.
The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the last meeting of the
Board. Are there any corrections or amendments? If not, the minutes stand Approved.
At the specific request of Colonel White we are going to take up Item 3 C---"
before Item 2. Item 3 is Tab GI "Tenure, Job Security and Reduction in. Force."
Colonel White apparently has some fairly strong views on Tab F, which I gather is
shared by others. Colonel White is tied up with the Director on a budget hearing
at the moment but he will join this meeting later.
Before we get into Item 3, however, I'd like to read a memorandum to you
and will give you a copy so that you can take it along with you, but rather than
25X1A
25X1A9
pass it around and have you read it now I'll just read it off, because it has the
title: "Job Tenure and jcib Security."
. . . The above-mentioned Memorandum of Conversation between Messrs. James
Mitchell, Secretary of Labor,
in Office of Secretary
of Labor, 3 November 19530 on subject of Job Tenure and Job Security, was then read
into the record by Mt. Kirkpatrick and is appended hereto as Tab "A" . ?
MR, KIRKPATRICK: Inasmuch as that memorandum pertains very directly to
Tab G, "Tenure, Job Security and Reduction in Force", I think it is interesting to
note the views of the Secretary of Labor. Having thus delivered myself I will open
the meeting for comments on Tab G.
May I say that four days after this paper was dittoed General
25X1A9a;---
of policy the Agency' would not go into a reduction in force procedure at this point.
12) of Agency Reassignment Board. General Cabell asked that a paper be presented on
in this Agency Reassignment Board. That piece of paper will be sent to Colonel
we have attempted to put into a piece of paper the concept that he wanted conveyed
that, which was done through Colonel White. Now General Cabell has looked that over
Cabello in a general meeting with some of the top people, decided that as a matter
In lieu of that I am told there was an agreement at the meeting to establish a type
and has given his views on it back to Personnel through Colonel White's office, and
- 1 -
Approved For Release 2002/0 . -RDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security In ?melon
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved Qrr Release 2002/05/0MIROW0-01V,R000500130001-6
Security Inform*TM
White immediately for Agency-wide coordination, and that should be in his bands by
tomorrow. So it does have a very definite bearing on what is contained here.
Could you give us a general idea as to how it runs?
Yes, sir. The first principle would be that if an organization-
al element had an overage that it would first attempt, within the organization, to
reassign that person to whatever job might exist within that organization. In that
endeavor the office would be free to designate whomever it might wish to try to
reassign. I refer there to the low man on the totem pole, but it wouldn't necessar-
ily have to be that man. If that effort fails then the office would certify to the
Personnel Office the name of an individual which the office again would select as
being the overage in that particular category. The Personnel Office would then
attempt to effect 4 reassignment -within the rest of the Agency. If the Personnel
'Office was unable to obtain an agreeable reassignment and there was a job that the
Personnel Office felt could be used for a reassignment, then the Agency Reassignment
Board would be convened, at which Board would be a representative of the DD/A, DD/I,
4 DD/P, Comma, and Training, with the Personnel Director as the Chairman.
Now the Personnel Director would recommend an assignment but the office
having the overage and the office to which the assignment was to be made would have
, no vote in determining whether or not the assignment should be made. If the Board
'voted that the reassignment should be made then the receiving office would be expect-
ted to come up with a 52, and the case would be settled. If, however, there was a
Idisagreement and the Board couldn't agree that the person should be assigned as
recommendedl then the matter would be referred to the Deputy DCI for his review and
the decision.
Could I interject one thing? At that point can there be
unanimous decision, by the Board that the reassignment was not appropriate?
Yes.
It's only in case of disagreement that it goes on up?
It could be either way. They could say, "No, we don't
hihk this should take place," or there could be a disagreement, but whatever
ould be the result of the Board consideration, that they couldn't make up their
nd or they were all of one mind that it shouldn't be made: then the Personnel
irector would be required to send the case to the Deputy DCI who would then review
and if he determined that the Board had acted properly and that there was no
- 2 -
Approved For Release 2002/e5 rm-aqpnP80-01826R000500130001-6
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25,
25X1A
25X1A9a
25X1A
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2002/05Seel1rOF'80-01VOR000500130001-6
Security Information
reassignment that could be made, the Personnel Office would then have to go back
to the original office having the overage and determine, on the basis of the com-
petitive level of the individual, the man who is the law man on the totem pole.
At that point you put a limited reduction in force mechanism
into effect, and the individual fin:My selected is not necessarily the man recom-
mended by the office concerned.
Not necessarily, that is right, but throughout all the first
steps here every effort is being made here, by this proposal, to dispose of the man
who is considered by the office having the overage to be the one that they should
lose in this process.
An informal reduction in force mechanism where consideration
is given as to whether it should be the man recommended or another individual, on
the basis of retention rights?
That is right. Then the file of that man would be referred
to General Cabell for a decision to terminate.
DCI?
And no one makes a decision to terminate except the Deputy
On this procedure? That is correct, yes, sir. That, in
brief, is the way be gave it to us. We have attempted to write it in that fashion.
As I say, it will come to Red for Agency-wide coordination and everybody will have
a chance to speak their piece.
Step by step it's the same procedure, except for the final
decision, as was generally agreed upon in the meeting with General Cabell.
Has he the legal right at that point?
The General Counsel has advised General Cabell that be
would have the legal authority to terminate in the interest of the United States
:or in the interest of national security.
JOAO
: He would use zoo-abet for his authority.
I would point out to you that the General Counsel's opinion
said that there certainly was no legal barrier to the Director taking this action
under Iggi)
but that extreme caution was recommended to him on it.
I expected that.
MR. BAIRD: I understand then if John is the man who was declared
available for reassignment and for wham no suitable assignment can be found, that
- 3 -
Approved For Release 2002/014/1114roRDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Information
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
1
Approved cir Release 2002/05/0 80-oWAR000500130001-6
Security Infortititiort
in effect, however,
John may be given the job and Smith may be terminated.
That is correct.
It would still be restricted to a limited area.
That is right.
I don't want to cross up anyone here but it seems to me,
since we have gone this far into the procedure, that not only does the Deputy
Director have the authority but the Assistant Director also has the authority
for a simple administrative firing. It has nothing to do with 1 of 2c. That is my
simple reaction. I haven't heard of this necessity to rely on the Director's author-
ity to fire as a final step because at that point I think you are in your normal
procedure of reduction in force. I may have missed something along the line here.
I think I probably was at fault in not specifying that the
only people who would come under this would be people who are excess but otherwise
; satisfactory. It points out in the first statement that procedures for terminating
personnel considered unsatisfactory are contained in Agency Notice
So 25X1A
these are people on wham you could not, on the basis of everything that is in the
record and everything you know, substantiate a case of discharge for cause.
We could substantiate a case for elimination without using
the Director's legal powers.
25X1A9a I see what you mean except, as a policy matter, it is my
; understanding General Cabell said there would be no reduction in force procedures
established.
25X1A9a
h We wouldn't call it that. This would be a mechanical means
of determining haw we would eliminate people without stating we are applying a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
, reduction in force principle to the Agency.
MR. KIBEPATRICK: This same procedure could be used, could it not, for
eliminating any employee who doesn't come up to standards?
If you have an employee who doesn't come up to standards I
don't think you would have to go to this device because there you would be sluffing
off perhaps an unsatisfactory employee to some other office. Did I misunderstand
you?
MR. KIMKPATRICK: I don't think so.
If he is unsatisfactory then let's use the regular separation
and give him charges, and give him a change to answer, if necessary.
procedures,
- 4 -
Approved For Release 2002WeleGIURDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Informptica
Approved F,R, Release 2002/05/014146146180-01UPR000500130001-6
Security Information
We just went through a case with Logistics where we had no problem. We charged the
guy and he had a chance to answer, and he is going to be separated through normal
procedures.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: That is a very unusual case, though, when you get so
well documented that you can do it.
In effect, then, Charlie, what you have been discussing is paragraph 6b(1)
in the recommendations: develop procedures for reduction in force according to the
1 requirements of the Veterans Preference Act -- which is in the process of being done
right at the moment.
25X1A9ai
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Yes, except we are not calling it RIF procedures. Independent-
ly) however, Kirk, we are working up?against the time that the policy decision may
be changed?we are working up a set of reduction in force procedures which we could
apply if we had to in the future.
There is perhaps one reason for applying the Director's
authority in this case. The Director's action is final regardless of the Veterans
Preference Act, whereby there are certain gimmicks in it that complicate any other
separation procedure for a satisfactory employee who is a veteran. That makes a
lot of sense, too,
That is right.
That was OM of the subjects we discussed with General Cabell,
how to smooth this out so that we would not be interminably appearing before the
Civil Service Commission on account of veterans preference.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any other comments or questions about Tab G?
I have one, Kirk. I do have this comment to make about
tenure. Despite current conclusions reached by Mt. Mitchell, the paper does have
"tenure" in the title, but I don't believe the paper reflects a great deal of study
on the problem of tenure, partially due to time limitations and some other factors.
It is certainly true that over the years in Government there has been a tendency
to the point that all career services grant tenure by virtue of statute. Now I am
not advocating, at this point, that we have that, but I do advocate that we give
more time to study this particular phase of tenure. I believe we should, for example,
go to the Civil Service Commission and discuss our problems with them in terms of
tenure to see what ideas they might have, and that we shouldn't just drop the
subject at this time. I think there are possibly other sources of assistance we
- 5 -
Approved For Release 2002/0ireteRDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Information
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved Eo Release 2002/05/01?W1080-018ZR000500130001-6
Security Informatia
might get. We could come up with a lot more information on the sUbject of tenure
by devoting some time to it. I would like, in effect, to add a recommendation here
that possibly the LD/A be requested to study this problem further and prepare another
presentation on the sUbject of tenure for this group.
MR. BAIRD: In what way do you think this is inadequate, John?
Simply this: I am not trying to say whether this is inadequate
or not but for the Veterans Preference Act we have no legally restraining barriers
as far as frivolous or unwise terminations of individuals, or political terminations
Iare concerned. Over the years, again, all other Government career services have
,found it necessary, and the Congress has felt it wise to base their career services
and tenure
in those services on statute.
Including the Civil Service Commission itself.
Now I am not advocating we have the same thing as Civil Service
but I am saying there is enough meat there so that we should look at it a little more.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Doesn't that naturally fall in line, and if we go forward
for any legislation that will be a fundamental part of it? What is to be accomplish-
ed by a further study of the subject?
It's really a study on new grounds. In other words, this
1 .point was not tackled sufficiently, in my opinion.
. MR. KIRKPATRICK: Well, to my mind, and maybe my thinking isn't sufficient-
ly sophisticated on this, but it falls into categories--his performance being
competent, and his conduct being correct, and his tenure is for a career; and the
'Director sets pp the procedures whereby his career is furthered or terminated in
accordance with standards which are not arbitrary or capricious.
That is true, that is where we are today. All I am saying
4.13 that other career services in Government have found that inadequate.
The part of the discussion marked "conclusions" here,
Alieemed quite sound.
discursive content?
I agree with the conclusions generally.
: Are we passing on conclusions in general rather than
The tenure aspect is not really concluded upon or recommended
(upon in this paper, and I am suggesting, because the paper bears the title, that
we consider whether or not we should get some conclusions on recommendations on
- 6 -
Approved For Release 2002/4erfaffr-R0P80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Iriformarttorf
Approved FArrRelease 2002/05/0 isoiempso-o 84R000500130001-6
Security Informatiott
that subject.
j
25X1A9a
25X1A9al
25X1A9a
The paper was primarily beamed at whether or not we should
reach for legislative action to establish career staff limitations. Maybe I am
wrong about that.
That was the purpose of the paper.
That was my understanding. The conclusion here seems quite
sound, that that is not the appropriate thing to do. I think the other conclusions
are quite sound, and I have no questions on the recommendations. The point I am
bringing up is whether your point is germane to this paper we are acting on now?
It's germane in that the job tenure is used in the title of
the paper, although there are no recommendations bearing on job tenure. So it is
A
igermane to that extent.
5
25X1A9a;
: Then I would eliminate "tenure" from the subject title.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think we have studied to the point where we ought to
take the exam now. We have done enough grinding out of paper. Let's get this
system set up and working and let the General Counsel's Office start drafting the
; legislation. You're going to get your tenure in that way. If you need further
"papers on that I am sure the Personnel Office files must be bulging at the seams
Iwith studies on tenure from every Government source.
4
25X1A9a
What is the view of the rest of the Board on recommendation
that a third recommendation be added to this paper suggesting that the DD/A, through
4
t, the Personnel Office, prepare a further study on tenure?
25X1A9a I
I think in Tab F you have to meet this thing anyway,
without regard to G. Tenure is inevitably a part of the proposal for an equivalent
of a uniform serVice? which is the subject of F1, and maybe more study on tenure
t needs to be done in that connection, not in connection with Tab G.
25X1A9a
Tenure can be conveyed in a rumber of different ways: by
4
A contract, by legislative action, by administrative action, or what have you. Tenure
1 is not just a "thing", it is a state, and there are varying states of tenure all the
way from zero to the ultimate tenure, I believe, in the United States, which is the
Justice of the Supreme Court which is a job for life and he can be removed only
by impeachment. I know of no other job in the United States comparable to that.
That is the ultimate in tenure but not the absolute tenure.
MR, KIRKPATRICK: I sense it is the view of the Board of not adding the
- 7 -
Approved For Release 2002MRSP.-,RDP80-01826R000500130001-6
,Security Information
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
If
25X1A9a
25X1A9a4
25X1A
Approved F4Release 2002/05/01 :41tliggr0-0184?R000500130001-6
Security Information
recommendation to this paper on tenure but eliminating the word, "tenure", from the
subject title. Any contrary view? We will then consider this paper as approved
for submission to the Director, with that change.
I'd like to make one comment on recommendation 6.a.(1). Is
it our plan to develop procedures for reduction in force in accordance with the re-
quirements of the Veterans Preference Act?
That is not what we are doing at the present time.
In fact we are going somewhat contrary to that, and I don't
think we should recommend to the Director an action which is contrary to what we
are contemplating doing.
I think this recommendation meant that we should have the
procedure all worked out in case it should ever be decided we would go into a
reduction in force, that the procedure should be all worked out and ready to use.
I would like to see everything in this recommendation in
6.b.(1) after the word "force" eliminated from the paper. Just "Develop procedures
LbeT, for reduction in force", period, which is really the basic thing that we appear to
reaching for.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any objection to that recommendation? We will have it
so amended.
In view of the fact that Colonel White is still tied up with the Budget
let's go on to Item 4 on the agenda, which is actually a good take-off for the dis-
cussion on Item 2 anyway. Item 4 is the definition of Career Service. We have sub-
mitted three suggestions: "A" being the one presently expressed in CIA Regulation
"B" as suggested by the Legislative Task Force in its report of 13 August;
and "C" being a proposal which I understand embodies the combined, efforts of Messrs.
25X1A9a
Sheldon,
MR. SHELDON: Before we get to "C" -- in reviewing this paper the word
"staff" is still something of a stumbling block to people I have discussed it with.
It has the implication of a senior level, which I don't think' is intended to be
conveyed by the paper.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think the answer is fairly simple, inasmuch as the
people who object to it probably aren't versed in the overall semantics of the
Agency, in that "staff employee" in its broad sense means everybody.
MR. SHELDON: Is that thoroughly accepted?
- 8 -
Approved For Release 200gginIA-RDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Informatton
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved F44,Release 2002/05/0MMIP80-0184R000500130001-6
Stcurity Informadon
MR, KIRKPATRICK: It is what we have to do so as to distinguish between
agents, contract employees, etc.
MR. SHELDON: I thought perhaps we might add a little clarification as to
what is generally accepted by the Agency or refer to some paper where the definition
is spelled out. It simply happened to hit a few people that I talked with.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Elimination of the word "staff" from that definition
ould then open UB to every single person that we compensate in any way. A lawyer
ould make a good case that they were all employees.
MR. SHELDON: I wasn't suggesting simply eliminating the word "staff", I
suggesting some clarifying addition be made to indicate that it did not refer
any given level.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think that could be done by a footnote. I wouldn't
ke to further dissipate the definition itself by the addition of any words.
Could I have the views of the Board as to which definition they preferred?
which do you prefer?
I still prefer
liminated.
Baird?
"B" with the word "extensively" in line 2
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Do you object to eliminating the "extensively", Colonel
MR. BAIRD: No, but I would like to have "B" followed by "A".
We are going to knit a sweater, I can see that.
MR. SHELDON: The sweater VW intended to be "C".
MR, BAIRD: I don't like "C" or "B" as well as I like "B" followed by
but that is my personal opinion.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: So that we can join this battle fairly quickly could
tI have a show of hands by those who prefer "B", first? Which prefer "B" over
tall others?
I don't know Red's viewpoint on this.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: How many prefer
It cif ?
How many will go for Colonel Baird's sweater?
What is this nugget that you want to get in?
In an equitable fashion, that is what it is.
MR. BAIRD: I like it all, but I don't think you can start off that way.
think it follows very logically after "B". You are talking about Career Service
- 9 -
Approved For Release 2000566M-RDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Information
25X1A9a
25X1A9a-;;
25X1A
25X1A9a kr
25X1A9a
25X1A9a -
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved Fq4Release 2002/05/01 : CAMIN-0184R000500130001-6
Security information
and the program, and this is what the program is.
"B" is the Career Service and "A" is the program.
MR. SRELDON: You're not talking about a program, you're trying to define
the Service.
MR, KIRKPATRICK: I think your suggestion is in order, Net, but I think
for the definition of a Service we need one statement, and then you can thresh it
out on your program with a statement such as contained in "A". Since we seem to
have a French Parliament case here, of views, I would like to find out what the major
difference of opinion is between "B" and "C".
Ting, what is it about "C" that makes you prefer it over "B"2
MR. SHELDON: Well, people I have talked to, including my close associates,
feel very strongly, I think, that the word "dedicated", as such, is a horrible word
to use here and throws the thing into the wrong context. We get back into the
question of selection in the last sentence of "C". So that is taken care of. I don't
think we have to deal with training because that is also covered by selection, because
your criteria would cover that. The question of obligation is also settled in "C"
versus "B". As to what you are going to work in is also covered in "C". The question
of the satisfaction of a job well done, for my money isn't necessary. I hadn't
written in the obligations part of it myself but we accepted the obligations part of
it as an amendment at the last meeting. I think that is gratuitous, too. When you
join a club you take the liabilities and assets as they come. So I think it's a
cleaner, simpler statement which actually etbodies all of the ideas that are necessary.
As a non-member of the Board but a member of the Agency who
would be covered by one of these definitions, I think "C" is an inadequate, sort
of cold-blooded, half-way statement. I like "B" much better.
copy.
MR. KIRKPATRICK:
Well, I prefer "D"?
how do you feel on these two?
Your "D" is the same as "C" in the agenda. You have a draft
I: Okay, then it's "C" I prefer. I think that until you
settle this Tab F you can't deal with anything that includes the word "obligations".
same context.
Both "C" and "B" contain obligations, though, in about the
I thought there was an objection to obligations from
- 10 -
Approved For Release 2002/31=-RDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security informal=
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved Rare Release 2002/05/04160156P80-0184R000500130001-6
Security Inf.:matted
the DD/I side of the house.
MR, SHELDON: We don't mind it on the theory that the obligations will
subsequently have to be settled, and this is a working definition.
: Okay, then "C" suits me.
MR. KIRKPATRICK:
.heard the arguments?
are you any more favorable to "0", having
I haven't really heard any arguments, as such. Maybe "C"
would be more palatable to me if a little bit were added. my objection is to that
"group of specially qualified individuals." I don't think I'd classify them as
'specially qualified individuals." I'd rather have it say a group of specially
trained individuals, which I think is much more to the point than "specially
qualified."
. Mr. Houston joined the Meeting . . .
MR. SHELDON: I would assume your waiting period, as one of your speci-
fications, would take care of that.
Generally a year.
MR. SHELDON: I would assume it would be longer than that.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I certainly am going to be strongly opposed to anything
less than three years.
The Professional Selection Panel is about to bring out a
three year proposal for the Board.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think I can adduce evidence from the files of the
'Inspector General to support three years.
What would be wrong with getting into "C" the idea of a
group of carefully selected and trained individuals, rather than specially qualified?
MR, KIRKPATRICK: I think the selection item there is extremely important.
.And, Ting, are your objections to the word "trained" of a deep-rooted nature?
MR. SHELDON: I simply assumed the selection part of it was taken care
of in the last sentence.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes, but the first sentence, to my mind, connotes more
the entrance of the individual.
MR. SHELDON: No, I have no objection to including a training aspect
:there at all; in fact, in the original draft we submitted at the last meeting the
Approved For Release 2002/40ORIORDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security InformIfttNi
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X
A
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved Fq0elease 2002/05/01656FP80-018241000500130001-6
Socurity Informetiort
word "training" was still there.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think your wording of "C" would read: The CIA Career
Service is a group of carefully selected and trained individuals?
Yes.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any Objection to that?
MR. SHELDON: None whatever.
MR, BAIRD: I don't like to flag wave but I think there is more warmth
I think in our attempt to refine we are losing some of the warmth.
"B".
Is this going to a Committee of Congress? Is this to be
something of a preamble to a proposed piece of legislation?
Not necessarily.
11R BAIRD: Not primarily.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I'd like to put it on the basis that it is something
every employee is going to see, and consequently everybody who ever looks at it,
whether a Committee of Congress, a Jackson Committee, or what have you.
n "C"?
Now, if I keep
quiet for a few minutes, how do we stand
Kirk, why don't you ask the General Counsel?
MR, HOUSTON: I haven't followed all of this, Kirk.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: He is acting like a lawyer.
Dick, would you suggest any other changes on "C" to bring it closer in
line to your thinking?
The only other thought in there which I think might be worth
i saving is the gratuitous statement ". . including the expectancy of a permanent
career in CIA. I say that on the grounds that I hear a great deal of talk by
younger people in the Agency and when they're tAiking about Career Service there is
one real issue that pops out in this curiosity of theirs, and that is: What is
my chance for having the job the rest of my life?" It seems to me that is the
keystone of the thing, and all the rest of these things are frills.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I concur in that one hundred per cent.
So if that thought could be incorporated at the end of "C"
it would go a long way -
MR, SHELDON: I didn't put that in, Kirk, for the reason that I thought
you might get in a position where that could be thrown back in your face. If you
- 12 -
Approved For Release 2002/04grascaRDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Informatiott
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2002/05/01 :Stater80-018241000500130001-6
Security Informatioi
had a budget problem where you had to eliminate people, it seemed to me a rather
dangerous thing for putting in something like this.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I don't think legally it would be a bit dangerous, Ting.
I think from a morale point of view it would be a case of an expectancy that never
materialized due to circumstances beyond the individual's and the Agency's control.
MR. HOUSTON: Wouldn't you then have to administer any reduction so that
the Career Service would be the last touched?
MR. SHELDON: You're getting into your sheep and goats picture again.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: You aren't going to be able to avoid that. You have
your three year probationary group, and then you have those individuals, of whom
there are quite a few today, who are giving indications that they are on probation.
Their work hasn't met standards and they are told that.
Pius the group that refuses to go overseas.
Kirk, maybe it might help for a minute, here, but in analyzing
it the purpose here was to put a well-rounded concept on the thing, the dedication,
the motivation, the training process, their service during the years, and they get
personal satisfaction out of their jobs, they get the benefits we keep talking about,
and they have a permanent career. That is the whole picture. That is why it was
done this way. "C" falls slightly short of that well-rounded picture and that is why
"B" was done in the way it was done.
I think suggestion actually shifts "B"
with the elimination of dedication.
It doesj yes.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: It also eliminates a couple of things.
: It eliminates benefits and emoluments.
I have no brief, particularly, for the satisfaction of a job
well done. I have to agree that point is sort of gilding the lily for that particul-
ar purpose.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think that "such emoluments and benefits as are
4appropriate" is like punching a feather. Benefits, yes, but that is assumed; and
4when you add "as appropriate" then you have to get into the definition of what is
appropriate and what is inappropriate? So I think with the changes suggested in
"C" we have a definition better than either. Is that acceptable to everybody?
MR. SHELDON: Do we still have to leave in this obligation business?
to it0125X1A9a
-13-
Approved For Release 2002/041~RDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security information
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2002/05/01 : Cgaa-01826000500130001-6
Security Informatiori
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Rather than fight that battle on this battlefield let's
shift to the next battlefield, which is Tab F, and I would recommend that if this
is acceptable as it is now drafted let's include obligations, pro tem, and go on
to the Tab "Restrictions and Obligations on Careerists", which I think is going to
be a controversial one.
Dan, you will have to fight for Red in this.
I don't think he has the idea you think he has on this.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Why don't you lead off?
Well, John, will you supplement anything here? I think you
have had more discussion with Red than I have. But in general his feeling was that
the section of this Report which winds up with the recommendation that career people
be under an obligation to accept Agency assignments wherever the Agency feels they
should, at whatever time they should, is not too strong a one to put an the bulk
of the Agency people.
: Where is that, Dan?
I am not trying to relate it now to any particular, specific
recommendation that may have been made. But in talking about this he said it was
4his feeling that the Agency could properly expect of career people their consenting
ito accepting the obligation to serve at any time at any place, with some exceptions,
-and he didn't get into the exceptions. Perhaps John can egplify what he meant by
Ithe exceptions.
MR, SHELDON: It's 3.a.(1).
Anywhere, any time, and for any type of duty. That is the
principle involved.
The principle involved, yes. He goes along in general but he
ithinks perhaps it should be modified to provide for some few exceptions, exceptions
based on individual situations of individual employees.
MR, KIRKPATRICK: I don't think you want a modification on the principle.
4g,--It is assumed that you modify it.
Red wanted to make it clear that there should be room for
possible exceptions.
ME, KIRKPATRICK: I think the answer to that particular statement is that
the CIA expects career employees to serve any time, any place, and in any fashion
that it dictates, with full consideration being given to personal factors; I mean
Approved For Release 2002/051firagiFRDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Informatics+
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2002/05/019MTP80-0182641W00500130001-6
Security Informatio?
,the way any sound, personnel management policy in a corporation or in Government
would operate.
MR. HOUSTON: It's a modification in administration, not in principle.
Yes, I think that would sum up exactly what his feeling in this
4 was.
25X1A9a
I think you have to have obligations but they vary. In
my organization I have the equivalent of an enlisted man, and if they were to sign
.a, birdtrg contract that they would make one tour of three years and go any place we
4
lassigned them, they are still not careerists and they won't be careerists because
4
Ithey are troops, and they don't know whether they want to stay with us or not, they
4
el,,re just taking a whack at it. For other people if you were to sign them up for life
flike you do in the military: you have to have all those things that make it worth-
s;h11111e, such as retirement pay and medical benefits of all kinds, and you can't get
out of it, which means a lot of statutory things for which Congress will be looking
4 down our throats all the time. Perhaps a contract of some kind would do it. If you
;c
, had to go out and recruit people or induce people to come in and they were going to
sign up for life in the Career Service, and go anywhere in the world, you wouldn't
4
get any one unless you could find a way to break it and get out.
This is, of course, unenforceable.
25X1A9a4
1
25X1A9a..0
25X1A9a.i,7
25X1A9a'4
25X1A9al
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. KIREPATRICK: It's unenforceable in any civilian organization.
Nobody signs up for life.
A Regular Army officer does.
That doesn't mean he can't get out of the service.
He can only resign with the approval of the President.
A Reserve Officer signs up in certain categories, one of which is until his service
is no longer required: and the only way he can get out is to prove hardship, but a
Regular Officer can't get out under any circumstances.
Your resignation doesn't mean anything unless it is
accepted.
Unless he goes AWOL or deserts, and I don't think we
want that equivalent of the uniformed service.
I don't think we could, because that is enforceable by
reason of the Articles of War, and there is no civilian service that could enforce
that.
- 15 -
Approved For Release 2002/0MVRDP80-01826R000500130001-6
security Informattee
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1 a
25X 9a
25X. 9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A
Approved FKaelease 2002/05/01 : 3feee1110-01826&00500130001-6
Socurity Information
Haw about the Coast and Geodetic Survey/ That is
practically a military service.
MR. HOUSTON: They shift their whole composition in wartime.
Could a man in the Foreign Service be prevented from resign-
ing?
igning.
There is no possible way that he can be prevented from re-
Is this beamed at preventing people from resigning or is it
earned at attempting to build into this Agency a group of people who will live under
hese conditions and will not resign, and put us in the position where if they don't
arry out their moral obligation we can dispose of them?
We have that now. I send a man to and if be25X1A6a
oesn't like the housing conditions over there he comes home at his own expense.
: If you want to send a man to
e says, "I won't go" --
He resigns.
You can't force him to resign.
No, we just say "There's no other job for you." If you
could require him to go anyplace you wanted to put him, even with the best admini-
strative cautions to take care of personal cases, you could save the Government con-
siderable money.
and you pick him aitaX1A6a
And if they say "I won't go" if they have contracted to go
when ordered, you are in perfect condition to say, "You're through, boy."
The only way this can be enforced with a civilian, you make
a contract with a civilian and he puts up a performance bond. Then if he doesn't
perform it is taken away from him.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: And there goes your security procedure.
This whole paper raises quite a red flag with me in two respects. In the
first place, I worry very much, particularly having heard some of the views of
General Cabell and
on the business of even suggesting obligations
to Congress, the point being that I think once you suggest them, the Congress on its
own can think up a lot more obligations which can be added, and you end up with more
of a harness around your neck. I think if you even imply obligations in going to
the Congress you will get them, but you will get a lot more than you asked for.
-16-
Approved For Release 2002/4teneleRDP80-01826R000500130001-6
.$ecurity Informatiom
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved ForZelease 2002/05/01115M*80-01826a000500130001-6
Security Information
There is one intangible factor which bothers me and I don't
know exactly how one copes with it, but all the paper promises, contracts, etc., in
the world are not, in this type of activity overseas, going to get any production
out of a man who is there under duress. If his heart isn't in it you might just as
well not have him there, he's just taking up space.
: On an operation be turas to the right where he should have
$turned to the left and you can't prove that he should have turned to the left.
You can sit there and build a record for the rest of your life
?tnd nobody could lynch you for it, but if his arm is twisted by obligations and he's
3
pforced to go, you haven't got anything. So for that reason as well as other reasons
wonder whether we want to get into this whole question of what the obligations
should be.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I agree with you one hundred per cent. I think the
,matter of Obligations as far as Agency employees are concerned, and their place in
career service, could be taken care of administratively When we get this program by
indicating to employees what career service does for them and what it can't do for
?hem under present circumstances, with the request for furtherance of the career
1
service in the Agency we would like to have them inclicate that they plan to make this
ka career and that they will go where the Agency asks them to go and do what it asks
A
Wthem to do, with the understRnding that personal considerations will be given as much
4
aweight as possible. I don't think we can go beyond that at the present stage. In
Ethe first place, I don't ever see the U. S. Congress passing placing Obligations on
civilian organization similar to what they put on a military organization. It's
Finot the American way of life.
25X1A2a
; They will write into the appropriations law something
that will ruin you, like the Van Sant Law -- everybody had been told all their life
they could retire after 30 years' service, so he hooks it on to an appropriations
bill.
MR. BAIRD: Is it your understanding, Larry, that when we ask for benefits
w the Congress is likely to write in obligations anyhow? Isn't it better to suggest
the obligations?
MR. HOUSTON: I don't think so, if we have adequate justification. If
,we just go pp and ask for benefits then they might say, "What are you getting back?"
If we show that the people are undergoing what we consider unfairness, or if we
- 17 -
Approved For Release 2002/0get@VDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security informatiett
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved FoZelease 2002/050?W1,DP80-01826a900500130001-6
Security Information
have a real reason to have these, then I don't think they will tura around --
Motivation and leadership will accomplish something.
I have not had anyone resign in over two years who had been in OSS. It's the lower
grades who don't yet have that feeling of a crusade) but I think we can develop it.
I don't think you can, legislate for it.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think there is a reason for that. They were brought
in here in large numbers and there was an urgent attempt to do some jobs) and they
just haven't become amalgamated yet under the team. AS soon as we get shaken down
they will get that feeling. In the junior Officers Panel their motivation is good.
They just haven't had a chance to really demonstrate it yet, and also, being young
they frustrate easier.
We read all these interviews. "Why do you want to come?"
"I got back from the military and I kind of think I'd like to try Government." So
you try him for three years and be may catch fire. Some of them do.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Our time is running a little Short. Is there any further
discussion on this paper?
I just wondered what we do with the paper?
Is this paper beamed at legislative action or beamed at the
establishment of a principle, regardless of whether legislation is involved?
It's beamed at both, and one comes before the other.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I have a suggestion as to what to do with the paper, to
the effect that in presenting the other recommendations of the Legislative Task
Force to the Director, that the pertinent views in this paper be boiled down and
in the covering memorandum to the Director it be indicated to him that they have been
given a thorough look--these obligations--and our conclusions are as generally have
been indicated by the Board today.
May I make a suggestion, Kirk, that this paper be perhaps
edited or redrafted in view of the conclusions that have been arrived at today,
which is on the transcript, because the paper as such makes no recommendations
because the recommendations say that this Board at this time is the only one that
can resolve it. Well, it has been resolved, in some measure, by the transcript.
NT4 KIRKPATRICK: Having been boiled down what were you going to do with
/
it? I think it can be covered in the memorandum.
MR. HOUSTON: Couldn't you state this as the Object of all the other moves,
- 18 -
Approved For Release 2002/0drefeNRDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Information
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved Focaelease 2002/05/01 : geefff0-018268900500130001-6
Security inforrnalletit
that all the other benefits and the proper administration of them, and leadership,
is designed to create a spirit which will assume these obligations?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Does that offend the dignity of the Legislative Task
Force in any may,
1 E I couldn't answer "yes" to that, of course, but I am not
quite sure what that amounts to. I am just wondering what it will mean to the Direct-
or when he reads it? Certainly the central issue among certain people with whom it
has been discussed, is this: Are we as a matter of policy, internally, going to have
this type of obligation to serve abroad?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: It is my understanding that it is the view of the Board
that all career employees should accept the obligation to serve when, where and how
the Agency wants them to.
MR. SHELDON: I would have to object to that. I wouldn't want to subscribe
to that, because I think you would never get a reasonable proportion of people to
join this club.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think we would, Ting, with the understanding on your
side of the house that obviously the Director isn't going to pick up and send his
research offices to Timbuktu.
MR. SHELDON: There is a joker in that, though. If that were the funda-
mental policy, supposing on the DD/I side there was one individual who was particular-
ly qualified for a particular job and you didn't have a man as good, temporarily, on
the DD/P side. It would logically follow that the DD/I individual particularly
qualified for that job would be tapped for that assignment, and there would be a
moral obligation and pressure on him, with that policy enunciated, to be put in that
job. I can't accept that responsibility in assenting to the policy enunciation as
made. I would have to dissent from it.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: My reaction to that would be that the individual con-
cerned, if it were in the best interests of the Agency and he simply said "I won't
go there" - then he would lose his career service status, and should. We can't
otherwise have a career service, if people are going to say, "Well, I like it much
better here in Washington."
MR. SHELDON: Those things don't arise that way. Moral suasion and
pressure would be brought to bear on that individual, maybe quite rightly, but I
don't think it is something you want to write down on paper and assume as an
19
Approved For Release 2002/0 -RDP80-01826R000500130001-6
afturity Information
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved Focgelease 2002/05/01 3eek,130-0182Q800500130001-6
Security information
obligation, because in effect you assume an obligation.
MR, KIRKPATRICKI That is the gist of the whole discussion.
MR. HOUSTON: my office, on a small scale, has the same problem, and I
would, be delighted to accept the statement.
We wanted nine people to take an overseas assignment. We
had to go through well over 100 to get anyone to say they would go. All the others
said "I won't go. I don't have to go."
We have these radio operators we recruit to train. They
indicate they will go anywhere, but when you go down to the Training Center and you
say, "I want you to go to
they say "NO." I am. wondering if the Task Force
explored the possibility of a contract that might be more enforceable by taking away
any retirement the person might have?
We looked into the question of penalties and at this point we
didn't think that was really desirable, that if we could get over the hump of estab-
lishing this as a principle) that was going such a long jump that we would look at
penalties later.
ARAMCO teaches Arabic to their People but they have to
sign a contract that they will stay for a certain length of time.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: That is only part of it. They sign a contract but they
also pay them so much their people don't want to leave.
It's a question of establishing confidence, but without the
rinciple I don't see how the Agency can administer it.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: My feeling is very strong to this line: We are all
eed we want one Career Service, as such. We recognize that there are at the
t limited benefits that can accrue, and that the benefits don't differ much
etween he who serves overseas and he who doesn't. We can't give a shorter retire-
nt period for the fellow who serves in abed. post overseas as compared to the
fellow here in Washington. We have two alternatives, either we have one Career
Service for the Agency or one for the DD/A complex and one for the DD/I. It is my
understanding the Director wants one service, so I think individuals right across
the Agency have to accept the same obligations and same possibilities. But under-
stand there is not going to be capricious use of the fact that the Director can send
somebody overseas.
Now, to follow through on your illustration, if there was a man on the
- 20 -
Approved For Release 2002/05MpiRDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Informatied
25X1A9a
Approved ForZelease 2002/0 ? DP80-0182641000500130001-6
Sseurity Informatrciff
DD/I side who was needed in the DD/P side, and the individual refused to go, my
feeling on that fellow would be that it was almost close to treason if he refused
to go: if it was an important job, where the national security is as important as
it is in this Agency.
MR. SHELDON: But it is the enunciation of as firm a policy as that which
I think is going to bring about a situation where you will not have one Career
Service, you will only have a very limited acceptance of the Career Service by the
DD/I and DD/P personnel. And as a result of that, I am trying to arrive at something
which is less severe, should I say, so that you would achieve the Director's desire
of having a single Career Service. What I sense is happening around the table
here is that it is being tied to a point where you will have a real cleavage in the
Agency, and for my money, on a long-range basis, that is a serious error.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I don't think there will be a cleavage in the Agency
if the "I" side of the house and the "A" side of the house --
Colonel White feels very strongly that we have to have this
obligation.
. Colonel White joined the Meeting . . .
MR* BAIRD: Do you have in mind the specialist, Ting? Because when we
'make our JOT certainly a lot of then go to the DD/I and sign a statement to the
effect that they would accept this kind of an obligation. We know that it is not
binding on them but there isn't a one of them that has ever said that he wouldn't
sign. That is one of the reasons he comes in. He expects that. But I can see
that your specialists who come down for ORR or OSI might question it.
MR, SHELDON: Yes, they would question it.
MR. BAIRD: But are they, in effect, careerists?
MR. SHELDON: Then you set up a series of terms of reference where you
,cannot have a Career Service which each and every selected and well-trained individual
can join. That is my difficulty.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: That is quite right. I think from that point of view
of excluding themselves by refusal to accept obligations, then they do exclude
*themselves, and if there comes a cut or reduction in force, or the Agency in any
ay has to contract in its size, then you are obligated to let them go first,
- 21 -
Approved For Release 2002/000WDP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Information
 P
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2002/05/01 sieleiker0-018264000500130001-6
Security Informetrati
before the ones who say they will go anywhere and do anything.
They are willing and able to devote themselves to the
Agency's business, but on their own terms.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: That is right.
MR. SHELDON: On reasonable terms.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: There is nothing unreasonable about these terms, that
I can see.
It seems rather unreasonable to me to have an organization
,devoted to foreign intelligence which has a great quantity of people who are unwill-
lug to live abroad.
MR. SHELDON: Nobody says they would not be willing to live abroad, but
AU you assume an immediate obligation to go at any moment to any place that you are
ttold to go, and having come into the Agency you have already signed indicating
.whether you would or not, you are changing the rules of the game.
MR, KIRKPATRICK: You are getting into a slightly different aspect. There
s no question but that these rules of the game are going to have to be injected on
gradual basis. We simply cannot change our commitments to people already in the
ency, but we can indicate to them that whereas they will have tenure, their tenure
lelL1 not be as permanent as those who will accept the rules of the game. I don't
bunk in that way we will breach a contract in any way. In other words, as I see
he next step, Ting, after we get these things threshed out and decide how the
areer Service works: the next step is that every employee in this Agency will re-
Oeive a questionnaire on his intentions regarding Career Service, which will then
lace him either as a candidate for acceptance or definitely exclude him.
Rather than prolong this meeting, unless there is further discussion, and
think the issue is pretty clearly drawn and known, I would recommend that the
ebest way to join this further is to take it directly to the Director, because I
tithink it is fundamental to the whole Career Service program, and any further joust-
25X1A9a*.
ing is simply going to prolong the agony.
MR. SHELDON: It's simply a question of being told by the Director: "Look,
want it this way." Alright, then we go Ahead and do it that way.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: What is the desire of the Board as to how this should
e presented to the Director?
: I think it has to have some of this in it, that isn't in
- 22 -
Approved For Release 2002/41MPROP80-01826R000500130001-6
Security Information
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved Focgoelease 2002/05/ P80-0182%200500130001-6
Informatiorf
here now.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: And then I think it should be presented orally. And
Ting, you and anybody representing DD/I that you wish --
MR. SHELDON: Well, my statements reflect not my personal feeling; my
statements reflect those of the other ADts that have been spoken to in DD/I. I
held a meeting preceding these meetings and discussed all these matters with each
of the ADts in DD/I. I believe my statements would be concurred in by Bob, it
that correct?
: Yes, in general.
MR. SHELDON: Therefore I think he and I at least should be permitted the
right to orally re-state the case.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think the best way to do this would be to invite the
Director, and possibly the Deputy Director, to attend the meeting of the Board and
hear the Board, and you and DD/I can bring anybody he wants. Is that agreeable?
Any new buainess?
Monday, the 23rd of November, gentlemen, rather than Thursday, the 26th,
because on Thursday the 26th you will probably be eating turkey. So we will have
that meeting at 4:00 on Monday, the 23rd. And we will discuss Tabs "E" and "Ir
at the next meeting.
Let me have just two minutes to report to the Board on the
success we have had so far with the Kaplan Committee. In relation to Tao "D" on
the Liberalized Retirement System for EMployees, and the covering memorandum of the
Task Force, we were asked to determine from the Kaplan Committee just what they
would be interested in having from us, and aIsa-find out what they are doing.
Yesterday I spent an hour with Mr. Kaplan and found him a very easy-to-talk-with
fellow, and one who would be quite willing to have the Agency's viewpoints on what
it would like to have considered in a retirement system. So I told him that I
felt the Agency would be quite willing to give to him our thinking, because his
job at this point is to take a complete look at all retirement systems of the
Government, and to make a recommendation to the Congress early in the session. So
we are drafting something now to come to you, or however you wish to get it dis-
patched, which will give him the consensus of the discussion that has gone on here
on the liberalized retirement plan.
Approved For Release 2002/05/
?23?
in orma oF:PneeiVrtzETNTIAL
?
Approved Fo4oRelease 2002
-RDP80-01824R000500130001-6
MR. KIRKPATRICK4. I would suggest that it come to the Board, in view of
the fact that is One of the Tabs of the Task Force, and get the Board's views on
it. Thank you, Marne.
Any other business? Thank you, gentlemen.
. ? . The Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. . . ?
Approved For Release 200
1leale80- 8 0 00130001-18
'
Approved& Release 2002/05/01 : CIA-RDP80-01496R000500130001-6
Present: Nesere. James Matehell, Secretary of Leboxl
In Office of Secretary of Labor, 3 Nov 1953 Lk
SUBJECT: Job Tenure andeeObteeurety
1.1 "Ibe 1*.rsiotse of the conversation vas to deteraine from a responsible Governbszt
official, not assoeieted with security sensitive affairs, eho has boa wide experience
both in Government and, in private empleeezent, and eho is a recosnised e4ertin
ied, lobor natters, his view respecting job tevure and Idh eccurtky.
sefiet matbers were discussed.
2. Tenure ler.,Mitebell eepreseed, the iien that tenure is a relative setter;
that there is no each thine as bsolute tenure; and that tenure either in Oovermem
or in civil left wee subject to such eoneeeerations as zdainiatrative neeessitY, 07'
the desires of dengress or the condition of the budeet? etc. Ee used the estrple
that if the Coneeess de;idadlei wipe cut the 'Dope 1 of Labor by leeslation? th
tenure of ell the persons nouwerking in the Department of Labor war verniers; that
.it the Board of Directors ofeMsayes &culla decide to oubeteettally chanus the ope71-
atioi of ;Nevis Departieritlettere thp tenure of all loyees vo4tCbe abet.et 1-
affected. He seated that in the past year more than ,000 cereliasioaed officers in
the .ermed. /cross hed been separetee, enteeherefere the tenure of commissioned
sonnel ves alme subject to qualifecations. The qeestion of 4-p1itab1 e latt anele
lation on the natter Of teamre vet also discussed, and it uas recognised that in
OevernMait, Civil Service status conveyed a deree of tenuie; utile in oiiIii empl y
meat tepere of =Ionized epploYeee wes coeveyed threugh the contraetval azrecrerts
between an emPloyer one the epplieeble mien. nenerelly eeeakinglein etellian eme
pleynent the alto-collar worker, the exeeutive? the "iutellecteel" verkete bed ao
tenure. Tenure wad be cenveyeebyooutiact *tech -wattle state the deeree of teneee
with respect to' the time factor as uell as to the condition e of egploymant. This
exieple re -eephaseeee the feet that tenure as sucb was relative and cOnditioned by
the terve of the pareecular tenure that wee under consideration. TA Mr. Vetchell'
view the coneideration of tenure was stall-se-the-wisp. Hi eeso ere:weeded the viee
that the weakness of civilian epploement id' the U.S. Goeerieent was that stcF.h. tetuTe
as exit:tee crested a fill* senile of secureey, inhibited initiative and stieelated
the retention of-a4eqUite theuee mediocre"-eorkers.
25X1A9a
Jeetbe.W.e.2tu'it..
letler. Mitchellee view "job securiey" was all importeet, teen thouee it vee
more of an intangible and, in a. sense, eiiilar to "merale": M inWvidnal'aeqpirta
a sense Of job security by having confidence that he would net be separated fres
his job for arbitrary or frivoloue reasene. /meter. Mitchell's tetev ,Job weurity
mas the ,protect of a good, and denovetratede persounel pollee/. Ttree al:marts are
essential.: (2) he policy must be detailed and inclusive. AU eceentiee factors
such as grievance procedureti; empleeee eveluatioj
es promotion, foe eerit, etc., :met
be present. (2) The policy must be knotei throuehotrt 'Van organl2Won anl thoronzh.:
ey understood not only by sepereibors but by all ewleeees. (3) The employee mot
have an cpportuntty to see that the &awoke& policy is awl1y pee into practie
Until an individual has ecoCidence tbet the annosucedpoliay is actually bens
followed, there can be me foolioe of .101:0 security.
Approved For Release 2002/05/01 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000500130001-6