CIA CAREER COUNCIL 21ST MEETING THURSDAY, 29 MARCH 1956

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 19
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 18, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: March 29, 1956
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2001/04/051 'CIA-RPF.8'0.01826R000700140001-3
CIA CAREER COUNCIL
21st Meeting
Thursday, 29 March 1956
KpC{lNtKT #G. kYS
Ko6NkGEFn0'
C1 4E"tu~~~p6 T01 TS S
KNXS 1VI4., --
19.2,
AW701 !
.C V 1E1N1LV,,-0.189951
Approved For Release 2001 ,05..CIA R P80-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
CIA CAREER COUNCIL
21st Meeting
Thursday, 29 March 1956
Present
Lyman B. Kirkpatrick
IG, Acting Chairman
COP-DD/P, Alternate for DD/P, Member
25X1A
25X1A
D CO, Member
SA/DD/I, Alternate for DD I, Member
25X1A
DD/TR, Alternate for DTR, Member
25X1A
MMM
DD/Pers., Alternate for D Pere, Member
I
25X1A
Lawrence K. White
DD/S, Member
25X1A
Executive Secretary
25X1A
Reporter
25X1A
25X1A
Executive Officer, office of Personnel
Lawrence R. Houston, General Counsel
Norman Paul, Legislative Counsel
Deputy General Counsel
Approved For Release 2001/04/05 :'C1A-R1DP 0-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
Agenda
Item
No. Subject Page
1 "Opposing Views on Accelerated Retirement,"
dated 27 March 1956 . . . . . . . . . 1 thru 7
2 "A bill to amend the Central Intelligence
Agency Act of 1949" . . . . . . . . . 7 thru 15
Agenda items for future meetings. . . . . . 15 & 16
Adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . ? . . . i6
Approved For Release 2001/04/05.-CIA:RDR0-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
The 21st meeting of the CIA Career Council convened at
4:05 p.m., Thursday, 29 March 1956, in Room 154, Administration Building,
with Mr. Lyman B. Kirkpatrick presiding . . . .
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Shall we come to order?
There is only one item, accelerated retirement.
do you want to speak first?
25X1A9a As long as you invite me to start off, there is a
question I'd like to ask about the No. 1 item on our agenda here; in other
words, the paper under Tab 1. I didn't quite understand about these per-
centages. There is something about it that eludes me, what relationship
there is to what goes on above. Would somebody who is a mathematician ex-
plain this?
25X1A9a i scratched this together. Did you look at this
other sheet that we have here for you, giving specific examples of what we
like and what the Budget Bureau would like, and what we now have.
What were your immediate questions?
25X1A9a Oh,, I see. You shift it from overseas credits to
the amount of money you are going to get when you retire.
25X1A9a This shows what these percentages would amount to
in a particular instance.
25X1A9a But up here we are talking about the amount of over-
seas requirement you have to have to reduce the length of time you have to
stay in the Government, and here is the amount of money you get after you
retire.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Let's sort it out, one item at a time. What
Dick is saying is that our proposal is to let employees retire earlier.
Now isn't it, in effect, what the Bureau of the Budget is saying is that
you can't do that?
25X1A9a
Kirk, maybe it would help if we explained the Agency's
25X1A9a
proposal as outlined here, because it combines two things: it not only
reduces the age limit but it also increases the amount of the annuity. The
first point here is that in granting 11 years credit for each year of overseas
service is increasing the factor. of 1, by 50%; in other words, it becomes
2}6.
25X1A9a i knew i would be lost. I give up. I'll just assume
1
Approved For Release 2001/04/45:,CJA;, [ Ic-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
wow
the figures are right.
25X1A9a Don't give up. 1* years credit is the same as
increasing the l i% to 2-41%. It's the same thing. If you give if years
credit for overseas service you are then giving 2 % as the rate by which
the annuity is computed.
MR. HOUSTON: For every year of service abroad.
25X1A9a Now the Bureau of the Budget proposal is that you
can't go above 2%. Therefore they say instead of giving it years credit,
give 1 1/3 years.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
- Why can't you go over 2%?
That is simply their idea.
There is no law about this, John?
MR. PAUL: According to them, if we give our people 244 our people
will be getting a better break than anybody else gets for comparable
COLONEL WHITE: The roadblock we can't cross is that if they,
representing the President, don't allow us to put this into Congress, we
won't get anywhere.
25X1A9a Does anybody get 2% now?
25X1 A9a The Foreign Service and Federal Investigative
Service.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
The Foreign Service officer gets 2% on his total
service, whether it be spent in overseas areas or in headquarters. The in-
vestigator of the FBI gets 2% regardless of where he spent it so long as
he is on investigative-type work.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: In other words, they are getting better than
we would get.
We attempted to point out we were only asking for.
the advantage for the man in an overseas area.
M. KIRKPATRICK: I think we ought to go back and fight for that
one, then.
COLONEL WHITE: The question, as I see this - it's pretty simple.
I think the Bureau of the Budget's proposal I would certainly find unaccept-
able. Now the question is whether or not we want to fight it out. And the
Approved For Release 2001/04/05 : CIA 'RDF'$0-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01 `826R000700140001-3
thought that occurred to me was that if we fight it out our whole legis-
lative package will be delayed-for I don't know how long but possibly
too late to get much consideration during this session of Congress. And
I don't see any compelling reason why this has to be fought out this
year. After all, the retirement benefits aren't going to accrue to many
of us for several years to come. I don't see anything magic about this
year. Certainly we don't want to accept the Bureau of the Budget's pro-
posal. Now the question is whether you want to run the risk of getting
everything tied up to where we won't get anything through Congress by
fighting about it, or saying, "Let's withdraw the whole thing and talk
about it next year."
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I would recommend that we agree here that we
follow the following procedure: That we go back to them with a rejoinder
as to what we find in their proposals that we don't like, with the
negotiating committee armed with the views of this Council as to what
should be fought for and what shouldn't be fought for; and then, depending
on what results we get, then we either accede to what they propose or try
on a slightly higher level, with the Director discussing it with Mr.
Brundage, and possibly even with Governor Adams - because I for one, having
watched this governmental process for a long time, am damned if I don't
think the Bureau of the Budget can be arbitrary as hell sometimes. But
I think what we can accomplish this afternoon - I think there is no argu-
ment in the Council--and if there is, please speak out loud and clear--
that we want to get this Bill up on the Hill this year, if for no other
purposes than morale purposes, because we have been working at it now for
three years - actually three years ago this summer.
COLONEL WHITE: It came up last year and we decided to do
nothing about it.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Our Legislative Task Force went to work three
years ago this summer, so the Agency has made noises in that direction.
So I guess we're all in agreement we want to get it up there this year.
And then I think the details of what of this we go along with the Bureau
of the Budget on - wouldn't it be beat if you were armed with the knowledge
of how the Council feels about these various aspects in your discussions?
COLONEL WHITE: I think it would be fine, but I'd like to see
3
Approved For Release 2001/04/O'5' CIA-RDPbb-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
-OW Nor
25X1A9a
what John or Charlie or Norm thinks. My impression from talking with them
is that the only thing we have a very good chance of getting them to back
down on is this involuntary separation, and if there is any further fight-
ing to be done it probably would have to be done by the Director with the
Director of the Budget. I don't think there is much more to be done on
my level.
MR. PAUL: I don't either.
COLONEL WHITE: And therein lies your delay. If you're going to
take it to the Bureau of the Budget and then to Sherman Adams - there is
going to be your delay.
The argument is fairly much over in the lower levels
of the Bureau of the Budget.
MR. PAUL: I don't see any point in going back to Macy's level
and talking about it, and I think we have got to let them know what our
position is and be sure the Director stands behind it, and then tell them
whether we would like to discuss it with the Bureau of the Budget or not.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: How much delay do you feel there would be if we
precipitated it to the Director's level?
MR. PAUL: I think that is hard to tell, Kirk. First of all, our
Director doesn't get back until Monday, and this can't be brought to his
attention earlier than Monday--
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Tuesday. He won't be available for anything
Monday.
MR. PAUL: That's right, I forgot about that. Then you have to
allow the boys over there to brief Brundage. If we have certain points
where we have a negotiating position, it is conceivable that some of these
things could come a little bit closer to what we want.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: We have a 10-day congressional recess starting
today. If we got it up by the time the recess ended, is that fast enough
or do you think we should get it up during the recess?
MR. PAUL: Get the Bill up? Oh, no. I think if we get it up
the first week after the recess we will be doing damn well.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Does that give us time then to take it to the
MR. HOUSTON: Kirk, couldn't the sense of the Council be that
Approved For Release 2001/04LQ5_:CIA-RD1 b-018268000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Colonel White would inform the Bureau of the Budget people he has been
negotiating with, that their proposal is unacceptable, and that we still
feel our proposal is what the Agency needs--and we could expect a stone wall
at that point--and Colonel White would have to be prepared to recede at
that point unless the Director wanted to pick it up next week and go on
from there.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think the Council wants to give Colonel White
as free a hand in proceeding as he pleases from here on in. But what I am
trying to find out, and I don't think I have yet found out, is whether you
people that are negotiating with the Bureau of the Budget feel that it should
be precipitated to the Directorate level or not, or whether you would like
to concede on this level.
May I say something on that, Kirk, just to help you
make up your mind? There were two points that we brought up specifically
in reference first to this 10 years that they insist would have to be spent
in overseas service, with a possible compromise at 9. I personally made a
strong objection to it on the basis that it would be almost impossible of
administration in many cases where a man or woman would have to be pulled
back before their completion of a tour, or they might possibly not be able
ever to be sent back again, for good reasons, either the safety of the in-
dividual or the safety of an operation. They might have spent five, six or
seven years, but there were good reasons never to send the person out of
the country. They wouldn't buy that as any justification for backing away
from the 10 year limitation. I pressed the point as to whether or not
there was an area of compromise here so as to leave us free to even give a
person credit for three years, if that is all they could make in an over-
seas area, and possibly put a 30-year limitation of service--that you would:
have to have 30 years service--but the people with whom we were dealing
indicated that they absolutely could see no compromise on that score.
Who are these people?
They are technicians that are responsible for the
line-by-line review of this thing, and for expressing what they believe to
be the opinion of the White'xouse and the Bureau of the Budget.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Why should they limit us? From what you describe
on how they would limit us, that would seem to be much more restrictive than
for the Foreign Service.
5
Approved For Release 2001/04105 C-IA-RDP~"0-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
25X1A9a
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Why would they limit us when our work is much
25X1A9a
more demanding?
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
They indicated that 20 years total service would
be acceptable as a minimum, with 10 years spent overseas. And I told
them that that just wasn't realistic, that there were many people in the
Agency here who would have an opportunity to serve one and possibly two
terms overseas, but that the possibilities, as they stood now, of their
getting their 10 years service just didn't seem to be on the horizon, and
to penalize those people didn't seem reasonable to us.
A very small number of people would qualify under
this proposal.
COLONEL WHITE: These technicians are also Phil Young's people,
with their White House hats on, pitching in with them. It's really Perry,
Macy and Hamilton, and they haven't got as strong a voice as those other
people have.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Let's discuss for a minute the proposal which
you whizzed by pretty fast, that we send the Bill up with the Bureau of the
Budget's proposals in it, and then go after reconsideration either later
or try to get the Bill--should it happen to pass--amended next year.
COLONEL WHITE: That is not that I said. I wouldn't want it to
go up with the Bureau of the Budget's proposal because I think that proposal
is unacceptable. I would delete the whole retirement provision. Either
you delete the whole retirement provision or else you go fight about it.
Is this the only provision at issue or are there
other nit-picks?
COLONEL WHITE: The territories and possessions thing--
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Does the rest of the Bill have enough in it so
that we want it badly enough to shoot it ahead without this? Because this,
to my mind, is one of the most important benefits which we are fighting for.
COLONEL WHITE: Yes, there is. We ask for a substantial improve-
ment in medical benefits, which I think is acceptable, and taking care of
our dependents, and it's consistent with what they have agreed to with the
Foreign Service, exactly, and I think that is important to us.
The right to accrue home leave is in there.
Approved For Release 2001/04/05.CIA-RDP-8b-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
COLONEL WHITE: There are several things in there.
And there are some other things that we particularly
wanted to talk to the Council about - just a few things.
MR. Kfl ATRICK: Before we do that I want to get the strategy
figured out, after which we can take these six points. But your strategy,
Red, then would be that rather than accept the Bureau of the Budget's re-
tirement proposals we. delete that entire section and send it along without
that? The Bill could then go without it, is that right?
COLONEL WHITE: Well, there is the territories and possessions
problem, which we have already yielded on.
MR. HOUSTON: Except we have some questions.
COLONEL WHITE: My reasoning, Kirk, was that if we should get
retirement legislation of any kind this year, then it would seem to me your
chances of getting that amended anytime in the next four or five years are
pretty remote. So if you don't have in the legislation what you want, it
would seem better' strategy to me to try again next year to get what you want
rather than to accept something which you would almost be stuck with for
several years before you would have justification for going back and having
it changed.
It is important to remember, and I don't know whether
the Council is completely aware of this,, that the way we have written this
it would have retroactive effect, so that we wouldn't be any worse off,
except for a few people who might have retired within the year--
I'd be inclined to recommend that we send the Bill up
this year without the retirement provision. I think there is probably
enough in it to suit the morale purpose which you mentioned indicating Mr.
Kirkpatrick, and with which I heartily concur, and we would have a Bill
there which shows we are really acting on Career Service. I have an idea
this retirement provision is nutty enough--but I think we ought to fight
until the last dog is hung, even for two years. The Bureau of the Budget's
proposal is not only unrealistic but it's totally unacceptable to this
service. I'd rather live under our present provisions.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: The Bureau of the Budget's attitude burns the
hell out of me. Well, let's go on and discuss these six points then.
Minimum time overseas. I think, , we all
7
Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RQP 3
-01826R000700140001-3
b
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
VEW, "M
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
agree with you on this. What it does is cut the DD/I completely out of
the picture, because very few of those people will ever serve 10 years.
I think it definitely would penalize Dick's
people.
If you have a guy who has had two tours and he has
some physical disability so he can't serve overseas again - he's had it.
: You would never get anybody to return from over-
seas if you had this in.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: The second question on point one: Is there a
minimum we would accept or do we want all service overseas - if it counts?
MR. HOUSTON: I don't see any sense for a minimum--
I would much rather see no minimum in there.
PCS duty. We're not talking about temporary duty.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any further argument on Point 1?
Point 2: Minimum time in Government service.
I think on this, Kirk, that the 20 years is reason-
able. It could be 30 or it could be 25. I think there is no problem there.
What we want is 20, isn't it?
MR.KIRKPATRICK: I think so. The thing we mustn't lose sight
of is that we are running more and more into the very real problem of some
of the older operational people having to retire.
: This is a rigidity of formula and you already have
enough rigidity of formula under the Civil Service Retirement Act, so why
get another?
MR. PAUL: What are you doing? Turning down Point 2?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: We agreed with 2.
Next, the bonus of 2%. I think we want to fight on this
May I say a word on that? I asked this fellow who
was giving us the Bureau's pitch if he wanted to comment on the passage
of the Johnston Bill which is now before Congress, which would raise the
rate for everybody from i1 to 2% per year of service. Well, he gave me a
rather stuffy answer to the effect that that does not represent the Admini-
stration's views. But I think the possibilities of that Bill passing are
fairly good. And because we were attempting not to cover total service in
Approved For Release 2001/04/05 CIA-RD AO-01 826ROO0700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
CIA but only that part overseas, I think their objection to this is just
a book objection and has no real basis, no real merit.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think we really want to fight for this one,
because this is where I think the Agency has got to stand up and be counted
as being different from the rest of the Federal Government.
25X1A9a And fight for 20 then.
25X1A9a What you are really fighting for is time-and-a-half
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
credit. The Johnston Bill is 2% and we would be fighting for 3%.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Anything more on 2%?
Can I go back to Point 2 for a moment? Does not 2
add to the present formula?
I am personally against it, but the Council voted
MR. KIRKPATRICK: We may have noted in ignorance, 25X1A9a
What is the tricky formula? I can't follow your rapid mathematics.
25X1A9a We have a formula - so many years service at a
certain age. This is a new stumbling block which would mean that someone
coming to our shop at the age of 40 or 45 years scarcely has a chance to get
credit for any of his overseas service if this 20-year requirement goes in.
25X1A9a Now you can retire in certain circumstances with 15
years service or involuntary circumstance or disability - you can retire
with 10 years, but this is a brand new requirement which says you must have
20 before you get benefits.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Then we want to reverse ourselves on Point 2.
Mr. Paul, you're looking fainter and fainter.
MR. PAUL: This looks fine as far as I am concerned.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Well, Point 3 we said we have to fight.
All right, Point 4. Now this to my mind is a complete
subterfuge. All that is going to do is necessitate administrative agreements
between employees--
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
comes out of the report of the Kaplan Committee on the retirement systems in
the Federal Government, and it is attempting, I think, to "guinea pig" us on
this point. He is using this as one of the principles that the Kaplan
It's dishonest, immoral and all wrong.
The only thing I can add to this is that this thought
Approved For Release 2001/04ftl5'':CIA-RD1 0-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Committee came up with on this matter of retirement, that where you have a
selection out process then it is reasonable to have a lesser retirement age.
But understand, now, the Kaplan Committee reports have not been accepted in
toto; as a matter of fact, I doubt whether a lot of it will ever be accepted,
but the principle is out of the Kaplan Committee. His first point was, "Well,
perhaps this needs to be written into your legislation - that is, your basic
organic act here that the Director separate people for this purpose." But
then he said, "Well, of course, you have basic authority to separate anyhow,
so just use that authority."
And these are the people we're debating with! This
shows their level of understanding. You have to get fired before you get this!
You can tell the fellows over there this may be the
Agency of dirty tricks but we wouldn't stoop to anything like this.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I don't think there is much point in discussing
Point 4. How about Point 5?
I think that is wrong. I have a lot of boys
who have had six or eight years of military service.
We sure went around on this before - internally.
The way I see Point 5--and I've checked with Charlie--
a man can be hired by this Agency at age 58, work one day for us, and get
credit for 20 years overseas service with the Department of Agriculture. And
that is completely cockeyed as far as I am concerned. It's absolutely
idiotic. But that is what this says.
That is right.
Here again the Bureau is trying to apply the broad
brush treatment to this legislation, the same as they try to apply it to all
Government legislation. They point out that whenever you deal with the
Retirement Act you are not dealing with a small group of people but with
two million people. And I gave him quite a story about what our Career Staff
concept was and that this was aimed at developing a career force, but I'm
afraid it just went over his head.
I thought this was to encourage people
overseas to stay overseas.
Also, I feel the Bureau would not hold fast on this,
and, as Red says, I don't believe they would bleed and die on this point,
but it was one they insisted we consider.
Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
-Now" imw
MR. KIRKPATRICK: From your description it sure sounds like
you are dealing with great, open-minded people over there!
25X1A9a I think there is one other point. For six or
eight months we around this table struggled with the problem of constructive
credit for CIG, SSU and OSS, and I would hate to see that opened up again
because we knocked ourselves out on it.
MR. PAUL: I have the impression they don't care about this,
that this was thrown in to lessen the blow of some of these others.
25X1A9a
MR. KIRKPATRICK: They thought we would probably like it.
How about Point 6?
Of course, this is the major question that is
addressed to the whole proposal.
COLONEL WHITE: Could I ask a question on 5 before we leave it?
This doesn't preclude getting credit for Federal Service but he just
doesn't get credit at the accelerated rate?
25X1A9a : That is right.
25X1A9a As long as you get credit for Federal service and
you can't take that away from them--
25X1A9a And it is only civilian service that we are talking
25X1A9a about, as opposed to what you mentioned, of a man in
military service.
25X1A9a it says "other agencies of U.S. Govern-
ment."
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Well, if he is counting military service in his
total period of service, yes.
COLONEL WHITE: He gets credit for everything he would get credit
for in another Government agency, but the accelerated or increased benefits
only apply to CIA?
That is all right.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: There is not much point in discussing No. 6.
It's tied to the whole territorial question, and that is one I think has
too much political oooomph on the other side.
Are there any other comments on these six points?
I'd say the Bureau of the Budget had a fine day at
Approved For Release 2001 /04105 " CFA-RDP, 0-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
MR. KIRKPATRICK: You can tell the Bureau of the Budget that
the CIA Career Council unanimously rejected all of their points, and
25X1A9a leave out some of adjectives!
COLONEL WHITE: I don't know that they will just exactly quiver
about that!
MR. PAUL: It isn't going to strike terror into their hearts.
I would suggest that someone who understands the problem--
and who knows his mathematics--be deputized to go over and explain to them
why this is unsatisfactory, either through going over and explaining this
to them or writing them and telling them. But if we just say "this is un-
satisfactory" - that is a weak position, it's not a strong position.
COLONEL WHITE: I think we ought to write them.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think we ought to write them. I'd like to go
on record on this position. The thought occurs that should this point
arise we might well be prepared to tell the President of the Board about
it, because this is an important issue, and I think that is one place where
they can help, particularly if we get somebody like Mr. Lovett taking an
interest in personnel matters.
MR. PAUL: I think there is another argument in favor of not
pursuing this too far in this year's legislation, and that is the Admini-
stration frankly doesn't know what it wants in the general field of retire-
ment, at this point, and they don't have their counter Bill to the Johnston
Bill as yet, as I understand it -well, they have a Bill but they are flirt-
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
ing around with all kinds of ideas--so maybe we would be better off taking
a fresh look at it in a new Congress.
MR. KIRKL'ATRICK: I don't think too many personnel bills are
going through this Congress. There is no political magic in Government
personnel bills in an election year.
Aside from the morale factor, if the Bureau of the
Budget and Congress are willing to make this retroactive to say 1947, very
few would lose anything. It's only those who might retire between now and
the potential date of the actual decision. Isn't that true?
Yes.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any further discussion on this?
Does the General Counsel want to bring up some additional
points?
12
Approved For Release 2001 /04/05- -CIA-R-DP,80-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. HOUSTON: We felt that particularly for the purpose of re-
drafting for re-presentation to the Bureau, we would like some guidance
on two points. One has to do with the death benefit, which has met
opposition in the Bureau. Has that definitely been abandoned now as a
proposal we are going to consider?
COLONEL WHITE: It was discussed at a Deputies' meeting and then
brought before this Council. But it was my recommendation that we not
fight about this one because at the time we put this in the Government did
not have the insurance program, nor did we, and our arguments on this one
are not anywhere near as valid as they were then, and it would, I think, be
very difficult to support in the face of opposition.
MR. HOUSTON: So in drafting it we will leave that out.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any objection?
What was this?
COLONEL WHITE: Just an automatic $1,000 death gratuity to the
next of kin on the death of an employee. And, as I say, with the Eisenhower
insurance that can be paid some other way now.
The Council also, when it considered these seven
points in the legislative program, agreed this would be the one from which
we would retire first. The Council felt that a few years ago.
I was going to say I don't have any objection to this
but I understand now they will come back with a "not favorably considered"
in the official communication back to this Agency. I am just wondering if
that would be the better way to drop it, on the redraft, rather than to
voluntarily drop it without their disapproval.
MR. HOUSTON: I thought they were going to act on the redraft.
MR. PAUL: This has been sort of left open. We have been pressing
for a reply. We know the nature of the reply, at least in this section we
certainly do, and what we told them the last time we met was that we would
discuss with the Career Council the retirement business and after we got
that one out of the way then we would get a letter from them giving their
position, after which we would certainly clear a new Bill on its way to the
Hill. I would just anticipate their turn-down of this and eliminate it
from the draft.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think that is all right.
Do you have another point, Larry?
Approved For Release 2001/04/05 :IA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. HOUSTON: On the territories and possessions.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: What page is this in the Bill, Larry?
MR. HOUSTON: The point they specifically struck at were the
allowances on page 9, and the medical benefits on page 7, because it's
not the travel it's the treatment. They took such a strong position it
is my understanding that we were ready to retreat from trying to get
those benefits for the territories and possessions. However, they did
not specifically, as I understand it, rule out some of the travel authori-
ties and authorities such as home leave for territories and possessions -
they just didn't come to issue. And we were wondering if those which were
not specifically objected to should not go into our draft, with authority
to Colonel White to press for those which might be obtained, although,
again, if you meet final objection, there again to drop them out of the
remainder of the Bill. Again it reflects our drafting problem. We would
draft it if you agree we should go ahead and make the attempt to get those
travel and other authorities that have not been specifically objected to,
we would draft those in for presentation.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I am certainly in favor of that.
Well, they indicated agreement with the home leave
benefit, as I recall it.
MR. HOUSTON: I wasn't there, but--
We don't remember that that was discussed specifically.
They indicated, as I recall, that they saw no reason
why our folks shouldn't have the same home leave benefit as does State.
This is in relation to the Foreign Service territories
and possessions.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: In other words, home leave from territories.
MR. HOUSTON: State doesn't have anyone assigned to territories.
25X1A9a It's home leave from foreign territories and home
leave from territories and possessions as well. They indicated first a
major objection to territories and possessions, but they at the same time
indicated they saw no reason why our folks shouldn't be on a par with State
insofar as home leave is concerned, so I interpret that to mean they saw
no objection to our having home leave privileges, the same as State's,
where they are in foreign areas.
14
Approved For Release 2001/0410.5. CIA-RDF`0-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. HOUSTON: All right, in drafting we have changed the words
in the allowances section, page 9, to read "abroad," which they under-
stand to mean outside territories and possessions, and the same thing has
been done to the medical benefits.
Our medical thing is now exactly the same as the
Bureau of the Budget has accepted and has been introduced for the State
Department.
And you're eliminating the words "outside the
continental United States"?
MR. HOUSTON: We're saying "abroad" for the allowances and medi-
cal benefits, but in drafting the other provisions we will continue to have
it phrased so it would apply to territories and possessions, and we will
see if we can argue some of them through.
I'd certainly like to see it in there, because they
could fast make a colonial power out of us.
MR. HOUSTON: That would give us such things as travel, storage,
transportation of automobiles, transportation of deceased persons, and
things like that, which would be very useful if we could get them. We will
proceed and have this redrafted by tomorrow.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any other points on the legislation?
Any new business?
: We agreed to drop some other things, which haven't
been discussed.
The commuted per diem, but that is such a minor
thing we just didn't bring it up.
COLONEL WHITE: I don't think you should ever have had it in
there in the first place. That was a question of saying the per diem between
here and London should be "X" number of dollars, no matter whether you
sleigh ride, take a boat or paddle a canoe. That would mean more bookkeeping
than it would be worth.
25X1 A9a On the l2th of April we plan to be able to distri-
bute that revised paper on "Individual Career Planning." But I don't think
we can do it before then.
25X1A9a
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I thought we were going to have it next week.
It can't be done. We can't do it.
15
Approved For Release 2001/04105 :' CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
 Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826R000700140001-3
25X1A9a MR. KIRKPATRICK: says the schedule will be we
will have "Individual Career Planning" at the meeting on 19 April, and
at the meeting on 3 May the National Defense Executive Reserve and the
Senior Civil Service. Are we going to get some interesting documents to
read on that in advance?
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
took the career plans that the men had presented and went over them with
them, and I am now forwarding them two places: to the Personnel Office to
be entered in their Official Personnel Folders, and to their Career
Service Boards, indicating all of their desires for their next assignments,
even though there are no assignments coming up in 1956 - the next ones
"experiment," I carried the operation a step further with my Staff and
Yes. We have stacks of pro's and con's.
COLONEL WHITE: This is the one Amory wants to have discussed.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I am very skeptical as to whether we can be
a part of it. That will be on 3 May. Then on 17 May - "Competitive Pro-
motion and Assignment."
I have only one thing I might point out on this career
planning. Still experimenting, and with all humility because this IS just
being in 1957.
I will be interested to see how this develops as far as
career planning is concerned. I. have talked to a couple of you about this,
but this is trying to get this on an orderly basis.
I would like to comment on the National Defense
Executive Reserve coming before the Council, and would like to ask that
this date be tentative in order that we may have a position in DD/S with
regard to the feasibility of it or in order that we might have specific
proposals. I'm not certain that we can clear it by 3 May, and would like
to have that as a DDS matter before coming to the Council.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: We will make those dates tentative, with the
exception of the 19 April one.
Any other new business?
Thank you, gentlemen.
. . . The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. . . .
16
Approved For Release 2001/04/05: CIA-RD180-01826R000700140001-3