YOUR 1030 MEETING WITH THE DCI MAG, 4 OCTOBER

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 44
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 30, 2005
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: October 3, 1977
• Content Type: MF

Approved For AMease 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP80M00165"01200049f 6
MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. Blake
FROM : B. C. Evans
Executive Secretary
3 October 1977
IJ~-sf't~ - `5
SUBJECT : Your 1030 Meeting with the DCI MAG, 4 October
1. Enclosed on the left is a roster of the current MAG membership..
is the current Chairman. He will pick you up in your office,
bring you to the DCI Conference Room, and walk you around the table intro-
ducing you to the membership.
2. Enclosed on the right are some topics MAG may raise with you.
However, per our conversation Friday afternoon, I believe they would
benefit most by your observations and perceptions of a reorganized CIA.
3. John Waller phoned last week to say that he wishes to meet with
MAG and review Agency grievance procedures -- a topic in which they have
a continuing interest. Also, I have arranged for White House Fellow
Tom Harvey to speak with them in the weeks ahead re his perceptions.
Once MAG's Annual Report is completed, I will review with you; and the
DCI will then meet with this generation of MAG (o/a 24 October).
4. Also enclosed on the tight is MAG's paper of 9 September re
"Two-Grade Promotion Policy." Believe you told me you were referring
it to EAG and that it was a useful piece.
STAT
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 25X1 Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved Fo lease 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80MO01GM001200040016-1
Proposed revision could drastically alter classification.
procedures for documents. Impact on our staffing for document
controls may be major and perhaps could be anticipated to avoid
inefficient adjustments to changes.
2
S E C R E T
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For`Rrtlease 2005/g7/j2 C 4- 2D, 80M00169A001200040016-1
DCI/MAG AGENDA ITEMS FOR MEETING
WITH ADDCI, 4 OCTOBER 1977
1. Discussion of MAG's role:
At this point in CIA history, MAG believes it could
contribute best by responding to specific tasking.by upper
management. While MAG would continue to be alert to ideas
arising at the working level, we feel the uncertainty prevailing
among individuals concerning their futures and the Agency's
is momentarily inhibiting open initiatives which MAG could
develop. Accordingly, MAG is likely to be more useful, until
that uncertainty dissipates, by cooperating with management on
specific projects which management wishes to press to restore
confidence, sense of purpose, pride, and interest.
A hotline for informational and counselling purposes
may be of use in alleviating individual concerns. MAG has in
hand a specific employee suggestion emphasizing psychological
support, while NPIC has some experience with a hotline for
information. OMS and OS have relevant experience and data.
An early proposal is possible to generate.
A former MAG member suggests consideration of a
sabbatical program with emphasis on business and industry rather
than schools. This vehicle could help to improve our middle-
management capabilities relatively soon. Obvious problems
icnlude attitude of component chiefs and private firms concerning
our mutual association.
4. Employees' legal responsibilities:
MAG senses a need to examine current Agency policy
and consider whether it should be amended to enhance employee
confidence that they are legally tasked and properly supported
should their actions come under legal review. Present policy,
rightly or wrongly, seems generally perceived as throwing the
action officers to the wolves.
S E C R E T
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 Approved For lease 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M0016"'!1A001200040016-1
25X1
.Su'a ct.: comment on Study of Ir-ea3ibillty of Two-Grade
Pro ation Policy
A [9 Sept 77
A DA
i vpE ,s
2x. Re
Addressee
Comptroller
AG ch?ono
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For lease 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP80MO01 001200040016-1
S E C R E T
9 September 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Mr. John P.' Blake
Acting Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence
25)X1
PROM
:
SUBJECT
REFBRB CES
s
.
airman, DCI 7NAG
Comment on Study of Feasibility of Two-Grade
Promotion Policy
A. ADDCI Memo dated 29 August 1977
(ER 77-5598/1)
B. Memo dated 18 August 1977 to ADDCI via
Compt fr D/Pers (ER 77-5578)
1. DCI/MAG welcomes the opportunity given us by
Mr. Blake in Reference A to comment on Reference B study of
the feasibility of a two-grade promotion policy for grades
GS-7 through GS-ll.. We understand this to be an effort to
benefit a significant number of employees and welcome the
chance to participate.
2. DCI/MAG is in general agreement that the two-grade
promotion policy as outlined in Reference B should be adopted.
However, we find that three changes should be made to the
proposal to assure that its effects would be beneficial.
3. The first change, which we strongly urge, would be
to 1.efersnce B Section 4C which suggests, . Career
Services. . seek to reduce the average time-in-grade in
FY 1979 for two-grade promotions by 10 percent from the
PY 1976 combined lapsed time for two single-grade promotions.
Our rough analysis (see attachment) shows that a reduction of
only 10.percent would cause the average employee to lose pay
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved ForIease 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M0016t001200040016-1
S E C .2 .E T
corpared to the present ote.grads systeea. T a average loss
from 5-7 to GS-9 would approxiaate $1,S65 and from GS-9 to
GS-11 about $1,970 based on calculations from the October 1976
pay schedule. Our finding seems to check with reference B.
Section 5, sub-para. 3 which states in part, It. . . the costs
of pro nation would actually be reduced because of the absence
of intorvening (single grade) promotions." This outcome,
evidently would be contrary to the intent to benefit eepioyees
by making a change. Wherefore, DCI/MAG support for this
proposal is contingent upon a recce endation that Officer of
Personnel revisor its proposed iQ percent average tine-in-grade,
reduction. We estimate; that a figure of 20 percent or more,
when carefully computed, would be found gore equitable and
Lake the change worth the trouble,
4. 1Xl/M G realizes that even if office of personnel
revises its suggested percentage, it will not fissure imple-
mentation. Thus, our second recommendation is for guidance
to be given to couponent chiefs who receive ranking panel
rocoeseendationsc to help than assure that the terZet percentage
is reached.
5. OUT third recommendation relates to ?eforencee B,
Section 3, sub--para. 2, which suggests that transitional
promotions for employees in even-nuebee?ed grades should not
follow soarer than three years after their promotion to the
previous odd number grade. 4e believe this is harsher than
existing tiae?in-grace gui;deel:ine.s and should be changed to
I m+ nth3.
para. 2, iC.X/ "G fenels ns follows: a___...... W 0ance fig,
a. Son. _indilvidual inequities may occur during
the transition. period, but the overall proposal is
roasonabie, if our third recommendation is adopted.
b. Without more information we can only guess
that pares-professionals, technicians, and secretaries May
be better off by being excluded. We suspect that some of
these employees sometlaes gain one-grade promotions where k,,,
7. DCl/WAG hopes our views will he heel
ful
d
f
.p
, an
o
course, remains ready for further participation in this matter
2$X1
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 L~ UNCLASSIFIED
J lKUNAL CONFID NTIAL
LJ SE(RH
Approved For Fe! d 5/AV.1 2 : iUkaI :P8 $$'g5A001200040016-1
Feasibility of Two-Grade Promotion PLIlic:
FROi~:
Johri F. Blake
Acti ig Director of
Cen yral Tnteel l i gencre -
TO (Officer designation, room number, and
budding)
"Director of Personnel
5E 58 rigs
17 )'eoten(ber 197
)iU :7,`, ( or o. -ct-
lire .cross column after Both c ...->.1
of the proposed
=radfe i.pron;.,tion policy to the
F t :,r al N',\if Ur?oq_s has proved to be
y s .tr q exercise.
~o_i aid your appropriz.tc-
,;,'e pi ~e iiov' revisit this Hiatt
FCRM '') !'} USE Pe#v,pUS
~_h2 0 tJ ED)nONS
] S
CREi
4 z1 on the ? attached papers and
l ; s ? ii.(j change the
)fused uul i c / change and/or the
,+?'3tz(;r c z `o mr,1 enient the policy.
)nhn F. 1~ a. e
it,I",i i .1
ri f`
__J U?CLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
STAT
 Approved For F71g4ease 2405/07112 : Cr RDP801VI0C 1 fi$ 1200040
15 September 1977
STAT
STAT
MEMORANDUM FOR: Acting Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT Two-Grade Promotion Policy
1. I recommend disapproval of the two-grade promotion policy.
2. I do not believe a two-grade promotion policy would benefit
employees. The present time-in-grade rates would have to be reduced
drastically to offset loss of pay at the even numbered grades. Such
drastic compression of the waiting period would add considerably to
the Agency's personnel costs--in excess of I according to the
Director of Personnel's estimates. A few ho s o s would benefit,
but they can be promoted under the present system without strict
adherence to time-in-grade guidelines.
3. I am sure the differences between DIA and CIA photo
interpreters are highlighted because the employees work side-by-side
every day. Other employees also can point to individual cases where
employees of other agencies progress at a faster rate. Our concern
should be whether we can answer these questions by stating that the
overall agency rates compare favorably with overall rates in other
agencies, especially those engaged in similar kinds of work.
4. If you disapprove the two-grade promotion policy, I recommend
that you task the Director of Personnel to come up with minimum time-
in-grade standards for promotion at each grade level. These standards
should be set after studying present Agency averages and averages at
a selected number of other federal agencies.
5. If you approve the two-grade promotion policy, I recommend
a) that the minimum time-in-grade requirement for the transition period
be shortened from the recommended three years to two years (Thirty months
would not be-unacceptable to me either.); b) that the policy apply only to
professional and technical employees, not to clerical employees.
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 4tPrR~ nr ^~vR`4r`/AT~'ll ~ c ~f:~ :3 f~~'?~ i~`t ~~d
Approved For Fiaiease 2005/07/12 CIA-RDP80M00165VW01200040016-1
6. I do not recommend applying the two-grade promotion to
clerical employees because I believe many of the clerical positions
now classified at even numbered grades, i.e., GS-4, GS-6, GS-8,
would be reclassified lower rather than higher. For example, a
position now classified as GS-6 might be reclassified as GS-5 because
the duties are more nearly related to GS-5 than to GS-7. I think many
clerical employees who would not get a two-grade promotion benefit
from the single grade policy.
7. Another consideration is the number of clerical positions
currently at the even numbered grade. For example, there are nearly
compared to
approximately 10 professional employees at the GS-6 level.
8. Attached is the summary of the Management Advisory Group's
responses. For your information, I checked with the Chairmen of the
DDI and DCI Management Advisory Groups to be sure that they understood
that the three-year requirement during the transition period did not
apply to employees ranked in the top category. After this discussion,
both still felt that the three-year limit was too long even for those
employees who are not ranked in the top category.
STAT
Attachment
As Stated
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M0016574t01200040016-1
Two-Grade Promotions
Question 1: Whether we should implement a two-grade promotion policy
as recommended by the Director of Personnel.
requirement ''
reduced)
DDA DDS&T DDI DDO DCI
Yes No No No Yes (Provided 3-
Question 2: Whether the two-grade promotion policy should apply only
to professional employees or include clerical and technical
as well.
DDA DDS&T DDI DDO DCI
All Prof. All All Prof.
Only Only
Major Concerns of All MAG Groups
1. There will be loss of salary to individual employees during the
period between GS-7 and GS-9 or GS-9 and GS-ll. For example. =tea
now have the advantage of getting paid at the GS-8 level rather
waiting a longer period for promotion from GS-7 to GS-9.
2. The three-year transitional waiting period that would be r~u;ui
for promotion from even numbered grades (GS-6, GS-8, GS-1O) ?
next odd numbered grade (GS-7, GS-9, GS-11) is too long.
3. The average time-in-grade reduction of 10 percent requestod
Office of Personnel is not sufficient; at least 20 percent 4
needed.
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For RJease 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165*601200040016-1
Summary of Comments/Recommendations
DDS&T
Adjust minimum time-in-grade and average time between promotions
more than the amount recommended by the Director of Personnel.
DDI
Adjust time-in-grade guidelines to conform to Civil Service
averages.
Use a two-year minimum for promotion from even numbered to odd
numbered rather than three years.
Request D/EEO comments on effect change would have on EEO efforts.
Focus attention on reducing disparity between Directorates in the
rate of promotion rather than between CIA/NPIC and DIA.
DCI
Reduce average time-in-grade for two-grade promotions by 20 percent
or more.
Change period for transitional promotions from three years to 18
months in grade.
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 25X1 Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Tease 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00l6ft01200040016-1
S E C R E T
Attachment
Comparisons of two-grade and one-grade promotions
1. Current DDS&T minimum time-in-grade requirements:
GS-07
9
months
GS-08
9
months
GS-09
12
months
GS-10
12
months
2. At the fastest rate, a DDS$T could move from GS-07
to GS-09 in 18 months, and from GS-09 to GS-11 in 24 months.
However, according to OP's, study, the AAaencyaverage time to
go from-GS-07 to GS-09 is 51 months, and from GS-09 to GS-11
is 45 months. OP proposes these figures be reduced 10 percent
in implementing a two-grade promotion system. In tabular form:
Fastest
Average. Average less 10%
GS-07 to -09
GS-09 to -11
I mos.
24 mos.
mos.
151.
45"mos.
46 mos.
40 mos.
3.
From this table', two facts:
a. '.Employees
moving at the
fastest rate
would
gain
no advantage from a two-grade promotion system if its
minimum time-in-grade requirements are equivalent to those
above
b. Employees moving at the. average rate would gain
five months of pay at the GS-09 and GS-11 rates respectively.
4.
Now, a look at the pay these two-classes (fast and
average)
might receive under the current one-grade promotion
system..
We
will use a slightly inaccurate.assumption'that the
employee
is
promoted to GS-08 or to GS-10 in half-the average
time OP
says
it now takes to go from GS-07 to--09 or-from GS-09.
to -11.
In
tabular form:.
Fastest
Avera e
em
GS-0.7
to
-08
m
os.
GS-08
to
-09
9
mos.
25.5
mos.
GS-09
to
-10
12
mos.
22.5
mos.
GS-10
to
-i1
12
mos.
22.'5
mos.
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 Approved For 'ease 2005/07/12 : CIIA-RD1P, 80M0016 01200040016-1
5. From this table we learn:
a. Employees moving at the fastest rate receive
nine months of GS-08 pay on the way from GS-07 to -09,
and twelve months of GS-10 pay between GS-09 and -11.
b. Employees moving at the average rate would receive
25.5 months of GS-08 pay on the way from GS 07 to -09, and
22.5 months of GS-10 pay between GS-09 and -11.
6. Finally, we can compare the results of these two
tables as follows:
a. GS-07 to.-09 two-grade promotion:
1) Fastest gains nothing, but loses nine months
of GS-08 pay.
2) Average. gains five months of GS-09 pay, but
loses 25.5 months of GS-08 pay.
b. GS-09 to -1l two-grade promotion:
1) Fastest gains nothing., but'loses twelve
months of GS-10 pay.
2) Average gains five months of-GS-11 pay, but
loses 22.5 months of GS-10 pay. .
7. Rough figures, usi.ng the October. 1976 general pay
schedule and referring to Step 1 in all grades, suggest' the following
net loss to each employee:-
.GS-07 to -09
Fastest - $ 930 ?
Average - $1,564
GS-09 to -11
Fastest - $1,427
Average - $1,970 .
(Note: These. figures should be recomputed for M.AG by a.
specialist in Payroll.)
8. Thus, going to a two-grade promotion system,.whiie
retaining current time-in-grade requirements, would be an economy
measure for the Agency, but would not be -a. benefit for the
employees affected.. If such a system is adopted for.'budget
reasons, this should be frankly explained to the employees,
without 'raising false hope that they will benefit by it..
2
S l: c' I I; 'I'
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165*801200040016-1'
S E C R E T
9. If it is hoped that such a system would be any
advantage to employees, then an aver ge time-in-grade reduction
of greater than 10 percent seems required, and should be
calculated carefully. Even so, it is unlikely that employees
who are moving at the fastest rate could be benefited unless
minimum time-in-grade requirements were also reduced.
1; t' 12 l '1'
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165 001200040016-1
S F. C R R 7'
1. GS-07 $11,523 $ 960/month
GS-08 -12,763 1,064/month
GS-09 14,097 1,175/month
GS-10 15,524 1,295/month
GS-11. 17,056 1,421/month
2. GS-08 for nine months $9,572
GS-07 for nine months 8__,642
Difference 930
3. GS-09 for five months $ 5,875 (GS-07 for 5 months $4,800
GS-08 for 25.5 months 27,119 Difference .$1,075)
GS-07 for 25.5 months 24,480
Difference 2,639
-1,075
4. GS-10 for 12 months $15,524
GS-09 for 12 months _1.4097
Difference 1,427
5. GS-11 for five months $ 7,205
GS-10 for five months __6,475
Difference 830
6. GS-10 for 22.5 months $29,137
GS-09 for 22.5 months 26,437
Difference 2,70.0
,970
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 P. P.
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
Memo to ADDCI F.
EXTENSION Trv0.
DATE
3D5317
9 September 1977 ST
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
Exec. Reg.
~aue'c~w
3.
6.
10.
--
--- -- J
11.
12.
13.
--
- -
14.
15.
FORM 610 USE PREVIOUS SECRET CONFIDENTIAL INTERNAL UNCLASSIFIED
3-62 EDITIONS F-] ^ F-1 USE ONLY ^
F F
UNCLASSIFIED -'-'`RNAY CONF NTIAL ^ SECRET
T
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 C _~r ^ti i. .~., !~ 1.. 10i~L. r.~ ~./:.'CJ 4.y JE, i
MEMORANDUM FOR: Acting Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence
Chairman, DDS&T MAP
SUBJECT Review of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
REFERENCE ADDCI Memorandum dated 29 August 1977,
ER 77-5578/1
1. The DDS#;T MAP met on 8 September 1977 to discuss
the two-grade promotion policy per your request. Due to
both the limited time and information available, we
restricted our attention to an interpretation of the issues
and policy recommendations as contained in the attachments
to the referent memorandum. (A/IU0)
OD&E 0975-77
9 SEP 1977
2. After carefully considering the matter, we
recommend against implementation of the two-grade promotion
policy. We feel that with minimum changes to the current
guidelines governing promotion policy within the Agency,
more potential benefits, primarily in terms of compensation,
will accrue to the employee using the present one-grade
promotion system. (A/IUO)
3. I have briefly summarized the three major factors
which motivated us to reach this judgment. First and
foremost, our interpretation of.the intent for the suggested
policy change was assumed to be for the benefit of the
employee. While we recognize that there is a question of
the degree of personal satisfaction to be gained from two
one-grade versus a single two-grade promotion, we subordinated
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Re9ease 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A901200040016-1
SUBJECT: Review of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
this subjective-aspect of the issue to an objective considera-
tion of employee compensation. If, as suggested in the referent
memorandum, the current time-in-grade guidelines are maintained,
the two-grade promotion system would be an economy measure for
,the Agency and would actually reduce the cumulative compensation
that an employee would have accrued had he been promoted at
quicker than average standards under the current system.
Secondly, since there is an implied intent to maintain pay
comparability for compensation derived under the Agency system
contrasted with that derived under Civil Service for similar
or identical positions, we felt that this could best be
achieved by adjustment of the step level within grade. Lastly,
the Panel felt that the costs quoted for the transition were
unrealistically low since these did not include the costs
which would be incurred to realign positions within the Agency
to make these compatible with the proposed odd. grade system
for professionals. In addition to these main concerns, the
Panel also felt that better management control as well as a
better spread of individuals versus grade level could be
maintained by keeping the present system. (A/IUO)
4 Regarding whether or not the proposed policy would
be equitable to Para-professionals, technicals and clericals,
the Panel felt that these individuals constituted a separate
compensation class which does not need to be considered
with professionals. Although there conceivably could be
some individuals in this class who might be affected by this
policy change, these would stand to benefit the least in terms
of eligibility for continued two-step promotions. In these
instances, for the small numbers of individuals assumed to be
involved, inequities could be corrected by QSI's or other
forms of monetary recognition. (A/IUO)
5. We did not wish to totally reject the proposed
policy change; however, we do feel that as a minimum to
negate any potential compensation loss to an employee, both
the minimum time-in-grade and more importantly the actual
average time between promotions would require adjustments
.above and beyond the amounts suggested. These would,
however, result in increasing the costs to the Agency. (A/IUO)
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 Approved For Rase 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A@01200040016-1
SUBJECT: Review of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
6. The panel appreciates the opportunity to
participate in this proposed policy action and would be
glad to elaborate on its position should the need arise. (A/IUO)
Signed
CHAIRMAN, DDS&?T MAP
Distribution:
Original - Addressee
I - ER
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 UNCLASSIFI@0provecE r W&2005/07/12: CIA-RDM MOOWS6012 &040016-1 ^ SECRET
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
Review of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
FROM:
EXTENSIOI,
NO.
OD &E 0975-77
I
Chariman DDS&T MAP
DATE
9 September 1977
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
1.
Executive Registry
7E12 H s.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM 61 O USE PREVIOUS SECRET INTERNAL
3-62 EDITIONS F-1 ^ CONFIDENTIAL El USE ONLY UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 C. f r~F:dv. x~.y ~.ery
Approved For R ?ase 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP80M00l 57 12000 -I--
9 September 1977
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Acting Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence
Chairman, Administration Management
Advisory Group
SUBJECT Feasibility of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
1. II The ADMAG concurs in the two-grade promotion
policy put orth in your memorandum of 29 August 1977.
In addressing the problem of the person presently holding
an even numbered grade, we feel the proposed transition
is adequate. It should be up to each Career Service to
solve any so called inequity.
0
2. We share your concern about the inequity as it
pertains o paraprofessionals, technicians and secretarial/
clericals. We suggest the policy be applied uniformly.
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 STAT
'OUTJNG AND RECORD SHEE'
Approved F r ease200 fl C4A-iRDR8$M{G%
SUBJECT: (Optional)
Feasibility of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
----
FROM: EXTENSION NO.
- 0 D S S DATE
1B16 H QS. 9 September 1977
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and DATE
building) OFFICER'S COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED FORWARDED INITIALS to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
AD/CI
7E12 HQS.
4.
8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM
3-62
0 USEDIRE
ONS OUS F-1 SECRET ^ CONFIDENTIAL [.J' SSE O Y ^ UNC . SSIF En
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Iase 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP80M0016901
12 September 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR: Acting Director of Central Intelligence
VIA: Acting Director for Operations
25X1 FROM:
Chairman, DDO MAG
SUBJECT: Feasibility of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
REFERENCE: b Your Memorandum, Same Subject,
dated 29 August 1977
1. In reference you requested the DDO MAG to address
its comments specifically to two aspects of the proposed
two-grad.epromotion policy which concerned you. It immedi-
ately became apparent in our discussion, however, that the
MAG members questioned the advisability of adopting a two-
grade promotion policy at all and thought it would be useful
to convey the. reasons for their View in this response.
A. One of the benefits expected from the
current effort to reduce the size of the.DO is
an increase in headroom. If we adopt a two-grade
promotion policy, a new "hump" in the grade struc-
ture will be created more quickly than if our
present system is maintained, and there will again
be insufficient headroom.
B. A two-grade promotion policy with a 10%
compression of time-in-grade (as recommended) would
result in a 2-3% loss of salary income during the
average time-in-grade (TIG) to individual professional
employees. The loss is obviously directly proportional
to the time one remains in grade but for those whose
TIG exceeds the average, the loss would become signif-
icant. If you compress the TIG more than 10%, you
accelerate the creation of an imbalance in the grade
structure.
.CONFIDENTIAL
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Reese 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
2 -
C. It is'possible that two-grade promotions
will cause a loss of incentive for employees
because of the longer wait before tangible rewards
are received.
D. Lastly, the inequality created in NPIC
by the different promotion systems of DIA and CIA
may be cause for concern, but NPIC is only one
component of the Agency. It is unclear whether
the morale problems noted in that office are also
found in other components of the Agency. A larger
problem of concern to a greater number of employees
is the disparity in the rate of promotion within
the directorates of CIA. This problem has been
noted for some time and perhaps should also be
addressed now.
2. It is our opinion that the two-grade promotion policy
as outlined in the attachment to reference would be unfair to
those in the even grades for two reasons:
A. Those with even grades unlucky enough
.to be in training at the time the plan is adopted
would be at a distinct disadvantage because they
would have to wait for the normal promotion cycle,
unlike those in positions where the grade is higher
than the grade of the incumbent.
B. Those with even grades who happen to be in
positions where the grade is the same as that of
the incumbent would also be treated unequally
simply because they were in those particular slots
at the time of the Agency's conversion to the two-
grade promotion system. They, like the personnel
in training, would have to wait for the normal
promotion cycle to be promoted.
3. As to whether the two-grade promotion policy would be
discriminatory to secretaries, technicians, and para-professionals,
we believe it would be in that, if the plan is adjusted so that
there is no loss of salary to officers, then it will give officers
a faster rate of promotion than that provided for para-profes-
sionals, etc. It would emphasize the difference between them and
officers. However, if two-grade promotions are also provided
for para-professionals, etc. it will make the problem of morale
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
25X1
would bring them to this point even sooner.
in that 'sector even greater than it is now because they
are promoted fairly quickly under the present system; they
reach their peak quickly and are discontented thereafter
because they are unable to advance. Two-grade promotions
Distribution:
Orig &
.1
ADCI
1 -
Exec
Reg
1 -
ADDO
1 -
DDO
Reg
1--
DDO
MAG Members
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For R ease 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP80M001655 01200040
12 September 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR: John F. Blake,
Acting Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
FROM: Management Advisory Group of the Intelligence
Directorate (MAGID)
SUBJECT: Feasibility of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
REFERENCES: (a) Memorandum dated 29 August 1977 to
Chairman, MAGID from ADD/CI, same
subject (ER 77-5578/1).
(b) Memorandum dated 18 August 1977 to
ADD/CI via Comptroller from Director
of Personnel, same subject (ER 77-5578).
(c) Memorandum dated February 1977 to
D/NPIC from Chief, Support Staff/NPIC,
on "Disparities Between CIA and DIA
Handling of Personnel Matters at NPIC.
1. The majority of the members of the Management
Advisory Group of the Intelligence Directorate (MAGID) agree
that the recommendations contained in Paragraph 4 of
Reference (b) should not be approved as they stand.
2. We believe that the problem now existing at NPIC
between CIA and DIA employees is not a direct result of the
two-grade versus one-grade promotion policies but is instead
a direct result of the differential in the in-grade times
between the two Agencies. As an example, the average in-
grade time for GS-07 to GS-09 at NPIC was 14 months for DIA
personnel versus 30 months for CIA personnel (see Reference
(c) attached). We believe that the Director of Personnel's
recommendation to institute a two-grade promotion policy
with a 10 percent reduction in the in-grade times will not
completely remove the disparities between the DIA and CIA
promotion policies.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONT,Y
Approved For Rase 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO1200040016-1
SUBJECT: Feasibility of Two-grade Promotion Policy
3. Assuming that CIA promotion policies are more
stringent than other government agencies, we feel that the
time in-grade guidelines should be reduced to conform to
the Civil Service averages and not those of just one agency;
namely DIA. These reductions could be achieved as easily
in a one-grade promotion system as in a two-grade system.
4. Recommendations:
-- maintain the present one-grade promotion system
and if not already done, determine the Civil Service
in-grade averages.
-- adjust the CIA guidelines in the present
system to conform to the Civil Service averages, taking
into account for each Agency component, salary and all
other financial benefits, particularly those associated
with overseas duty.
make all adjustments effective for all e
l
mp
oyees
and not just professionals.
-- if a two-grade promotion system is adopted it
should conform to the Civil Service averages and
include all employees, not just professionals.
5. Several minor points also arose during our discussions
of the recommendations. These were:
-- how will the GS-06, -08, -10 positions that
have been vacated be reallocated grade-wise?
-- the possible reluctance-of'some managers to
recommend promotion for two-grades whereas in the
present system one-grade promotions might have been
accepted.
-- the need to redefine the requirements for
applications for a new job; i.e., there will be no
GS-10s to apply for GS-12 positions.
2
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For R ase 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M001650001200040016-1
SUBJECT: Feasibility of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
-- in the Director of Personnel's recommendation
there appeared to be discrimination against GS-06 to
GS-08 to -l0s (Paragraph lc) in that we feel three
years is too long to wait and perhaps two years is
more comparable to current practices.
-- comments should be requested from the EEO on
the effects of the two-grade promotion policy
recommendations on the EEO efforts, and in particular
the AOP .
STAT
Chairman, MAGID
3
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 SPAT
I
STAT
1
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M001657e0120004001-$l
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director, NPIC
SUBJECT . Disparities Between CIA and DIA Handling of
Personnel Matters at NPIC
REFERENCE . Memo for D/Pers from Chief, PMCD dated 28 Jan 1977,
Same Subject
1. You asked for recommendations to eliminate or miminize subject
disparities (promotion and overtime policies) that are described in
referent. Since the underlying bases for the disparities between CIA
.and DIA are statutory limitations which require DIA to follow Civil
Service practices it is unrealistic to expect DIA to change its policies.
- 2. 1 therefore concentrated on actions that might be taken by CIA.
I don't believe the overtime disparity that affects essentially only
is significant.enought to warrant trying to change the non-
standard workweek provisions of
3. The following actions might be taken by CIA to minimize or
eliminate disparities in promotion policies:
a. Obtain for promotion of NPIC PIs an exception to CIA
policy of single grade promotions GS-07 through GS-11 and
promote two grades in accordance with Civil Service practices.
COMMENT--I believe chances for success to be minimal because of
the negative impact of such an exception on other CIA GS (7-9)
personnel.
b. Obtain for promotion of NPIC PIs an exception to
DDS&T time-in-grade guidelines to allow promotions 7GS-07
to GS-11-closer to the 30 month practice presently followed
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AA"01200040016-1
by DIA.
Current DDS&T Guidelines Possible Alternatives
GS-07 to GS-08 9 months 6 months
GS-08 to GS-09 9 months - 9 months
GS-09 to GS-10 12 months 9 months
GS-10 to GS-11 12 months 12 months
Total 42 months 36 months
COMMENT--Such action can be effected "in house". It is within
authorities of DDS&T.
c. Support D/Pers recommendation to discard single grade
promotion policy and to adopt the Civil Service practice for
-grades GS-07 through GS-11.
COMMENT--You voted against this in March 1975 which at that
time reflected the.concensus of all Directorates except DDI.
d. Continue present policy of promoting NPIC Pis as
early as feasible within current DDS&T time-in-grade deadlines.
COMMENT--This policy was established 12 to 18 months ago and it
is too soon to see any pronounced results. However, at best it-
STAT
would still leave a 12 months disparity with DIA in reaching
GS-11.
4. Until CIA decides to discard the "single grade promotion"
policy I recommend para 3b action to obtain an exception to DDS&T time-
in-grade guidelines to allow promotion of NPIC Pis GS-07 to GS-11-closer
to the 30 month practice presently followed by DIA.
Chief, Support Staff, NPIC
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 A},p 'tai
Approved For "l471?2 : C1?r RDP80M00165V01200040016-1
PRACTICAL EFFECT OF CONFLICTING'PROMOTION RULES ON TIME IN GRADE FOR THOSE
SELECTED FOR PROMOTION
DIA
CIA
Time in Grade
(months)
Time in Grade
(months)
GS-07
14
18
GS-08
N/A
12
GS-09
17
18
GS-10
N/A
15.
GS-11
30
32
GS-12
31
46
GS-13
58
55
Cumulative Total
T50
46
96
The chart below shows the relative progression of DIA and CIA
NPIC Imagery Analysts in relation to years of service.
0$
)7101
11,36 Mo,d x
r 3
'~y
.rrr~r I
c- S' J'ianr Trt
_
~
'j
( ; ;
Or
9 :x ` 3 I 7 I
i
~
ri f
I
I
i~ I /D i /1
(
I
I
I 13
I
l
l
~
-
I I
t
l
Jcy
Ho.
'
' rlx
'
4f Ir
Jf~,iaJ
I Ls~
iJ
is 0
;
3
w?T
//
'
l:.
/`fOn'.7S
s i i2 (
4;s-S r+4++T
4f ~ 4 5 !
I
7 x
f
Statistics are based on the time in grade of CIA/NPIC Imagery Analysts r
v..{..~ ~..nv.~ r......, ,..... .1. ...1 .1...--.-.- a-1-- *1--4. 4- L..--- ..--._- --1
- _i..._1 i!__ -.__1_
the
STAT I Imagery Analysts who are now assigned to NPIC. While the
statistical base is such that specific figures might be challenged, the
trend shown is valid.
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165120004
29 August 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman, DCI/MAG
Chairman, ADMAG
Chairman, DDO MAG
Chairman, MAGID
Chairman, DDS&T MAP
John F. Blake
Acting Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence
SUBJECT: Feasibility of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
REFERENCE: Memo dtd 18 Aug 77 to ADDCI via Compt fr D/Pers,
same subj (ER 77-5578)
1. MAG groups historically have shown a lively and proper
interest in the personnel management policies of the Agency. One
of the problems of Agency management has been how best to interface
with the MAG groups so that management can capitalize on their feed-
back when major personnel policy changes are under consideration.
2. There is at hand an instant case where I believe Agency
management and the MAG groups can have a dialogue on a proposed
personnel policy change. The issue involves the Agency changing its
promotional policies up to the grade of GS-11. The attached paper
states the issue and develops the considerations. I am somewhat
concerned over two aspects of this policy and it is those aspects
primarily to which I invite your attention:
a. I am as equally concerned with those who currently
hold the even-numbered grades as opposed to those in the
future who would be promoted, under this policy, on the two-
grade basis. My question therefore is whether we are being
fair, in recommendation 4.B., to those individuals currently
holding the even-numbered grades.
DOWNGRADE TO A-IUO
UPON REMOVAL OF ATTS
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Rase 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A901200040016-1
b. The recommended policy change is for professionals
only. This raises the question as to whether we are being
equitable to those who are either para-professional or
technicians and, secondly, to those in the secretarial ranks.
3. It would be appreciated if you would discuss this matter
with your colleagues and submit your views to me by 12 September 1977.
25X1
Att
Ref memo
Distribution:
Orig - Chmn, DCI/MAG
Xcy - Each additional addressee
1 - DCI
1 - Comptroller
1 - Acting DDA
1 - D/Pers
1 - ADDCI
1 - ER
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 UUI lULNIIAL
Approved For ROWase 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AM1200040016-1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Acting Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
'T'HROUGH :
The Comptroller
2 4 AUG 1977
FROM
F. W. M. Janney
SUBJECT :
Director of Personnel
Feasibility of Two-Grade Promotion Policy
1. Action Requested: Approval of recommendations that are
contained in paragraph 4.
2. Background:
a. There has been a lack of comparability in promotion
practices between CIA and DIA.professionals serving together in
the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). This
issue prompted a broader examination of the Agency's unique
practice of single-grade promotions in the range GS-05-11. In
March 1977, the Director of Personnel recommended a return to the
two-grade promotion system for Agency professionals in the grade
range GS-05 - GS-11. (This practice was in effect within the
Agency during the 1950's.) The subject was discussed by the
Executive Advisory Group (FAG) meeting of 10 May 1977, at which
time cost estimates were requested. At the FAG meeting of 14 June
1977, an additional request was levied upon the Director of
Personnel for a transition plan to assure equity for professional
employees now in grades GS-06, GS-08, and. GS-10. The Office of
Personnel drafted such a transition plan, along with cost estimates,
that has been reviewed by the Comptroller. The essentials of that
draft are included in this action paper.
3. Staff Position: The recommendations presented in Section
4 are a modification of a proposal prepared in 1969. At that time
it was proposed that the transition be accomplished by 1) establishing
time-in-grade guidelines for two-grade promotions, 2) promoting to
This document be dnvingraded w en
separated from cias:;i.ried attachment.
CA I
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 Approved For RbWase 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A@01200040016-1
the next grade immediately qualified professionals of grades
GS-06, 03, 10 if they are in positions of higher grade, 3)
promoting professionals now in the position grade of GS-06, 08,
.10 when they qualify and are eligible for promotion under normal
procedures, and 4) promoting individuals in training or newly
.hired as GS-06, 08, and 10 a single grade when qualified and
eligible, and thereafter under the two-grade system up to GS-11.
' A weakness in this original procedure was the outcome that
some employees recently promoted to GS-06, 08, or 10 and then
given the transitional promotion would have had abnormally short
time-in-grade over the two-grade range. This could be guarded
against by providing that the transitional. promotion (a single
grade to GS-07, 09, or 11) should not follow sooner than three
years after, the promotion to the preceding odd number grade.
The necessary exception should be made for highly ranked (first
category) individuals who meet all other criteria for promotion.
Thereafter the promotion timing would be governed by the standing
guidance of the particular Career Service.
The additional cost of the transition year (FY 1978), when
there would be catchup promotions for man rofessionals graded
GS-06, 08, or 10, would be an estimated In subsequent
years, the costs would be controlled by o 1 erning time-
in-grade.. If the total time-in-grade for the two-grade promotions
is not reduced in comparison with the previous time for two
consecutive single-grade promotions, the costs of promotion would
actually be reduced because of the absence of intervening (single
grade) promotions. On the other hand, if the two-grade promotions
were given as rapidly as were single-grade promotions reviousl ,
the costs of promotion would be increased as much as
according to an earlier estimate submitted to the EA e wo d
expect that the new policy would be administered. to provide for
some compression of the previous time for two single-grade
promotions but not enough to add significantly to costs. The
cost analysis is attached at.Tab A.
4. Recommendations: It is recommended that the A/DDCI:
A. Approve the implementing of a policy of two-grade
promotions for individuals occupying professional positions in
grades GS-05, 07, and 09 effective 1 October 1977.
B. Implement a transition plan during FY 1978 with
these features:
CCU? f 1i.E UTIAL
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Rase 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M001651200040016-1
(1) Professional employees of grades GS-06, 08, and
?10 who are of grade less than the grade attached to the position
should be promoted the first day of the fourth pay period after
1 October 1977 provided:
a.. that they meet the qualification standards
of the higher grade,
b. that they are recommended by evaluation
bodies and approved by Director of Personnel, and
c. that at least three years have lapsed since
the previous promotion to an odd grade (GS-05, 07,
or 09).
(2) Employees not meeting the three year requirement
but otherwise eligible may qualify for immediate promotion if
highly ranked (first category) -- otherwise they will be promoted
first day of the first pay period after satisfaction of the three
year criterion for the transition plan promotions. (Note: the
three year criterion is not intended to :replace the time-in-grade
guidelines of the Career Services; it only pertains to the
transitional promotions.)
(3) Professional employees in training or newly
hired as GS-06, 08, or 10.should be promoted to the next grade
when it is determined by normal guidelines and procedures that
they are qualified and eligible for promotion to that grade, and
thereafter they qualify for two-grade promotions up to GS-11.
(4) Professional employees occupying positions
presently graded GS-06, 08, and 10 and bearing the grade of those
positions will be promoted when they qualify and are eligible for
higher grade under-normal promotion procedures.
C. Instruct the Career Services to seek to reduce the
average time-in-grade in FY 1979 for two-grade promotions by 10
percent from the FY 76 combined lapsed time for two single-grade
promotions (namely, an Agency average of 51 months.for GS-07 to
GS-09 and 45 months from GS-09 to GS-11 should be reduced by ten
percent, or 5 months in each case). Time-in-grade guidelines
should be adjusted by the Career Services, if necessary.
11 "Li - fA
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Rsv ase 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A801200040016-1
D. Instruct the Comptroller to set aside necessary
fundin for transitional promotions during FY 78 in the amount
25X1 of
25X1
F.. W. M. Janney
APPROVED
Acting Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence
DISAPPROVED:
Acting Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Rase 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165M12000400T6 'I
Cost Analysis - Transition For
Two-Grade Promotions
1. There are three factors influencing costs.' These are
(1) the costs of transition (that is, immediate promotion of many
of the present professionals who are incumbents of grades 06, 08,
and 10), (2) the higher cost of a two-grade promotion as against
a single-grade promotion, and (3) the comparative frequency of
two-grade promotions. As indicated in an earlier study, if the
two-grade promotions occur at the same frequency as the one-grade
promotions presently do, there would be a significant increase in
costs, as much as On the other hand, it may be argued.
that the frequency o promotions in the grades affected is
controlled by headroom in GS-07, 09, and 11 positions (as there
are few GS-06, 08, and 10 positions for professionals) and by
guidelines that would compress only somewhat times-in-grade for
two-grade promotions as compared to two single-grade promotions.
The costs can be controlled through the time-in-grade guidance.
2. Assuming that the implementation follows the modified
plan recommended, it may be calculated that there would be a first-
year transition cost of Dabove normal promotion costs in
the GS-05-11 range, but that in the second year the costs of
promotions would actually decline some 'thout compression
of time-in-grade because of the lesser Frequency of promotions.
For convenience, it is assumed that implementation begins in the
beginning of the fiscal year, therefore, many of the immediate
promotions required under the transition plan are promotions that
would have occurred later in the fiscal year anyway. Further it
is assumed that as there are only about a dozen professionals in
the GS-05-06 grades, the cost analysis can concentrate on GS-07
to GS-11.
3. A useful starting point for analysis is provided by
promotion data for FY 1976 (actually S quarters) given in the APP.
Adjusted for a 4-quarters basis, the numbers of promotions of
professional were: GS-07 to 08, 199; GS-08 to 09, 233; GS-09 to
10, 268, and GS-10 to 11, 305.
4. Based on average time-in-grade of promotees, the values
per promotion are: GS-07 to 08, $856; GS-08 to 09, $909; GS-09
to 10, $957; GS-10 to 11, $1015; GS-07 to 09, $2190; and GS-09 to
11, $2489.
C NFIBENI1AL
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 J i.
Approved For FWease 2005/07/12 CIA-RDP80M0016 01200040016-1
6. In mid 1977, there were professional positions for the
intermediate grades in the following numbers: GS-06, 1; GS-08,
83; GS-10, 65.
7. Table 1 summarizes an estimate of the costs ofpromotions
for two years, a transition year and a post-transition year, under
the one-grade and -two-grade policies. Table 2 summarizes the number
of professional employees on duty 31 May 1977 for grades GS-05
through 11.
C IN 1fFNT! I
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
 Approved For RMease 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
Acting Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence
Jack:
I believe this subject has been thoroughly
debated and that all concerned are in general
agreement that the change is appropriate. AlthouE
there are some obvious minor weaknesses in the
proposed transition plan, I am persuaded that it
is logical and defensible and, on balance, as
equitable as possible.
Recommend your approval with the following
caveat:
*Recommendations A, B, and C are
approved. Recommendation D is not
approved as stated. Alternatively,
the Deputy Directors and the AO/DCI
are to absorb the costs of transition
(Over)
James H. Taylor, Comptroller 2 4 AUG 1917
promotions within their FY 1978 operating
programs and are to plan overall expen-
ditures accordingly.
As you know, we do not wit hold any portion of the
cy's total appropriation for allocation later
will more or less disappear in total payroll
costs during the year.
in the year. The only way we could set aside
the funds required would be to arbitrarily assess
the budgets of directorates at the beginning of
the year. We would prefer not to do this. Personal
services funds are controlled (i.e., cannot be
reprogrammed for other purposes without approval
of this Office) and I think the transition costs
Distribution:
Orig. - Addressee
ER
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001200040016-1
 25X1 Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1
Next 9 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01200040016-1