CIA AND THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM BILL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81M00980R001900070057-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 1, 2006
• Sequence Number: 57
• Publication Date: April 28, 1978
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2006/08/01: CIA-RDP81 M00980R001900070057-3
28 April 1978
Office of General Counsel
SUBJECT : CIA and the Civil Service Reform Bill
REFERENCE OLC Letter to the Office of Management and Budget
(OLC 78-0487/d), dated 25 April 1978
1. The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you that the Office of
General Counsel regards sections of the referenced views letter as erroneous and
to suggest that needed action be taken.
2. As an addendum to an earlier views letter, the referenced views letter
was designed to modify sections of that earlier views letter which misconstrue
certain provisions of the Civil Service Reform Bill. However, several changes
were made in the draft letter after coordination which we feel could seriously
compromise our efforts to obtain a complete exemption from the bill. These
changes consist of misstatements and omissions which could affect the report that
the Civil Service Commission (CSC) is presently preparing on the extent to which
it believes CIA should be exempt from the bill. Moreover, in our opinion, the
changes will indicate to CSC a lack of understanding of the bill.
3. The first changes appear on page 1, paragraph 2 of the referenced views
letter. This paragraph misstates our view as to the scope of the bill in general,
and the scope of Subchapter II in particular. Our position is that the bill is not
"a comprehensive codification of Federal personnel systems, including the status
of exempted (sic) agencies. " Though the bill is designed to alter many aspects
of the Federal civil service, it does not attempt the "comprehensive codification"
of excepted (not exempted) personnel systems.
4. Furthermore, while Subchapter II amends certain provisions of Title 5
of the U.S. Code which affect the treatment of preference eligibles in the Executive
branch, the referenced views letter incorrectly implies that Subchapter II is only
applicable to the competitive service. Still, notwithstanding the applicability of
Title 5 and the Subchapter II amendments to both the competitive and excepted
service, the language of the statute which is the authority for the Agency's excepted
 Approved For Release 2006/08/01: CIA-RDP81 M00980R001900070057-3
personnel system, 50 U.S. C. 403j, is so broad that it has been consistently
interpreted as exempting us from all laws regarding preference eligibles. CSC
has acknowledged our exemption from laws regarding preference eligibles in the
excepted service, but has requested that the Agency state the nature of our
exemption for the record. Accordingly, the coordinated draft letter stated that
the language of 50 U. S.C. 403j would continue to exempt the Agency from laws
regarding preference eligibles, including the provisions of Subchapter II. By
recommending a specific exemption from Subchapter II, the referenced views
letter needlessly raises the question of whether we really have the exemption we
have already claimed we have.
5. At page 1, paragraph 3, the referenced views letter goes on to distort
our concerns over the adjudication and appeals authority of the Merit Systems
Protection Board (Merit Board) . The coordinated draft letter stated for the
record, at the request of CSC, that our exemptions from CSC adjudication and
appeals authority will remain in effect when the CSC is succeeded by the Merit
Board. However, the coordinated draft letter also noted that new rights of appeal
are created by the bill, thus, a complete exemption for the Agency from the bill
would be required. The referenced views letter is unclear on the question of
whether our exemptions from CSC adjudication and appeals authority would
remain in effect. Also, the referenced views letter concludes by stating that
because the bill creates new rights of appeal to the Merit Board, "we require an
exemption from each title of the bill" (emphasis added). This is simply incorrect
because appeal rights affecting the Agency are not found in each title of the bill.
6. Finally, on page 2 of the referenced views letter there is a sentence
that was between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 which has been omitted. This
sentence provided much of the basis for our objections to the concept of a
subsection (c) exemption at section 3132. The sentence stated that even if the
Agency was exempted by subsection (c), it would be required to make its
personnel system conform to the Senior Executive Service as much as possible.
It is clear that the proposed Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would have to
monitor our personnel system to police this requirement and that it is the disregard
of this requirement, as detected by OPM, which would serve as one of the major
grounds for OPM recommending a revocation of a subsection (c) exemption held
by the Agency.
7. In conclusion, since the changes which have been made in the coordinated
draft letter might be harmful to our chances of securing a complete exemption from
the bill, we suggest that appropriate action be taken to clarify the Agency's
position in this matter.