OP/IG DIFFERENCES REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGENCY'S POSITION MANAGEMENT AND CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00357R000300020026-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2002
• Sequence Number: 26
• Publication Date: August 17, 1976
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82-00357R00QIQ0020026-3
17 August 1976
POSSIBLE DISCUSSION NOTES
/9of th t
SUBJECT:' OP/IG Differences Regarding the Administration e
Agency's Position Management and Classification Program
1. General
In Tab B (Attachment #1) of OP's response to the IG's Report
of Survey, the Office of Personnel addressed in considerable detail
each of the IG Inspection Team's perceptions, conclusions and recom-
mendations regarding the administration of the Agency's position
management and classification program. Tab B therefore stands as a
ready reference and presents OP's position and alternate recommenda-
tions on specific points.
2. Primary Issue
The primary issue involves the IG's Recommendation No. 7 -
"that the DCI delegate to the Deputy Directors authority to authenticate
staffing complements, requiring them to consider PMCD recommendations
on position grades before effecting changes and to exercise this
authority within their allocations of staff manpower ceilings, senior
slots and average grade."
OP's Position and Rationale
a. Internal Considerations
(1) The Office of Personnel regards this IG's recommenda-
tion to decentralize authentication (i.e., approving) authority for
Staffing Complements to the Deputy Directors as seriously impairing
the stability, objectivity, and overall effectiveness of the CIA
position management and classification program.
(2) The retention and strengthening of a "neutral"
centralized focus on position structures and classification adjudi-
cation is essential to assure maintenance of the job/pay equity for
comparable positions'throughout the Agency and preclusion of unjustified
grade escalations, undergrading, excessive supervisory layering and
> organizational fragmentation.
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82-00357R000300020026-3
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82-00357R000300020026-3
(3) Deputy Directors, constrained only to "consider"
Office of Personnel recommendations on position grades and bound only
by their staff manpower ceilings and average grade, would inevitably
be heavily influenced in arriving at position grade determinations
by considerations (such as providing CSGA headroom for more promotions,
short term improvement of morale, enhancing internal and external
recruitment) other than on the impartial and objective basis of job
content.
(4) The Office of Personnel has proposed an alternate
recommendation (page 17 of Tab B) which would retain centralized
responsibility and authority for the administration of the Agency's
position management and classification program and provide effective
appeal mechanisms for the timely and equitable resolution of differences.
b. External Considerations
(1) On 27 May 1976, President Ford in a memorandum to
Heads of all Federal Agencies (attachment #_2) expressed his concern
over the substantial rise in the average grade of Federal employees.
In his memorandum the President acknowledged that technological
changes and other factors have influenced some of this grade escalation
but cited reviews by the CSC, the GAO and OMM'IB that indicate that
classification and position management systems are not functioning
as effectively as they should be in a number of Federal agencies.
President Ford charged all Heads of Agencies with reviewing their
internal position management and classification systems to ensure they
are operating effectively and in full compliance with applicable laws
and regulations and then report to the Civil Service Commission in a
manner to be prescribed by the Civil Service Commission as to actions
taken and results of those actions. The Civil Service Commission was
charged with vigorously pursuing its program of evaluating agency
performance and bringing about corrective action in the areas of
position management and classification. The Office of Management and
Budget was charged with working with agencies to correct problems
and to prescribe special instructions where warranted.
(2) Pursuant to President Ford's memorandum, in June 1976
Robert E. Hampton, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, sent a
letter (attachment #3) to the DCI reaffirming President Ford's concerns
and citing the need for assurance "that your Agency's system is in
full legal and regulatory compliance and that management controls b
which classification integrity is maintaine are in place and working."
(3) On 2 July 1976 the Civil Service Commission issued a
guidance bulletin (attachment #4) outlining their responsibilities
as directed by President Ford to assess and report on the quality of
position management and classification programs in agencies. This
guidance bulletin also outlined the Agenda for the conduct of Position
Management System Reviews for FY 1977.
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIAZZRDP82-00357R000300020026-3
 Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82-00357R00 3Q40020026-3
(4) On 26 July 1976 at a meeting with ICS and OMB to
defend the ICS supergrade position requirements, Mr. Arnie Donohue
((lMB) stated that in view of CIA's exemption from the Classification
Act of 1949 and normal oversight in position classification?matters
by the Civil Service Commission, OMB intended to exercise'comparable
oversight responsibility to assure the validity of the Agency's
position classification processes.
(5) Apart from the Executive initiatives cited above, in
December 1975 the Comptroller General of the United States issued a
Report to the Congress on Position Classification within Federal
Agencies (attachment #5). Some of the conclusions of this report
were that: the classification of Federal White Collar jobs should
be better controlled; that weak controls and pressures exerted on job
classification have resulted in overgraded Federal positions; managers'
attitudes are not conducive to making the classification process
work; managers exert pressure to have positions overgraded and are
reluctant to correctly classify overgraded positions.
(6) In the face of the current significant external concern
and emphasis on the need to strengthen controls and oversight by
Agency Heads of their internal position management and classification
systems, it is essential that the Agency maintain an impartial
centralized authority for the adjudication of position structures and
grades.
3. Secondary Issue
The secondary issue between OP and the IG involves their
Recommendation No. 8 - "that the Director of Personnel monitor
Directorate and DCI area adherence to their allocations and to job/
pay equity and recommend appropriate DCI action in cases where he
cannot resolve differences with the Deputy Director concerned."
OP's Position and Rationale
The Office of Personnel views this recommendation as
essentially unworkable under the circumstances that would prevail.
As the IG has noted, the Director of-Personnel would be placed in
the position of monitoring and challenging decisions already made.
The number of issues would increase considerably placing an unaccept-
able burden on the appeal mechanism to thebDCI. In addition, experience
has proven that it is more difficult to redress errors in position
structures and grade levels than it is to negotiate and resolve dis-
agreements with the operating officials concerned before classification
action is taken.
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82-00357R000300020026-3