Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
July 5, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
February 4, 1976
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP82-00357R000600080027-3.pdf256.26 KB
r... .r. r i~sp-?' 9f1 / ApproveGOd For Release 2002/05/01 CIA-RDP82-0(7R000600080027-3 4 February 1976 NOTES FROM MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 4 February 1976 OP's Proposal for a New Approach to Management of Agency Supergrade Positions, Ceiling and Personnel ? C. Duckett opened the discussion by inviting any observations relative to the D/Pers proposal of 23 Jan 1976. STATINTL ? alerted the members that their "package" contained STATINTL STATINTL the original 9 Dec 75 OP paper, a memo from one from and the current OP proposal dated 23 Jan 76. He asked that the original 9 Dec 75 memo be disregarded except as a reference to the revisions adapted in the 23 Jan 76 proposal. STATINTL STATINTL STATINTL STATINTL ? Mr. Carver stated that as Chief, NIO he agreed wit STATINTL point (in his memo) that the Intelligence Community organizations should have supergrade allowances separate from the Agency per se. Mr. Duckett stated that ICS, NIO etc. got their SG allowances based on previous justifications (ONE etc) and were part of the Agency's current ? J. Blake stated that the purpose behind the current proposal was to establish a new structure for management of supergrade allow- ances and suggested that the ICS, NIO ceiling topic be reserved STATINTL for subsequent discussion by the Management Committee. 0 and Carver agreed, stated that ICS must have a T/O structure that can accommo- date the type of senior level officers necessary to do the work of ICS. He'd like to see SG positions established on the T/O over and above the SG allowances for ICS. ? Jack Blake, AD/Pers and several other members advised) OP proposal recommends that this be permitted. that -_~ATINTL ? J. Blake explained to the members that II had changed the policy in 1972, requiring that the number of SG positions cannot exceed the allocated SG ceiling for the component. 0 +'I,t,n rP1 r rrPd to changes made in the current OP paper that were based on a er teiiminazion ul LIM; SG Panel) and inclusion (based o paper) of exceptions to elimination of formal SG status for Contractual officers where the role of the officer required such status. Approved For Releks .~QQ2/=01 : clA,_RD.P$2!00357JR0 ,600080027-3 v ui " j. h . 4li . ~' ' %'l' ApprovdF- reease 2002/05/01 CIA-RDP82-007R000600080027-3 Mr. Proctor stated that the proposal did not address a problem he has encountered as regards DDI supergrade careerists on assign- ment to O/DCI elements who are promoted while on these tours but whom he simply can't accommodate at their grade level when they return to the DDI. ? C. Duckett stated that he has had the same problem from time to . time. G. Carver stated that it appeared to him that the new SG Board should have a "say" regarding SG promotions. ? J. Blake asked Mr. Proctor if he had been consulted and given the chance to coordinate on such promotions when they were initiated. Mr. Proctor stated that he had been consulted and in effect indi- cated non-concurrence but the promotions were approved by the DCI. J. Blake stated that the Board might eventually expand their charter to review of promotions but suggested that the Management Committee consider the initial charter as contained in the OP proposal. Once this is working then consider expansion. ? Mr. Proctor stated that future career assignments must be considered when people are "detailed" out to other jobs but indicated agree- ment that that subject could be discussed further rather than in the context of the current proposal. ? Mr. Duckett stated that the OP proposal stressed oversight by the Board of SG positions but didn't address SPS position management. He asked that the concept be expanded to assure SPS'ers the same consideration as SG's since SPS positions had comparable status. It was generally agreed that such changes should be made to include SPS position and ceiling management in the Board's purview. ? stated that he was - without sounding critical concerned over MUD'S role in SG position reviews. In essence he was con- cerned with the need to improve PMCD's professional staff capabilities. He stated that a GS-12 survey officer simply didn't have the experience to have familiarity with the real scope and impact of substantive senior level jobs and tended to follow the rules of how many people were supervised and so on. He believed more senior officers might be assigned to PMCD to evaluate SG jobs. ? G. Carver added his agreement with views based on his "experience" that SG jobs were evaluated on " ead--counting" of subordinates, rather than the functional substance of the job itself. Messrs Carver) commTINTL ? stated that these (i.e., regarding how PMCD arrived at position classification judgments were not accurate and required his response. He stated that PMCD .-r, n Ae ~~?r. Approved Fob-Release-2002/05/ 1 : CIA" RDP,82a.0'03 OQAQQA30027-3 2 P ?.~r.1j'DLj`,.._ , , I?. q - r I