MEETING WITH COMPTROLLER AND THE OMB EXAMINER ON THE NAPA REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83-00156R000600020023-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 1, 2005
• Sequence Number: 23
• Publication Date: October 4, 1979
• Content Type: MFR

4
Approved. Release 2005/12/23 : CIA-RDP83-00R000600020023-5
4 OCT 1979
FROM:
Deputy Director of Personnel
SUBJECT: Meeting with Comptroller and the OMB Examiner on the
NAPA Report
1. This memorandum,prepared for the use of the DD/A, summarizes
my recollections of my meeting in the Comptroller's Office on Monday,
24 September 1979, with the OMB Examiner, Mr. Keith Hall, and the RMS
TAT Associate, I had been invited to this session to discuss
costs of imp emen ing e NAPA Report recommendations. This memorandum
covers items as I remember them, not necessarily in the order they were
discussed at the meeting.
TAT 2. L_-_f-"started the meeting by noting that the NAPA Report contained
a statemen the ratio of Agency employees working on personnel matters
to the total strength, 1/16.1, was high as compared with other Federal
agencies considered to be well staffed with a ratio of 1/60 or more and
he asked for comments on this part of the NAPA Report.
3. My response was along the following lines:
a. I thought it best first to provide some chronology--that
chronology is attached.
b. In specific response to question, I made the
following observations: Our toy Group, in its review of the
NAPA Report and recommendations, has found inconsistencies, inaccuracies,
contradictions and also inadequate data upon which recommendations
and conclusions were based. Using the costs of the Agency's personnel
system as an example: I noted that while on the one hand NAPA expressed
a view that the Agency-wide costs of administering our personnel
system seemed high, their primary conclusion was that the CIA's basic
personnel. system is sound and is one that most Federal agencies envy
for its flexibility and potential and responsiveness to Agency needs.
Moreover, several of their recommendations, i.e., a three-tier executive
development program would, if approved, add significantly to the cost
of administering the present system. There were other recommendations
in the NAPA Report that could add to the cost of the system.
Approved For Release 2005/12/23 : CIA-RDP83-00156R000600020023-5
 Approved* Release 2005/12/23: CIA-RDP83-0SR000600020023-5
c. I noted further that in specifying the ratio of Agency
personnel working on the personnel management system as being
high as compared with others, they did not tell us what agencies
were compared. In addition to that, the Report notes that as
many as 100 positions in the Office of Personnel can be attributed,
specifically, to the security and cover needs of the Agency. Yet,
we found no evidence that these 100 positions were deducted from
the statistics that led to the formula. Included in the cost
of the system' hence the ratio, was all of the Office of Training
excepting Admittedly, the Office of Training deals with
people, but it is hardly correct to attribute all of their costs
to personnel management within the context of the NAPA Study.
My conclusion, therefore, derived from the above, was stated to
the group as one of uncertainty as to what the formular really
represented and its validity.
d. There were other parts to my answer: The NAPA Report
supported the Agency's competitive evaluation system, hence, the
use of panels. They concluded that the rank-in-the-man concept
best served the Agency's needs and that it should be applied
universally. They called for more involvement of Agency line
management in personnel management and decision-making, etc.
Many of these have dollars attached to them; many other
recommendations would add to the cost.
TAT e. I told Messrs. Hall therefore, that because of
the above and similar considerations owing from a reading of
the NAPA Report, we had serious reservations about the NAPA
comments on the costs of our system and the ratios specifically.
I might add that my answer seemed to satisfy
4. During the course of our conversation E:::::jentioned that this
past summer RMS had studied the NAPA Report carefully. Based on their
review, some questions arose in the minds of RMS personnel whether other
support elements might have the type of costs discussed by NAPA on
personnel management. For example, were there similar areas in logistics,
security or communications where costs might be deemed to be excessive,
STAT was the wa put it to me. My response to this was rather specific.
STAT I told t at I was quite surprised to learn that RMS would derive
any conc usion merely from reading the NAPA Report and before the Agency
had a chance to examine that Report and to ecific action on
the various recommendations made. To this quickly responded that
he had reached the same position and that no ac ion was taken by RMS.
Approved For Release 2005/12/2-3 : CIA-RDP83-00156R000600020023-5
 Approved, Release 2005/12/23 : CIA-RDP83-OQOR000600020023-5
5. We then moved to a discussion of what dentified as his ST
principal question on the NAPA Report and tha a o do with whether
there were any items in the 1981 budget to cover NAPA recommendations.
and I both responded that there was none.
6. I reaffirmed that it was too early to tell whether there would
be any costs in implementing approved NAPA recommendations, savings, or
increases. Our preliminary view is that we can identify some areas where
there may be some cost reduction. At the same time, however, if certain
of the NAPA recommendations are approved, there may be some increase in costs.
It may be necessary, therefore, to adjust allocation of resources within the
Office of Personnel or elsewhere within the Agency from one area to another
depending on the final decisions by the Director on the various recommendations.
A more specific estimate can be made when the NAPA Study Group finalizes its
review of the various topics.
Attachment:
Chronology of NAPA Recommendations
Addendum: The Examiner, Keith Hall, had no questions to raise at or
during this meeting.
Approved For Release 2005/12/23 : CIA-RDP83-00156R000600020023-5
- 3 -