C.P.S. ACTION ON THE PROPOSED REVISION OF C.I.G. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 3.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00022R000400040003-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 4, 2000
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: April 16, 1946
• Content Type: MF

Approved FotRel/ se 2000/05/31 l
QON22R000400040003-4
16 April 1946
093;M,* C.P.S. Action on the Proposed. Revision of C.I.0,? AA -ixa!-
!tr 8 Or..dAr- _Ra. S,
R CR6t a) t'smorandum, 1 April 1946, "Revision of the Proposed
Or ization of the Central Reports Staff."
(b) Memorandum, 3 April 1946, 0Revi,ion of C.Z. *.
. ministrativo Order ft.. 3."
(c) C.P.S. Vsmorandum, 1P April 1946, 'Proposed Revi-
sion of C.I.C. Administrative Order Iwo. 3."
1. On Monday, 1 April, I submitted. Reference (a) to you,
having previously laid it before the Council for information and
eoeent. The members of the Council were favorably disposed toward
the memorandum, except the representative of the C.?.5., who was
nee,-cottmittaal. After discussion, you a ve your approval.
2. On Tuesday, 2 April, before the Council's weekly meeting
you, I was given a copy of a C.P.S. memorandum to you recom-
mending that action on Reference (a) be deferred pending a detailed
st+ dy of the subject by C.P. S. It appeared to me that this memo-
dux showed both a complete lack of realism in C.P. . regarding
the subject and a disposition on the part of C.P. . to intrude in
the internal administration of supposedly coordinate subdivigtans of
C.T.G.
3. In order to confirm the decision of 1 April I raised the
issue of the C.P.S. memorandum in the Councils, meeting with you,
and there was lengthy discussion of both my proposals regarding
C.R.S. and. the relationship of C.P.S. to the coordinate subdivisions
of C.I.G+?. At the conclusion of the meeting I underatooc your eeeci---
sion to bet
JkV
Carding C.R.S.
you approved in principle my recommendations re-
It. That I should draft a revision of C.I.C. Administrative
Order No. M to accomplish the decision token.
000051
1AL
Qd_JJ
Approved For Release 2000/05/31 : CI 2ZROO0400040003-4
 CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2000/05/31 : CIA-RDP84-00022RO0040004QO03-4
t my draft should be referred to C.P.S. for review,
to the merits of your decision, but with respect
a draftsman, I booed: expressed it adequately.
Reference (b) was submitted next day, 7 April,
o C.P.S. Despite the well advertised urgency of
ears that C.P, S. gave it no consideration what-
1, when I inquired why no action had been taken.
matter was then referred to en officer who bad not participated
in the previous d. scusstons o t the sub, eat and, indeed, had not even
been informed of them. (He tgphoned me on the evening of 12 April
about it.) revert less, the C.P.B. report. Reference
ted 12 April. Hy point here is that, despite the delay
, it cannot be pretended that the C,?.!, report is based
h inquiry into the realities of the subject or upon
It is distinctly uninformed and impromptu.
rents (a) exceeds my understanding of the terms of
rence to by arguing against your decision of ton days
e. The points raised in paragraph 2 can be answered readdil.y,
I
This point is not a criticism of the proposed revi-
of the original Order itself, sine* the terms on which it
identical, in both texts. Consequently it is an argument
r than against revision. I would consider the matter im-
but if it is considered. necessary to make it explicit it
di.ly be included in the proposed revision.
P criticism suggests an unorganised mass of 60-odd
-ens the proposed text expressly provides that they shall
organ3 red, without prescribing a detailed form of organ 2ati.on.
*it the text to certainly consonant with the discussion end deci_
en of 2 April. If the C.P.S. could approve, as it aid, the Order
a pted today with respect to the Administrative Division, It cannot
stantly ratio this point with respect to C.R.S.
i necessity for the paper was set forth in Reference
the discussions on 1 and 2 April, of which the author of
(a) was unfortunately ignorant.
The course of action recommended in Reference (c) not only
s in the face of C,P.!f.'s own arguments in para. 2 thereof, but
completely misses the point of the propose?, revision. It would
atetu 11y give the Chief, C.P.S., the liberty of action sought, with-
mt regard to the points made in and ,,, but would do so by means
unpublicized instructions. Personnel requisitioning for the
0.x415, is conasfala>r;rably more complex than for the C.P.S. It any be
ea that account that the C.P. S. is unable to appreciate the confusion
Approved For Release 2000/05/31 : CIA-RDP80022R000400040003-4
CONFIDEIIAL
 Approved For Release 20,QW05/31 : CIA-RSQVflPW&0040Q03-4
eonably ensue is the Departments on receipt of per-
ions on a regional basis without any action rescind
is of C, I.G, Administrative Ortier Wo. 7.
The eoastr>cttve advice of the C.P.S. with respect to
.on and operation of the C.1.. , would certainly be welcome.
attitude which it has taken, without any grasp of the realities,
has been of more hindrance thr-a help in an already difficult situa-
tion. The C.P.S. has sufficient business of its own to occupy its
time, without undertaking obstructive interference in the ergsnis&.-
tioa and operations of coordinate subdivisions of C.I.G.
S. That the C.P.S. be discharged from further coneidera-
tion of the proposed revision of C.I.C. Ad.mtnistraative Order o. ".
That the proposed revision be aa,
ision by the Secretary, W.T.A.
, subject t
That, as as matter of practice, matters Involving the
dial administration of coordinate subdivision* of the CIO
eferred to the C,P. S. except when issues of major policy are
LVDW L L. OPT
Acting Chi
Approved For Release 2000/05/31: CIA- R(a4~ ~,000400040003-4