SYMPOSIUM REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00933R000300170004-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 12, 2001
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: November 15, 1976
• Content Type: MF

OGC Has
Reviewed
r b e
}b83BO
UNCLASSIFIED
_
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
4
G
~y
?%
5
y ~5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FIE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks 7,
dY,
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME. ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
A
pr jre kFor Release 2002/0 18 ? - -
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL
SECRET
FORM NO. 9 S7 Use previous editions 1. G110 - 1974 0 - 535-857
004-9
 C0NFJ E T'I A, > 25X1A
Approved For lease 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933QQ0030 -
MEMORANDUM FOR: FOIA and Privacy Symposium Participants
25X1 A FROM
Chief, Information and Privacy Staff
SUBJECT Symposium Report
For your information, attached is the report of the
FOIA and Privacy Symposium held at 0 from 18-20 October
1976. Your participation in this first in-house conference
on the issues in FOI helped make the three day's more mean-
ingful for everyone who attended. I'm sure you feel as I
do, that the symposium met its objective of improving
communications and increasing the understanding of the
concerns of the other directorates.
25X1A
Attachment: a/s
E2 IMP
Approved For Release 2002/06/18: CIA-RDP84-00933RK03 91'
25X1A
n .1
 CON' F ENTR
Approved For lease 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-009331Q00300170004-9
REPORT OF FOIA & PRIVACY SYMPOSIUM
18-20 October 1976
25X1A1
Forty-seven officers gathered at
from 18 October to 20 October to discuss Freedom of
Information and Privacy and the Agency's response to the
laws. The directorates were represented at the symposium
in the following proportions: 15 officers from the DDA,
12 from the DDO, 7 from the DDI, 4 from the DDS&T and 6 from
OGC. In general, this breakdown reflects the percentages of
the volume of cases handled by the offices represented. Our
speakers included officers from DDA, DDO, DDI, OGC and OLC,
who discussed aspects of the laws as they relate to their
areas. A list of symposium participants is attached.
The kick-off speaker on Monday afternoon was Mr. Andrew
Falkiewicz, Assistant to the DCI, who spoke on CIA's current
attitude in dealing with the press and the public. He out-
lined his office's role in these relations and how freedom
of information and privacy contribute to the Agency's public
image.
25X1A
On Tuesday morning Mr. James Kronfeld, who was formerly
with the Congressional committee which drafted the Privacy
Act, gave us a synopsis of the legislative history of FOI and
Privacy. Our next two speakers formed what some considered
25X1A the opposing camps: I Chief of the Infor-
mation Services Staff, DDO, and Office of 25X1A
25X1A Current Intelligence, DDI. discussed the problems
encountered by the DDO in trying to run a clandestine service
and still be responsive to the law. spoke on 25X1A
the DDI's approach to Freedom of Information an the apparent
success of their program. These two speakers were an interest-
ing contrast and highlighted the difficulties the Agency faces
in interpreting and complying with the laws.
The next presentation, which was a departure from the
schedule, was well handled b an office of General Counsel
panel of lawyers. Messrs. 25X1A 11 25X1A discussed past and present
an Privacy cases in litigation and our current legal
strategies. Several tactics for handling initial responses
were suggested to increase our protection under the law in the
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000300170004-9
 IM 11 r IT I
~
Approved Foriease 2002/6/18: CIA-RDP84-009300300170004-9
25X1A
25X1A
event of future court action. It was argued, though, that
procedures to standardize and limit explanatory responses
were likely to anger requesters with the result being an
increase in the number of cases taken to court. The debate
reached an impasse.
The evening speaker on Tuesday was I I,
Assistant for Information, DDA, whose remarks sparked the
evening discussions. His comments on the commitment of
Agency management to FOI and Privacy initiated some heated
debate among symposium participants. He also reiterated Mr.
concern about the philosophical tightrope of a secret
intelligence organization in an open society and the public's
right to know versus the Government's need to protect. Mr.
I concluded the symposium on Wednesday morning with a
short wrap-up and projection of the future of FOI and Privacy
in CIA.
25X1A
All of the speakers were stimulating and offered some
controversial interpretations of the laws, but the high point
of the symposium was the response to the team exercises.
Participants were divided into five groups with representa-
tives from each directorate and an OGC lawyer to discuss
several aspects of the laws. The first assignment was
designed to expand the officers' views of the Acts and to
increase their awareness of other legitimate positions. Each
team proposed amendments to the laws from a different perspec-
tive: the Berkeley chapter of the ACLU, the National Press
Club, the Federal Bar Association, a CIA Freedom of Informa-
tion analyst and a private law firm seeking information for
35 clients. After the team presentations, Mr. Kronfeld com-
mented on the prospects for Congressional support for the
proposed amendments. His opinion was that the Senate
committees will not consider any new amendments until several
more years of experience with the present laws. Most officers
approached the assignment honestly and benefitted from trying
to understand the position of other organizations.
The second team exercise involved addressing a number
of questions on the Agency's response to Freedom of Informa-
tion and Privacy. The questions and a short synopsis of the
discussions of the questions are attached.
- 2 -
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000300170004-9
 Approved For lease 2002/06/1 : C1A I bP'84-00933iWO0300170004-9
SUMMARY:
Although the attendees represented many different com-
ponent and directorate viewpoints, there was a definite
cohesiveness among the participants exhibited in an excellent
exchange between reviewers, denying officers, coordinators,
affidavit signers and lawyers. Everyone gained a better
understanding of the problems experienced by the others.
There was no complaining or griping over the various proce-
dures and requirements for responses - everyone took a
constructive approach to improving the system and its product.
Problems were rapidly identified, thoroughly discussed and a
number of positive recommendations were offered.
(1) Working with the directorates on agreement and
publication of Agency-wide standards for saniti-
zation of material.
(2) Expanding the index of information released to
the public as soon as possible.
(3) Instituting an in-house training program for
newcomers in the FOI and Privacy business.
Other general concerns were expressed:
(1) There was a demand for a clear-cut definition of
sources and methods to be used by reviewing and
denying officials.
(2) There was a request for a definition of first
amendment rights under the Privacy Act.
(3) There should be guidelines on how to deal with
harrassment tactics used by requesters.
(4) There needs to be better policy guidelines on
the release of covert action information.
Attachments: a/s
- 3 -
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000300170004-9
1).9~~v~~m3"y i.a *?ra
 " E ~a ;;_
; (~ }?9'ari i i
Approved For$alease 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-0093300300170004-9
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
In using these questions, we did not necessarily expect the teams to
come to any agreement on definitive answers--in some cases there are no
answers. But we thought everyone would benefit from the exchange of
ideas and the chance to speak out on some of the issues in Freedom of
Information and Privacy. The questions the teams addressed are listed
below followed by a short summary of their discussions.
1. The backlog of cases in the Information & Privacy Staff is
presently about 1,100 cases. One reason for this is the delay involved
in the present system of decentralized review--each directorate component 4--
reviewing its own documents for release. The time required to process a
case could be cut, thereby reducing the backlog, if the review for re-
lease were centralized.
The group discussing this question did not feel that a centralized
review for release would solve the problem of the enormous case
backlog. Such a system could work only if the right people were
gathered to make up the centralized staff; but, getting experienced,
senior officers from all components to work in the area of informa-
tion and privacy would be difficult.
2. In those cases where two components cannot agree on the segre-
gation of a document, who should be the final authority when the matter
is not sufficiently important to take to the IRC?
Although many opinions were expressed, no general consensus was
reached on the final segregation authority. Some people thought
the final authority should be with the operating component since
they would be the denying office for the document. Some thought
that OGC should make the decision since they know how well such
decisions would stand up in court. One person's view was that IPS
should have final resolution authority and could arbitrate dis-
agreements between components. No one felt the issue was signifi-
cant enough to resolve into a matter of policy and all future cases
will be handled on an individual basis.
3. In the past, the Agency's response to information requests from
the public was "No comment," and later, "We can neither confirm nor deny"
(glomarize) the item of interest. With the FOI and Privacy Acts, these
lltio %I LD
E
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP84-00933R000300170004-9
+~ >?-.~ r ~ ~ d ~w' K.s+l !~ 6t 9 3"nut-t
 IkIrIPI: 3rd lA
Approved For$piease 2099d'
0 2 T0~6)1 : CIA-RDP84-00933iWO0300170004-9
answers do not seem appropriate and we should be more responsive to the
25X1A
1/( 1have a can this conflict in replies be handled to balance
protection of sensitive information and candor with the public?
lomarization was a heavily debated topic and everyone agreed it
was a problem.'' The viewpoints were so varied that the group, not
surprisingly, did not come up with an alternative to the practice.
~~.fo ! There was some retrenching and advocation of glomarization on all
responses, but most people felt we should just continue with our
present procedures and judicious use of glomarization.
4. Several proposals have been made to consolidate the offices
releasing information to the public into a CIA Public Information Office
similar to what exists in other agencies. Is this a worthwhile concept?
The thrust of this question referred to establishing a single
office to perform all public relations activities. Such an office
would handle inquiries from the public (IPS functions) and the
media (Andrew Falkiewicz's functions), requests for overt briefings
(OTR's briefing office function) and similar activities. The group
handling this question did not focus on the issue of office/
function consolidation, but they did feel that there should exist
some central point in the Agency which would know the extent and
detail of information in the public domain.
5. What do you think of the "salami approach" to the release o
information? Is there another approach?
The consensus on the "salami approach" was that it is a bad way to
handle the release of information. This practice ruins the Agency's
credibility and violates the spirit of the law. Group members dis-
cussing this question felt that if the case is done correctly the
first time, the requester is less likely to appeal. Another view
was that we risk losing valuable information on appeals where we
have initially given out all we possibly can.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000300170004-9
V
ILLEGIB
 Approved For$Rlease 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP84-00933 00300170004-9
6. Many of our Privacy responses raise more questions than
they answer in the minds of requesters because of the lack of
explanation in plain terms about what we have in a file and specifi-
cally why it cannot be released. Should we consider a more descrip-
tive response to requesters, where security and intelligence sources
and methods permit? Or should we continue to give only what is
legally required?
From a public relations standpoint, the more explanation
we can provide to the requester on the segregated and
denied material, the more satisfied he would feel. Even
if many of the documents were denied, the requester
would realize that we sincerely made an effort to help
him. Hopefully, he would be less inclined to appeal our
actions. One OGC opinion though, was that by being more
candid initially, we risk saying too much and possibly
hurting ourself if the case does go to court. That opinion
was countered with the argument that we should not focus on
the possibility of litigation in our initial handling of the
cases but try to deal honestly with each one. To do other-
wise would be a return to the "No Comment" era..
7. As a reviewing official, do you feel any obligation under
the FOI concerning the privacy of a deceased person?
The group debated the merits of the release of information on
deceased Agency employees to their own families and the dif-
ferences in handling releases on public and non-public figures.
No agreement was reached except to handle each case on an in-
dividual basis. Strict rules for compliance with no degree of
flexibility cannot be established for all cases.
8. Most agencies have established public reading rooms where a
person can go to review documents available to the public. He can
then decide if he wants copies, rather than paying for copies he is
not sure he wants, as is now the case. Can CIA continue to ignore
this requirement of the FOIA?
So far we have been able to finesse requesters who want to use
our reading room facilities; but, it was agreed that the Agency
cannot ignore the requirement much longer. There are definite
security problems involved in setting up such a room. Some of
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP84-00933R000300170004-9
- n~71 ww--l-11'
 R Far r, Y.
414.,+Li iiF!L
Approved For W ease 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-0093300300170004-9
the suggestions to overcome access problems include using a
room at the Washington Area Recruitment Office (WARO) in
Ames or using the Pentagon reading room which is currently
being shared by several other agencies. Another problem in-
volves the availability of the Index of Released Documents.
The totality of that document and its ready reference in the
reading room worries some people.
9. After the FBI, the CIA has the longest response time for
FOI requests, thereby causing our significant case backlog. The FBI
recently requested an $11.4 million budget increase, promising to
eliminate their backlog of cases in one year. With CIA left thus
exposed, do you think we should allocate additional resources over
our present allocation?
The proposed FBI approach concentrates their resources on the
initial phase of the problem--the backlog of requests. No one
felt their approach would be worthwhile for CIA. Since the
number of new requests is falling off and the number of appeals
is rising, we must shift our attention and hopefully some re-
sources to the end of the process--the appeal and litigation
phases. All symposium participants felt that the OGC lawyers
are terribly overworked and under heavy stress from the in-
creased workload. If the Agency were to expand its commitment,
it should be by increasing the number of lawyers in the FOI and
Privacy Division of OGC.
10. To date, CIA has seldom accommodated bonafide historical
researchers by granting them access to records because of security
and logistical considerations. There is mounting pressure to grant
access as provided for under Executive Order 11652. To what extent
should CIA allocate resources to meet this requirement?
Insofar as security permits, we should make every effort to
accommodate bonafide historical researchers. Certainly our
willingness to cooperate with these people would have positive
public relations value. Many CIA stories are worth publishing
and we should allow serious writers to research them; our own
History Staff is not capable of handling such an assignment.
with its present size staff. Also, some benefit is gained by
having an outsider review historical events without any Agency
bias.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000300170004-9
 25X1A
L Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000300170004-9
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000300170004-9