AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS WRITTEN BY PRESENT AND FORMER AGENCY EMPLOYEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00890R000700020064-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 7, 2006
• Sequence Number: 64
• Publication Date: November 18, 1981
• Content Type: MF

TAT
 MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Administration
?
DD/A Registry
18 Nov11981
Approved For Rg[ease 2006/12/07: CIA-RDP84B00890R000700MOO6$lt1O69
Director of In o-rmation Services
SUBJECT: An Alternative Procedure for Reviewing Manuscripts
Written by Present and Former Agency Employees
1. Attached is a paper that proposes an alternative procedure for
reviewing manuscripts written by present and former Agency employees. It was
prompted by the Director's concern for the number of people involved in this
type of review, and responds to that concern by proposing the designation of
a centralized reviewing unit that would process the manuscripts. The unit
would, conduct its own review for clearance and coordinate, as appropriate,
supplementary reviews with specific components. In some cases, such as with
novels, poems, and TV scripts that do not reveal actual sensitive intelligence
matters, review by the centralized unit may be all that is necessary. Where
further review is indicated, the manuscript would be reviewed only by those
Agency components directly involved with the substantive matter. Considerable
savings in the manpower directed to this effort could thus be realized.
2. A major objection to this proposal may be concern by a directorate
that its equities may not be identified or properly assessed by the centralized
unit. One means to alleviate this concern would be to ask the four directorates
to assign personnel to the central reviewing unit on a rotational basis.
STAT
STAT
Attachment:
Paper entitled "An Alternative
Procedure for Reviewing Manuscripts
Written by Present and Former Agency
Employees"
 Approved For Release 2006/12/07: CIA-RDP84B00890R000700020064-1
AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING ?LANUSCRIPTS
WRITTEN BY PRESENT AND FORMER AGENCY EMPLOYEES
1. This paper examines one method of increasing efficiency in reviewing
manuscripts written by present and former Agency employees. It is a procedure
designed to provide reviews equally reliable to those accomplished under the
current procedures but using less manpower by: (1) focusing the review effort
proportionately to the seriousness and sensitivity of the material; and
(2);?;_,involving only those Agency components that have equities to protect. This
would be accomplished by creating a centralized review unit consisting of officers
experienced in all four directorates. This group would complete review of the
less sensitive manuscripts and coordinate, when necessary, with the appropriate
directorates or independent offices on the more sensitive and complicated ones.
The following paragraphs look at this proposition in terms.of the way in which
it might work, the advantages and disadvantages, and who might undertake it.
2. Briefly, the procedure might work as follows. Manuscripts from r U(`
former Agency employees would be received in the Office of General Counsel
(OGC) which would acknowledge receipt to the author. The manuscript then
would go directly to the central reviewing unit. That unit would establish
administrative controls and assign.the manuscript to one or more reviewers
within the unit. A full Agency review would be conducted by the unit,
researching any points that were questionable. If no questions arose or if
the questions that did arise could be resolved satisfactorily within the
unit, the results of the review would be forwarded to OGC. The latter would
conduct their review and would notify the author of the results. If questions
arose that could not be resolved within the central review unit based either
on the cumulative expertise or research material available, the central review
unit would effect coordination with other Agency components that had equities
involved. When this coordination was completed and all questions were resolved
to the satisfaction or concensus of everyone involved, the central review unit
would notify OGC of the results. OGC would review the final results and notify
the author. The procedure currently in force that permits manuscripts written
by current employees to be reviewed and passed upon by the directorate concerned
would be continued.
3. In brief, centralized review of manuscripts would have the following
advantages :
a. Greater consistency in reviewing actions resulting from:
(1) involvement of fewer people; (2) materials being available to
the reviewers to research questions; and (3) review experience
developing at a faster rate because of the concentrated experience.'
Approved For Release 2006/12/07: CIA-RDP84B0089OR000700020064-1 .
 Approved For Release 2006/12/07: CIA-R DP84B00890R000700020064-1
b. Greater efficiency resulting from: (1) involvement of fewer
persons and the directorates' having to review only those materials
which involve their equities; (2) less coordination required;
(3) the reviewers, as specialists, wasting less time; and (4) the
availability of research materials and access to the DECAL data
base, providing ready answers and saving time.
C. Better supported review decisions resulting from: (1) fuller
knowledge and understanding of the review requirements and
procedures; (2) greater expertise and professionalism developing
from concentrated experience; and (3) researched decisions being
more typical.
d. Improved capability to develop a data base of released information
through: (1) concentration of expertise and experience; and
(2) narrow responsibility allowing a focus of effort on the problems
faced.
e. Improved recording of review actions, particularly if the record of
these actions is to be computerized.
f. Continual improvement and enhancement of review procedures and
techniques based on the concentrated and focused experience.
g. Provision of greater expertise to help the Agency find an answer to
the problem of the constant flow of inside information to the public
domain.
h. Elimination of confusion caused by the multiple reviews and sometimes
overlapping equities of the four directorates.
4. Centralized review would have the following disadvantages:
a. Breadth of expertise within the central unit would be limited to
the experience and background of its staff.
b. The possibility of error could potentially be greater because fewer
people would review each manuscript, and the background that would
be brought directly to bear on substantive matters could be limited.
c. The interests of the directorates could be overlooked if coordination
is not properly effected and certain areas of knowledge are limited
or lacking in the central unit.
5. The Office of Information Services, DDA, already has such a unit: its
Classification Review Division (CRD). CRD consists of officers from all four
directorates who review documents under the Agency's systematic review program.
In addition, they review documents selected for the Department of State's
 ? Hpprovea ror K ase zuunri