MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING, 6 DECEMBER 1979(Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00988R000500060003-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 11, 2003
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: December 12, 1979
• Content Type: MF

1 2 DEC 1979
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Committee Members
Secretary, Executive Committee
SUBJECT Minutes of.Executiv mmittee Meeting,
6 December 1979
I. The Executive Committee met on 6 December to continue its
deliberations on the NAPA Project Group recommendations. (The DCI
chaired the meeting; the DDCI and Messrs. Dirks, McMahon, Wortman,
Clarke, Lipton, and Ware attended; Messrs. Silver and Fitzwater par-
ticipated as observers.) Mr.. Carlucci. noted receipt of the Office of
Personnel's proposed guidelines for an executive development program,
which includes rotational assignments among the criteria for moving
into senior positions. The DCI said he favored the concept, noting
that it provided for rotations while preserving flexibility for the
career service chairmen to make appropriate exceptions. Mr. Carlucci
asked Mr. Fitzwater to incorporate a policy statement on rotations
into the program and circulate a draft to Committee members for comment.
A decision on the program will be made early next week. F __I
2. Section'J.'Vacancy Notices. Mr. Fitzwater highlighted the
NAPA findings regarding vacancy notices, Committee member comments on
the Project Group's recommendations in this area, and the strengths
and weaknesses of the current vacancy notice system. Mr. Carlucci
noted that with the exception of Recommendation B, the Group did not
suggest any change in the current system. He and the DCI noted receiving
numerous complaints about the current system and suggested that mandatory
Agency-wide vacancy notices would be more understandable to employees
and would help ensure that supervisors got the best people. Mr. Silver
noted that reconciling an Agency-wide system with rotations and executive
development programs would present a dilemma. In the ensuing discussion,
concern was also expressed about the inappropriateness of Agency-wide
notices for some DDO and DDA positions and the potentially excessive
administrative costs of such a system. The Committee agreed that the
new Personnel Policy Board to be formed under Mr. Fitzwater should work
with the heads of the career services and appropriate career management
officers to compile a list of position:: for which-mandatory Agency-wide
vacancy notices would be appropriate. Mr. Fitzwater is then to determine
how many of those would be feasible given current Office of Personnel
resources. The Committee also agreed with Mr. Fitzwater's suggestions
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP85-00988R000500060003-9
 to inform employees of the results of the above, to investigate expediting
25X1
the distribution of notices, and to try to reduce the response period
to notices from three weeks to two. In response to Mr. Fitzwater's
question, Mr. Carlucci said that employees selected for new assignments
should be released by their offices within three weeks.
7
2
3. Mr. Silver noted the apparent inequities of tying secretarial
grades to those of their supervisors. The DCI initiated a discussion
of the pros and cons of converting a number of GS-15 professional slots
into more GS-10 secretarial slots. Several members noted that Agency
secretaries receive higher salaries under our system than they would
in private industry or some other Civil Service agencies. The DCI asked
Mr. Fitzwater to review the bottleneck in career progression for secre-
taries at the GS-08 - GS-09 level. F-1
and at the same time allow for their unique needs.
4. Section. N. Competitive Evaluation Panels. During the discussion
on competitive- evaluation pane-Is, the-advantages and disadvantages of
promotions by panels versus promotions solely by supervisors were aired.
Drawbacks of panels included reducing supervisors' ability to control,
reward, and constructively help their human resources. Another weakness
noted was the tendency of panels to "go for the average." On the plus
side, by diluting some of the supervisors' control, panels would encourage
supervisors to be "leaders" and lessen employee inhibitions to express
dissenting views. Supervisors would still retain considerable influence
in panel deliberations because they would write the fitness reports
on which the panels base their decisions. It was also suggested that
panels might be appropriate for employees serving overseas tours because
they would be known by various supervisors, but not for employees at
lower levels in the Headquarters area who would probably only be known
by one supervisor. The DDCI and DCI noted current panel practices across
the Agency were confusing and difficult to understand. In response to
the DCI's question, Mr. Fitzwater said that most employees he has talked
to prefer promotion panels. After extensive debate, the DCI concluded
that the current system of five independent, unrelated systems was unaccep-
table. He asked the five career service chairmen to convene before
the next Committee meeting to look for the commonalities among their
systems that could serve as the basis for a more uniform Agency system
cc: D/Personnel
Ch/E Career Service
2
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 CIA-RDP85-00988R000500060003-9