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-RDP85B00236R000100180003-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 6, 2005
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: November 18, 1981
• Content Type: MF

Approved Forlease 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP85B00230001001800 3-2
J;n scgj,. ry
18 NOV 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy 1?ircctor for Administration
a
1)i. rector. of- in forma.t i on Services
SUlIECT: An Alternative Procedure for Reviewing Manuscripts
Written by Present and Former Agency Employees
1. Attached is a pap r that proposes wi 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 des i.gnat.ion of
a centralizcd._ reviewing unit that would process the manuscripts. The unit
would conduct its omi review for denrancc and coordinate, as appropriate,
supplementary 1'CV.LCwS with sped i f i.c con1.ponents. In some cases, such as with
novels, poems, and TV scripts that. do not. reveal actual sensitive intelligence
matters, review by the Coll tral:i_zed nut may be al.] that. is necessary. Where
further review is Indicated, the III,']] is rscr i_pt 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. Die means to a 1le-vtatc this concern would be to ask the four directorates
to assign personnel to the central reviewing unit on a rotational basis.
STAT
littacliment.:
i':rpcr cutitied "An Alteruat.i.vo
Procedure for Reviowi.ng Manuscripts
Written by Present an.d Dormer Agency
Employees"
l) i. s t.ri bast iota :
Orig Addressee a/a,t t
l _ Oils Siih ec . tJ/at t
1.1]l~l p~,.l k1L.t..
1 C:i:f 1'ul)l.I_~ rt IOI1 1i!',V] v i )'IC :+ (IUIC s li:t
STAT 1 Apprq; gc41Fpr Release 2005/P7L1~o ?-RDP85B00236R000100180003-2
fat
 7.I.
Approved ForrtWease 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP85B0023ila00100180003-2
AN ALTI RNATIVE, PROCl DUR FOIZ IZ1ATI1 WING MANUSCRIPTS
WR.:"I"T'LiN BY I'?ZL: ~l N1' AND bOIZTu11iR AGENCY EMPLOYEES
I. This paper exam.in.es one method of increasing efficiency in :reviewing
manuscripts written by present and former !1gency 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 consist:i.n.g 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 oI- 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
former Agency employees would be received in the office of General Counsel
(0CC) 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 ma uscript. 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 dial arise could. he 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 no t.i i.'), 0GC of the results. UGC: would review the final results and notify
the author. The procedure currently in force that permits manuscripts written
by current employees to he reviewed and passed upon by the directorate concerned
would be continued.
3. In brief, centralized review oC manuscripts would. have the following
advantages:
a. Greater consistency in reviewing actions resulting from:
(I) 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 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP85B00236R000100180003-2
1
 Approved For ase 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP85B0023AM660100180003-2
b . Greater off ic.iency result: ng from: (1) involvement of fewer
persons and. the d_irecto.ra-tes' liav-i.ng to review only those material-s
which involve their equities; (2) :Less coordination required;
(3) the reviewers, as spec:i_a_i._istrs, wasting Less time; and (4) the
avai.labil i.ty of research materials and access to the DE LM, 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
proce(hres; (2) greater expertise ind. professionalism developing
from concentrated experience; and (3) researched (loci.s_ions being
more typical.
d. Improved c.apab_i.l -i ty to develop a dla a base of rel easod information
through : (1) concentration of expertise and experience ; and
(2) narrow responsi.bil_i.ty allowing aI 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. Continua L improvement and enhancement of review procedures and
techniques based. on the concentrated and focused expe.r. ience.
g. Provision of greater expertise to help the Agency find an answer to
the proh.lem of the con-stmt flow o inside information to the public
domain,
h. 11 iminat:ion of confusion caused by the multiple rcvicw_s and sometimes
overlapping equities of the four directorates,
4 . Central i-zed review would have the Fo_llor: i_nr; d i sadvantages :
a. Breadth of expertise w.ithi_n the central unit would he 1imi.ted to
the ex~ erience and background of its staff.
1). The possibility of error could potentially be greater because fewer
people, would review each manuscript, and the background that. would
be hror:g.,lat. Lii_rect ly to hear on substantive matters could be limited.
c. The interests of the d.i.rec.tora-tes coul.d. be overlooked if coordination
is not properly effected and certain areas of knowledge are limited
or lacking in the central ui-ut.
5. The Office of Information Services, DDA, already has such a uiiit: its
Classification Review Division (CRD). ('RD consists of officers from a1..1 four
d irector. ates who review documents under the Agency's systematic review program.
In addition, they review documents selected for the Department of State's
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP85B00236R000100180003-2
2
 Approved Fo ase 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP85B002,-it0000100180003-2
Foreign 1ZeLit cons of the llnitc d1 S t i tes ser i_cs , support the systematic review
programs at other ,c~ics -th that .;l~rt~~'cc nw.ter:i.tls aEfectiig .Agency equities,
raid review mmiuscripts for DDA cqui_ties. (:;Ili) already is established and has
the expertise in reviewing and c.oordhnating procedures and techniques that are
required by the centralized unit: in our proposal.. The channels and l i..nes of
communication with other directorates and. components of the Agency are already
well established.. It would be an easy matter 1'or CR1) to assume the additional
responsibility of reviewing from the Agency's staTalpo:i:nt:. the manuscripts of
current anad former Agency eml- Loyees .
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP85B00236R000100180003-2
3