MINUTES OF 20 JANUARY 1983 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING: SIS PAY OPTIONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R001001300068-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 27, 2008
• Sequence Number: 68
• Publication Date: January 27, 1983
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152RO01001300068-1 ~~
0 SECRET
?
DD/A Registry
`7
EXCOM 003-83
27 January 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Committee Members
25X1 FROM: J ~a,aU
Executive Assistant to the DDCI
SUBJECT: Minutes of 20 January 1983 Executive Committee
Meeting: SIS Pay Options
1. The Executive Committee met on 20 January 1983 to con ' r SIS pay
options developed by the Office of Personnel. chaired
the session; participants included Messrs. Fitzwater (DDA); Gates (DDI);
Hineman (DDS&T); Geor a Acting DDO); Taylor (IG); Childs (Comptroller);
d
an
Glerum (D/OP).
2. Mr. Glerum explained that his office developed optional SIS pay
proposals in response to employee concerns regarding the equity of the
current SIS pay scale in the wake of the lifting of the Federal pay cap
in December 1982. Two major concerns exist: Senior GS-1155-can make more
than SIS-ls, 2s, and a few 3s; and some people who elected to join the SIS
could, because of the lifting of the pay cap, be making more money if they
had retained the General Schedule (GS) pay scale. In addition, as original-
ly designed, the SIS system was to present the opportunity for bonuses to.
50 percent of its members, but Congress subsequently reduced that to 20
percent. Mr. Glerum noted that people in high steps of various grade
levels have always made more money than people in the lower steps of the
next highest grade. Because the pay cap for the GS schedule is lower than
the new SIS cap, time could eventually solve this problem. If, as expected,
a Federal pay freeze were imposed this year, however, it would take longer
to solve. Mr. Glerum suggested those employees who seem the most concerned
are those in the lower SIS levels.who expect to be retiring in the near
term and would have received higher retirement pay if they had remained at
the GS-15 level. All of the above is aggravated by the disparity between
the percentage of our SIS employees at levels 3 and 4 -- 34 percent -- and
the percentage of the rest of the Government's SES employees at those
levels -- 67 percent.F___1
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152RO01001300068-1
 ? Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152RO01001300068-1
0 SECRET .
3. Mr. Glerum said that the SIS pay options developed by his office
were a representative sample of the possible variations. No option exists
that will satisfy everyone. Any increase in SIS pay would obviously have
an impact on Agency resources. He observed that it seemed wrong in prin-
ciple to straddl
th
GS
e
e
and SIS systems, keeping the best features of
each. He recommended Option D retaining the recently approved SIS pay
struct
d
i
ure an
pol
cies, then requested members' views.
4. Mr. Gates noted that perceived inequities would exist in any pay
system the Agency adopted. He advocated that no one being promoted to SIS
should lose money, and the current pay retention policy ensured that. He
feared that if the Agency tinkered with its current SIS pay structure, it
could create as many problems as it solved. The pay compression problem,
for example, would resurface sooner, given the unlikelihood of another
lifti
ng of the pay cap any time soon. He therefore recommended no change
in the current structure while insuring that no one lost money if promoted.
5. Mr. Fitzwater offered another alternative SIS pay scale (see Tab
A). He emphasized the strong feelings among affected employees that the
Agency was not doing all it could for its people. He noted that two-thirds
of the rest of Government SES personnel were at the SES 3 and 4 level, while
the majority of the Agency's SIS members were is and 2s. He recommended
his option as a way to retain a hierarchy within the SIS while providing
SIS is and 2s opportunities for pay increases. In response=,to questions,
he affirmed that he favored retaining SIS bonuses. Messrs. Glerum and
Hineman reiterated the point that Congress reduced the percentage of SISers
who could receive bonuses from 50 to 20 percent. Mr. Gates noted that he
did not feel strongly about any option as long as the one chosen was
reasonable. He did strongly favor retaining uses, however, which he
belie
d
ve
were a valuable managerial tool.
6. Mr. Hineman advocated revising the pay structure because of the
inequities cited. He noted that the disparities between our practices and
the rest of the Government's were a particular 7blem for hi rate
because he had people working side-by-side with
U_ -1
an
e
u
r? ---
nub a opt. 1011 (see
Tab B), which would maintain a hierarchy, provide opportunities for reasonable
pay increases for lower level SISers, and provide reasonable raises for GS-15s
promoted into SIS. He echoed Mr. Fitzwater's sentiments regarding the high
level of employee concern on this issue. Mr. George concurred that some change
should be made and favored something along the lines of O
D r_.._-
ti
rat
p
on
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152RO01001300068-1
 25X1,
25X1
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152RO01001300068-1
? Mu1'111Yx. iKHI1Vt - IN ItKPU-1L I* UIYLY
7. Mr. Glerum noted several other possibilities, including eliminating
SIS-is and promoting GS-15s directly to SIS-2s. Mr. Hineman thought the
resulting pay hike would be too large. Mr. Childs said that he was sympathe-
tic to the problem but ambivalent regarding a solution. He advocated doing
the best possible for employees but cautioned against ignoring the political
realities involved in trying to effect any change. Mr. Taylor advised
against doing anything that would require seeking a Congressional approval.
He thought the whole pay structure could profit from an overhaul, but that
would take some time. Meanwhile, he suggested not tampering with the
system except to resolv lem of SIS-3s and 2s who were being paid
less than some GS-15s.
8. (OGC) explained his understanding of how the rest of
Government was handling its SES structure and said that any of the options
for increasing lower level SIS pay would not be out of line with other
Government practices. In response to Mr. Hineman's question, Mr. Taylor
said that a one-time pay adjustment could solve the SIS-3 problem. Mr.
Childs disagreed, suggesting that such a one-time solution could eventually
create more problems. Mr. Glerum stated that if the Agency decided to
create step increases for SIS-ls and 2s, they would be more justifiable if
they were performance related rather than the traditional periodic step
increases. Mr. Gates reiterated concerns about the political cost of
adopting a change that would require Congressional notification. Mr.
George contended that the Agency should feel obligated to at least try to
attain salaries for its SIS employees on a par with those of the rest of
Government. =K -
9.I (said that he was not convinced that it would be desirable
to change the system. He noted his initial opposition to the SIS system
because of its heavy emphasis on relying on money as a motivator. Now that
the Agency has adopted it, however, he believed that we should honor the
intent of the system, which was to award bonuses based solely on merit. He
did not think this was that contentious an issue among employees and noted
that GS-scale employees could not understand the concern. He preferred to
approach the salary issue from the perspective of attaining equity for all
employees. He noted that we had solved the overseas pay problem and perhaps
the next concern should be the clericals. He also mentioned the possibility
of reviving the Office of Personnel's pay study. He then noted the benefits
of membership in the SIS, including potential bonuses, unlimited accrual of
leave, and sabbaticals, and said that he.could not understand why SIS pay
had become such an emotional issue. He concluded that he would repgrtthe
'
Committee
s views to the DCI/DDCI and defer to them for a decision.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY'
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152RO01001300068-1
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152RO01001300068-1
Distribution:
ExDir
DDI
DDA
DDO
DDS&T
D/Personnel
Inspector General
General Counsel
Comptroller
EXCOM Subject
EXCOM Minutes
ER
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152RO01001300068-1