MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING, 11 SEPTEMBER 1979 (U)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89-01114R000300090030-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 6, 2001
• Sequence Number: 30
• Content Type: MF

elease 2007F Q F> : ( i R 1 .114800030009 0-2 "
ExeoM-115-79
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Committee Members
25X1 A FROM
25X1A
25X1A
Secretary, Executive Committee
SUBJECT. Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting,
11 September 1979 (U)
1- The Executive Committee met on 11 September to review the members'
comments on the revised proposals for an, Agency Senior Intelligence Service
(SIS). (Mr. Carlucci chaired the session; Mr. May represented Mr. Wortman,
Messrs. Waller, Hicks, and Office of Personnel staff
members attended as observers.) U) 25X1A
2. Mr. Carlucci said he was partially sympathetic to some members'
concerns about rushing into the new SIS system without considering it
more carefully. He reiterated his intention to implement the system
by 1 October, however, both to maintain a sense of momentum in the personnel
arena and to enable affected employees to know at the beginning of the
performance evaluation period how the system will work. He added that
details of the system could continue to be ironed out after I October. (U)
3. Mr. Fitzwater briefed Committee members on their individual
comments on the revised SIS proposals, noting that some of their questions
needed to be resolved before implementation, while others could be addressed
afterwards. Mr. - had requested that the name of the service be
changed to the "DCI's Senior Intelligence Service" to encompass both
CIA and RMS/CTS. After some discussion, the Committee agreed that the 25X1A
"Senior Intelligence Service" would suffice. Mr.- had also
suggested that a review board similar to the Performance Review Committee
(PRC) be established for RMS/CTS. Mr. Carlucci suggested tabling that
question for the time being. In response to Mr. Taylor's concern about
the Annual Work Plan, Mr. Fitzwater assured the Committee that his Office
was developing the supplemental instructions to the work plan required
for STS m,~mho - 'L-A-- - - - L _ . .
(U) '`~
~
......
4. Mr. Dirks had expressed concern that the Agency was trying to
define and implement the system too hastily. He suggested issuing an
Agency notice by 1 October committing the Agency to an SIS including an
incentive bonus plan and to a 1 November implementation date, when a
detailed description of the SIS structure would be published. Mr. Carlucci
overruled this suggestion, acknowledging that several of Mr. Dirks'
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP89.01j1,4J Q0030009% -23
 --- Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP89-01114R000300090030'-2
4 low
concerns needed to be resolved but could be addressed after the 1 October
implementation date. Mr. Dirks had also raised the issues of whether
or not employees currently in the SPS category would be covered by the
supergrade ceiling and whether or not they should be ranked competitively 25X1A
with managers for awards. Messrs. Fitzwater and _ explained that SPS
employees are not included in the OMB supergrade ceiling, but the separate
SPS ceiling has been added to the supergrade ceiling in arriving at the
-new SIS ceiling. Recalling having discussed the specialists vs. managers
issue previously, Mr. Carlucci repeated his earlier conclusion that
officials would be evaluated by their performance against their individual
work plans, not against other individuals. Mr. Ware asked what would
happen when several people were so evaluated and were all given the`
25X1A same rating. Mr- explained that the supplement to the Annual
Work Plan would spell out the requirements to identify SIS members'
individual objectives and expected standards of performance. Components
will prioritize those recommended for awards according to their performance
ratings and level of difficulty of their assignments. The PRC, now to
consist of Deputy Directors and the Chairman of the E Career Service
rather than Associate Deputies, will interleave the lists, filtering
out the extra 10 percent allowed to be forwarded and produce a, final
prioritized list of SIS members recommended for awards equaling up to
50 percent of the number of 5I5 ceiling positions. Mr. Carlucci noted
that Mr. Dirks' problem of ensuring equitable treatment for specialists
would therefore be within his own purview to resolve. (U)
5. In response to Mr. Dirks' question about the role of the PRC,
Mr. Carlucci said that each directorate would be able to recommend a
number of its SIS members for awards equaling up to 60 percent of its
SIS positions. The PRC will review all the resulting recommendations
and' produce a prioritized, combined list, narrowing the number of recommen-
dations for awards to 50 percent of the total SI5 ceiling positions.
He noted that he had discussed the proposals at length with the Director,
who asked that promotions from SIS-4 to SIS-5 not go through the same
panel system as the award recommendations. (U)
6. Outlining a flow chart of the awards process, Mr. Fitzwater
said that supervisors would make the initial recommendations, which would
then be forwarded through a reviewing official and the operating official
to the appropriate Senior Resources Board. Award recommendations for
SIS-1-3s would then go through the PRC for review, consolidation and
prioritizing before being forwarded to the DCI/DDCI for final decisions.
Award recommendations for SIS-4's and above would go directly from the
Senior Resources Boards to the DCI/DDCI for. final decision. He added
that the DDCI will determine the distribution of awards based on the
funds available and performance in attaining Agency goals. The SIS
management staff will provide any required staff support. (U)
7. In response to Mr. Dirks' question, Mr. Carlucci suggested
three alternatives for deciding the distribution of awards: (a) the OP
proposal, that is, having recommendations flow from the bottom up with
the PRC making a final recommendation to the DCI/DDCI, which would be
Approved For Release 2002/01/-08 ~CTAP801114R000300090030-2
 or Release 2001 /01IO8i QIA-1~1 1 8 114R00030009QQ30-2
an extremely difficult task; (b) Mr. Carlucci could review the directorate
recommendations and, with staff support, determine the final distribution;
or (c) Mr. Carlucci could assign quotas of awards to each directorate,
based on overall performance against objectives established during the
goals program. The last option would require a sophisticated evaluation
system. Suggesting another option, Mr. Carlucci added that the PRC
could. determine a final list recommending awards for up to 50 percent
of the SIS and he could reserve a fund to ensure that no deserving officials,
such as people on rotation, were overlooked. Mr. Taylor noted that the
DDCI would be able to exert more leverage without a PRC. (U) -
8. After considerable discussion, Mr. Carlucci decided on option
(c) above. He asked the Office of Personnel to revise the proposed
SIS award system so that the DDCI will allocate each Deputy Director
a quota of awards based on his directorate's performance against its
objectives. The Deputy, in turn, will distribute the award quota among
the components in the directorate based on their performance in attaining
their objectives. The operating officials, having received recommendations
for awards from supervisors and reviewing officials, would then determine
which officials should receive awards. The Deputy Directors would review
their decisions, and the DDCI would have final approval. During the
process, the DDCI and Deputies would confer regarding the recommended.
allocations and would make adjustments as appropriate. In response to
Mr. Taylor's comment, Mr. Fitzwater said that the SIS support staff
could monitor the entire process, watching for patterns and trends and
recommending appropriate adjustments. As outlined, this system would
provide line managers the leverage to reward excellence in performance 25X1A
and would foster a team approach in tackling objectives. Mr.
noted that if the DDCI were unable to distinguish performance levels
among the directorates in any one year, he could distribute the awards
on the basis of parity. (U) 25X1A
9. Hr. Fitzwater said that Messrs. McMahon, Wortman, and Taylor
had asked for clarification of who will nominate detailees for performance
awards, the line manager for whom they are working or their "home base"
career service. Mr. McMahon noted that the quota system designed above
turns this question into a matter of which component's quota a detailee's
award would come from. Mr. May expressed concern that DDA support officers
assigned to directorates would be overlooked. The Committee agreed
that awards for detailees should be processed by the unit in which they
are working, and the SIS support staff will monitor the process to ensure
that people on rotation do not get systematically overlooked. Mr. Carlucci
? noted that quotas would be based on the number of SIS members in a direc-
torate's table of organization. (U)
25X1A 10. Mr.~ had questioned whether or not joining the SIS
should be mandatory because there would be no advantages to maintaining
a parallel system for non-SIS supergrades. Mr. Carlucci said that while
he expected all eligible employees to join the SIS, he thought it was
important psychologically to offer them a choice. (U)
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP89-01114R000300090030-2
3
 Approve
elease 2002/01/08 CIA-RDP89-01114R000300090030-2
11. In response to written comments from Mr. Wortman, Mr. Fitzwater
listed the following as possible consequences of eligible employees not
joining the SIS:
They would be allowed to remain in their positions
unless management decided they were blocking a potential
SIS position, in which case they
- could be reduced in grade, or
- reassigned to GS-15 positions and downgraded.
-- They would not be eligible for
- promotion,
- awards,
-- leave accrual,
- sabbaticals, or
-- reassignment to SIS positions.
Mr. Carlucci noted that the leave accrual allowed for SIS members had
been changed from being unlimited to no- more thf 6 day added' p r-
to requiring the use of 80 hours or forfeiture
of this amount. -
1:2. Mr. Wortman had also asked about the ramifications of the SIS
for supergrades currently in PRA status. Mr. Fitzwater explained that
they would be treated like any other supergrades in joining the SIS,
but once members, their performance would have to be "significantly
higher:` than others at their position level to receive awards. Mr. Ware
said that he objected to ambiguous terms like "significantly higher."
Mr. McMahon said that the revisions in the award process agreed to
earlier would resolve any concerns regarding people in PRA status. (U)
13. Mr'. Fitzwater said that Mr. McMahon had commented that the
proposed conversion of supergrade and SPS pay levels into SIS pay levels
resulted in serious imbalances in the number of senior positions at
various levels. Mr. Fitzwater suggested a revised conversion table based
on the President's recent revised pay scales that would convert current
GS-16 Steps 1-5 and SPS 1-2s to SIS-1s, for an initial total of~ STATINTL
and GS-16 Steps 6-9 and SPS-3-4s to SIS-2s, for an initial total. o
STATINTL = He emphasized that no one's salary level would be lowered during
the conversion process. (C)
14. Mr. Taylor had suggested that the SIS promotion process should
be separated from the performance review process. Concurring, Mr. Fitz-
water said that the SIS proposals will be revised to retain the current
promotion system centered in the career services. (U)
15. Mr. Dirks had expressed concern about the potential adverse
impact on morale of limiting awards to only 50 percent of the SIS.
Mr. Taylor said that our unusual situation with regard to career and
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : clA-RDP89-01114R000300090030-2
 -App .edrf'br Release 20 iOc1108`.`.! - QP8 0 1148000300090030-2
noncareer employees was such that we could justify making awards to more
than 50 percent of the SIS and still be consistent with the number of
awards granted to career SES members under the Civil Service Reform
Act. Another reasonable alternative would be to distribute more awards
for lesser amounts, thereby keeping the total cost the same. Mr. Carlucci
noted that the closer the number of award recipients approached 100
percent, the more awards would look like pay raises rather than incentives.
Mr. Fitzwater said that departing from the 50 percent figure could be
interpreted as abusing the law. Mr. Carlucci concluded that during the
first year of SIS, he would prefer to parallel other Federal agencies
as much as possible. After some experience with the system, a decision
could be made to increase the percentage of award recipients, but it
.would be very difficult to start with a larger percentage and then try
to reduce it later on. (U)
-~ Supplement to Annual Work Plan and To Committee members for
Performance Appraisal Report comment by 21 September
--- Distribute explanatory letters .and 1 October
SIS Handbook
- Small group briefings on request 15 October - 1 November
--? Auditorium briefing 15 October
Commitment for joining 1 November (U)
17. Mr. Carlucci adjourned the meeting. (U)
25X1A
. 16. 'Mr. Fitzwater suggested the'folloaiing SIS implementation
schedule, which the Committee approved:
cc: 0GC
IC
D/Personnel
25X1A Mr
Mr.
.
Approved For Release 2002/01/085 CIA-RDP89-01114R000300090030-2
 Approved For Release 20/01/08 : CIA-RDP89-01114R00030009GD30-2
N.B. - Subsequent to this meeting, a revised draft of the SIS proposal
was prepared by the Office of Personnel and sent to Executive
Committee members for comment. Upon receipt, these comments
were incorporated in a new version. In addition, there was
a discussion of certain aspects of the SIS proposal following
the DDA Goals Meeting on 18 September 1979 which led to a
modification in the role of senior resource boards. Later,
on 18 September 1979 the DDCI approved the STS proposal as
modified during the several discussions subsequent to the
Executive Committee meeting reported above. He approved
Sub-Section 6, Competitive Promotion, subject to adjustments
which will refelct discussions with Executive Committee members.
When finally edited, copies of the approved proposal will. be
distributed to Executive Committee members.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP89-01114R000300090030-2
 Approved For Release 260!1O1/08 : CIA-RDP89-01114R00030009( 0-2
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
19 September 1979
the Executive
These are
Committee notes atS Which
I mentioned to you
please review for accuracy
and also for those decisions
that have overriden
they DDCIby
our meeting
yesterday.
25X1A
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP89-01114R000300090030-2
 STATINTL Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP89-01114R000300090030-2
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP89-01114R000300090030-2