MINUTES OF THIRD MEETING, SCI FORUM, 2 DECEMBER 1986

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 30, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 17, 1986
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30 : CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
DCI/I CS-86-0976
17 December 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
FROM: Executive Secretary
SCI Forum
SUBJECT: Minutes of Third Meeting, SCI Forum, 2 December 1986
1. The following is to record events taking place during the SCI Forum
meeting of 2 December 1986 in Room 6100, Department of Justice, 1300-1440
25X1
hours. Personnel present were
:
Clark Dittmer, State Maynard An
Bill O'Donnell, Treasury Gene Bache
derson, O
r, DoE
SD
Charles Al
liman, Do
J
25X1
George Henriksen, Navy
25X1
Tom Chace, State Maurice H.
Ralston,
OS
D
Mark Pelensky, Navy
25X1
25X1
Claudia Sm
ith, Arm
y
William Cody. Air Force Ted Kondur
is, Air F
orc
e
Gary Stoop
s, FBI
Walter Breede, Marine Corps
25X1
25X1
2. Distributed at the meeting were:
a. NSA-originated information memorandum to NSC Staff re national
polygraph program to protect SCI.
b. NSA-originated amendment to DCID 1/14 re polygraph program.
c. CIA information/instruction document re ORCON, NOCONTRACT, and
other controls.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
CONFIDENTIAL
d. Justice Department memo to D/Security/NSA re proposals offered in
a. and b. above (national polygraph program).
e. Navy memo proposing modification of DCID 1/21 to re SCIF
inspections at a minimum of every two years vice annually.
3. In response to the moderator's request for acceptance of the minutes
of the 30 October meeting, the group registered approval. It was noted that
of NSA was listed as in attendance but., in fact, was absent from
to state their agency's position. I (distributed the
document identified as c. above and offered a verbal explanation and
elaboration on the content of the document. He described the mechanism
followed in obtaining relief from the ORCON control. All requests are handled
by the Intelligence Dissemination Branch of the Directorate of Operations.
The control is determined by field and headquarters elements in coordination.
It was stressed that foreign liaison services also put caveats on information
they supply. also emphasized that information controlled is
often the product of clandestine acquisition which, by its nature, requires
strict control. He added that the Agency is totally willing to disseminate
controlled information to field commanders based on proper justification. He
stated the objective is to facilitate the use of information by those who need
it, particularly with respect to timely dissemination of terrorist threat
information. reiterated the practice of manning an office 24
hours a day to answer requests for ORCON relief. The matter of that office
not being responsive was resolved with the telephone numbers identified in the
paragraph 2.c. handout. It had earlier been ascertained that some elements
seeking relief had been calling the CIA 24-hour S curity Dut A Office rather
than the Directorate of Operations Watch Office. xplained
that the desk officers must sometimes query the office responsible for the
information, inferring that their decisionmaking authority was limited. After
hours, this could entail calling officers at home and, in some rare cases,
could require contact with officers abroad. added that there
was special concern regarding "exclusive for" information. He cited as an
example when NSA sends material to CIA with the "exclusive for" caveat, NSA is
implicitly trusting the recipient with any further dissemination based on that
officer's judgment in exercise of need to know. As a final point in his
remarks about ORCON, said he was concerned about what is
entered-into data bases, even in his own organization (CIA).
cited the fact that this ORCON matter had been with us for years as a matter
of contention, and he had a memorandum from the Chairman of SECOM dated May
1986 saying that SECOM had agreed to return to the language of the earlier
(1976) DCID 1/7 relative to ORCON. 0
5. The OSD representative expressed reservation about the ORCON language
referenced by He said there is no question about recognizing
the need for DDU and the Agency to protect certain sensitive information, but
a problem exists sometimes in getting permission quickly at unusual hours,
contained in DCID 1/7. The CIA representativ
that meeting. L__]
4. The first matter considered was that of the ORCON controls as
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
lox]
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
CONFIDENTIAL
particularly, for example, if the Secretary of Defense wants to see the
material and won't be satisfied with a verbal account. Mr. Anderson stated
that the result is the information is provided without requesting release from
the originator. declared there was no objection to release to
department heads and cabinet members, but he was worried about further
dissemination beyond that. He remarked that his agency has an excellent
relationship with JCS and j-2 elements regarding ORCON controls and procedures
for relief, and he added that if there are any DoD or other elements that need
CIA information and are not getting it, he wants to know in order to rectify
the situation. The OSD representative concluded by saying his organization
was not having a big problem, and he suggested the Services direct any
problems to CIA themselves. He suggesting letting the ORCON situation remain
as is in consideration of the foregoing remarks. The ORCON matter was
concluded with the moderator charging the executive secretary with
responsibility to send out the revised lanquaqe and definition of
"headquarters elements" to Forum members with requests for concurring remarks
by 20 December. The CIA representative was charged to work in coordination of
this effort.
6. The next matter for discussion was the DIA memorandum dated 13 June
1986 which had been transmitted to all members along with the scheduled agenda
for this meeting. The memo addresses NOCONTRACT controls in DCID 1/7. The
DIA representative offered an abbreviated explanation of the rationale for and
text of the memo. The moderator asked for clarification and elaboration for
further understanding. The DIA representative then explained one area that
was particularly troublesome which involved data base files in the system high
mode. Such a data base contains all control caveats. Many of the files are
of vintage origin, e.g., 10 or 20 years old that do not permit identification
of the originator from whom DIA can request relief. Whenever the originator
is identifiable, DIA will request approval for contractor release. The
moderator explained that the originator, in turn, must ask just who the
recipients will be, how the material will he used, etc. He added that he can
understand that certain information could carry the NOCONTRACT control when
entered into a data base, but later cannot be justified similarly when
standing alone. The DoE representative reminded the group that the NOCONTRACT
control was to prevent a contractor from gaining a competitive edge, to which
remarked that the other reason for the control was the
protection of sources and/or methods. He added his concern about dilution of
the DCID 1/7 intent with dilution of the control. (As an aside, more to the
point of ADP security controls, he remarked that protection of controlled
information will be more difficult if we don't limit introduction of more PCs
and their access to our data bases.) Discussion on this NOCONTRACT matter
continued with diverse concepts of "internal" and "external" contractors. The
DIA representative again supported that agency's memo with the example wherein
DIA gets a validated and approved request to send magnetic tapes to a
contractor for a particular study. The tapes are dated, and the originators
of some NOCONTRACT information cannot be identified. In the past, DIA would
request release approval from SECOM; now they would seek Forum approval. The
moderator pointed out that since data systems containing such information will
have many sources and originators, multiple requests will be required. At
present, DIA makes hard copies of the material at issue and sends it to
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
CONFIDENTIAL
identified originators with request for release approval in instances of both
ORCON and NOCONTRACT. The moderator asked for members to express their
concurrence or otherwise comment on the DIA proposal. Consensus was for
approval of the DIA concept expressed in its memo (6 concur, 3 neutral, 2
non-concur). The moderator offered that the memo does not address the "in
house" contractors. The CIA representative said this could be accommodated in
the DCID language. CIA/OGC, offered that certain types of
contractors/consultants should be considered as extensions of the employing
office or department, and the basis to be considered is in the control over
contractors. opined that no specific language can be devised
to satisfy the problem. The moderator stated that as a forum we must work
with and within the DCIDs. He charged CIA and DIA, with assistance fro
to reach an agreement on acceptahle language to incorporate the intent
of the DIA memo into the DCID 1/7 language. The moderator asked that the
agreed upon language be sent to members in time for their ents to be
returned to the executive secretary by 20 December 1986.
7. The NSA-proposed revision to DCID 1/19, paragraph 35.h. was discussed
next. The OSD representative registered his objection to the proposed
language, maintaining that the elements who sponsored the contractors'
accesses had need to monitor the travel and visits of contractors under their
cognizance. The NSA principal said he understood that position, but such was
not a security function and time did not permit the monitoring of the large
number of visits taking place between government and contractor facilities.
The executive secretary offered comments designed to persuade the OSD
representative that the proposed language could be acceptable to him. OSD
responded, saying he would not formally object to the language going into the
DCID, but OSD practices regarding contractor visits would not change and
therefore would not be in literal conformity with the proposed language. The
moderator charged the executive secretary to work with NSA and OSD to reach
agreement on language acceptable to both. F1
8. The 18 June 1986 DIA memo re DCID 1/19 was discussed next.
- DIA withdrew its stand objecting to total document control over
facsimile materials.
A consensus poll resulted in approval of requirement for subparagraph
marking.
Questions on the SCI control manual should be addressed to the
executive secretary of this Forum when unanswerable by security
authorities within Intelligence Community organizations.
- Members agreed to delete "the v lnerabilities of" language in
paragraph 9, subparagraph b.
9. Considerable discussion ensued on the next topic, the NSA-proposed
memo to NSC re the Forum support for a polygraph program. Various views were
presented, and agreement was reached on modified language. Relative to the
25X1
25X1
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
CONFIDENTIAL
proposal for a polygraph policy related annex to DCID 1/14, the NSA
representative again stated his supporting rationale, but several members
objected. The moderator stated th he matter of the DCID would be placed in
abeyance until the next meeting. u
10. The Navy representative requested Forum members' agreement to a
proposed change in DCID 1/21 which would alter the requirement for SCIF
inspections from annual to once every two years. The Navy representative
cited a lack of qualified personnel resources to continue the formal
inspections annually at their increasingly high number of facilities. Navy
suggested that the other services were facing the same problem. The moderator
requested that the Working Group (carried over from SECOM) pursue this request
further and again bring it to the Forum if agreement cannot be reached within
that body. 0
11. The moderator declared that current agreed upon versions of DCID 1/7
and DCID 1/19 should be circulated among members in time for coordination and
approval at the next meeting. 0
12. NSA provided a memo dated 28 November 1986 recommending revisions to
DCIDs 1/7 and 1/19. Time did not permit dissemination and discussion of the
memo. Copies are attached for review and acceptance or rejection at the next
meeting.
13. A summary of action items follows:
- CIA, working with the executive secretary, is to prepare revised
language relative to CRCON' and a definition of "headquarters elements"
for inclusion in DCID 1/7. Product to be sent to members for
concurrence responses to CCISCMS by 20 December 1986.
- CIA, working in coordination with DIA and the CIA/OGC representative,
is to prepare language for DCID 1/7 relative to NOCONTRACT controls
for transmittal to members for concurrence responses by 20 December.
- The executive secretary is to prepare a revised version of the NSA
proposed memo to the NSC from the Forum stating support in the concept
of NSDD 196. Product is to be ready for the next meeting.
The executive secretary is to work with NSA and OSD to arrive at
acceptable language for paragraph 35.h. in DCID 1/19.
- The executive secretary is to send DCID 1/7 and 1/19 with accepted
revisions to date for coordination and approval at the next meeting.
14. The next Forum meeting is scheduled for 1300 hours, 12 January 1986,
in Room 6100 Main Justice, 10th and Constitution, NW. Attendees are requested
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
CONFIDENTIAL
Attachment:
a/s
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5
CONFIDENTIAL
CCISCMS/ICS:AO
Distribution of DCI/ICS-86-0976 (w/att as stated):
1 - Maynard C. Anderson, OSD
1 - Maurice Ralston, OSD
1 - Carl L. Bjorkman, Army
1 - George Henriksen, Navy
- William C. Cody, Air Force
1 - Walter J. Breede, Marine Corps
1 - Gary L. Stoops, FBI
- Clark M. Dittmer, State
1 - David Major, NSC
1 - Jerry Rubino, Justice
- Stephen E. Bacher, DoE
1 - William O'Donnell, Treasury
1 - ICS Registry
1 - CCISCMS subject
1 - D/CCISCMS chrono
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/30: CIA-RDP89B00297R000400980001-5