HISTORICAL REVIEW PROGRAM CONSULTANTS' MEETING, 20 MAY 1987

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89G00643R001100020012-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 14, 2011
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: June 1, 1987
• Content Type: MEMO

DD A R:gi;tr
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
FROM:
/
cr
J
EXTENSION
NO.
(
`
`3
~
'L
IYeS
,cc
DATE T Q
~ C.JW L
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED
IORWARDFD
INITIALS
INITIALS
to wham. Drew a line across column after each comment.(
4=7x 4 70 acs/mar
UN1
Ys
F /V-1
~j
2.
2 to All:
DA~ZFZO
9'
When the report is re
i
d
3
ce
ve
.
from the consultants (mid-
June per Ken) I believe it
should be review
d b
ll
e
y a
4.
Directorate representat vi es.
ADDA
..~t1
Then we should all meet
includin
Ken
ig-S
5
g
a
tan to
' ?
D D A '09 JU
N 1987'
discuss and determine what
changes, if any, need to be
made in th
6.
e program.
Cs1
7.
Ke~-#4r5- Floe
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
 ADMINISTRATIVE--INTERNAL USE ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Historical Review Program Consultants' Meeting, 20 May 1987
1. At the end of their discussions on 20 May, the panel of five
reportcommenin 1985,
consultants met with the Chief C include in theiroutline
rec ndations that they proposed to
will draft the report and circulate it for the panel's
approval. we can expect to get the report by about mid-June.
Staff their recommendations,
carry them out. with the
steps that I ' l l the no below
3. Exclusion of "Pre-decisional" Files. The consultants (and I) were
surprise to hear that 11:1i stor ca Review Branch (HRB) is withholding
material from declassification on the basis of a guideline evidently
inspired by the FOIA (b)(5) exclusion of "pre-decisional" documents. The
panel questioned whether in a voluntary systematic review program the Agency
should withhold such records as the minutes of the DCI's morning meetings as
"privileged" material. Clearly such a blanket policy could exclude vast
amounts of otherwise declassifiable material, of the sort that all other
Federal agencies routinely declassify. (Dr. Slany, the State Department
Historian, noted that State claimed no such "privilege" in the systematic
declassification of their records, and Mr. Thompson, Director of NARA's
Records Declassification Division, noted that to his knowledge no other
Federal agency made such a claim in the systematic review of records.) To
get at the root of this, the History Staff should:
A. Find the origins of this HRB guideline.
B. Determine whether such a guideline is justifiable.
C. If the guideline is not Justifiable we should look at those
rec
whether (e.g. they eshDCI ould files, , underhrevisedaguidelines. to
sseeords
In any case, the History Staff should go over all the declassification
use~ulating the
that HRB active
reviewers in
guidelines with declassification HR8 and
guidelines take
dec
ADMINISTRATIVE--INTERNAL USE ONLY
 4. Priorit of Records for Review. The panel found that the 500 feet
of U-2 records now being rev ewe are of limited historical value, and
should not be given priority for review. (Professor Gaddis noted that these
records, principally of the U-2 development program, do not have the
information about the photos the U-2 took, and the policymakers' use of
them, which would most interest historians.) Review of the U-2 collection
should therefore be set aside indefinitely. The panel also held that the
so-called "Murphy Collection" should have very low--if any--priority for
review, and suggested that it might well be returned for review to the
Department of State, where it originated.
To work out priorities for records review, the panel recommended that
the Historical Review Program should be guided by the list of 1945-1950
records that the State Department History Office has requested for their
projected supplementary FRUS volumes.
To rearrange priorities for records review, the History Staff should:
A. Consult with the State Department History Office to determine
the groups of records they would like.
B. Take steps to find these record groups at the Records Center.
C. Advise the CRD on priorities for reviewing these records.
5. Sanitizing. In general the panel found the HRB's sanitizing
procedures soup They questioned two specific policies, however: the
excising (or blacking out) of all classification markings so that the
original level cannot be determined; and the deletion of the names of all
Agency employees (except for a few of the very top officers). To clarify
these questions, the History Staff should:
A. Inquire into policy and practice in CIA, and elsewhere in the
Intelligence Community, with respect to the total deletion of previous
classification markings.
B. Inquire into the legal basis, policy and practice in CIA of
withholding former overt employees' names in declassifying records.
C. Work with CRD to write consistent and defensible policy
guidelines for both questions.
6. Officially Released Information. The panel recommended that for
each group of records se ee ed for rev ew, the History Staff should provide
HRB reviewers as much guidance as possible on relevant information that has
already been declassified and officially released.
7. Review of Declassification Results. The panel recommended that as
the HRB reviews a group of records, the History Staff should examine the
 material that is to be withheld as well as the material proposed for
release. The panel recommended that CRD should consult the History Staff
before destroying any records under review, and suggested that the History
Staff should examine the SSU field reports that the Chief of HRB noted were
to be destroyed.
8. Permanent Advisor Grou . The panel recommended that they, or some
comparable group, re urn to consult on the Historical Review Program at
regular intervals, but no more often than every two years. In the
intervening years, they recommended that the Agency should send the advisory
group an annual report, along the lines of the report they received before
this meeting.
9. FRUS Cooperation. The panel was satisfied with the program's
cooperation with the Department of State History Office in the projected
supplementary volumes to the FRUS.
10. Records Preservation. The panel was satisfied with the Agency's
program to insure t e p ys ca preservation of records.
tribution:
1 - HS Subject (Historical Review Program)
1 - HS Chrono
1 - Executive Secretary
1 Members History Staff
,l'- C/CRD