PROPOSED CHAPTER 78 TO TITLE V, USC

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81M00980R000800040056-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 12, 2004
• Sequence Number: 56
• Publication Date: March 14, 1978
• Content Type: MF

~..+ ~ ~~ l ,,f.s, ' ~
r-. ~? -
Approved For Release 2004/10/28: CIA-RDP81 M00980R00080
MEMORANDUM FOR: Office of Legislative Counsel
ATTENTIQN
FROM .
epu y nspec or enera
SUBJECT Proposed Chapter 78 to Title V, USG
I ~ 1~AR 1978
~ /C- 3Q'~~Z~`-
1. The draft legislation is based on an interesting concept,
whereby the injured party can personally prosecute possible
disciplinary action against a government employee, in addition to
receiving such an award as he or she may have. T guess that many
of us would like to see this principle applied to the protective
association known as the Congress so we really cannot complain when
it provides for private punitive action in addition to such
disciplinary action as the federal agency in question may administer.
More seriously, however, it is bad practice.
2. Apparently the provisions of the act take affect only if a
complainant wins an award. If successful the complainant has tc~
make his request for "an administrative inquiry" within 3O days or
the award. The object of the inquiry is the conduct of the
employee which led to the action far which the award was granted.
3. Section 7802(b}1 seems to allow for there to be no
"hearings", by virtue of the reference to "if a hearing is held."
As you and I discussed, the Inspector General does not conduct
"hearings" but does investigations instead. .Under this section we
apparently would be free to continue our present practices, if
something e7 se were not imposed on the system.
4. Section 7805(a) provides that the Civil Service Corrunission
establish procedures for the way the inquiries should be conducted.
That could, conceivably, require the establishment of a formal
hearing structure that CIA does not now have. If formal hearings
were required, this would cause a special problem far CTA, as the
prosecuting complainant has a right to attend hearings. Depending
on the subject matter this may Involve a disclosure of intelligence
sources and methods.
5. T noticed that in Section 7802(b)Z, and in Section 7803,
and in Section 7805(b) the Armed Forces are exempt and the Secretary
of Defense can establish his awn proceedings; we should be entitled
STAT
Approved ~e~rn,Rede~ss -a0,04/4{~#28
t~ ' ..
~AP~.8~I~IOQ~3@R
0040056-9
 Approved For Release 2004/10/28: CIA-RDP81 M00980R000800040056-9
to similar provisions: T note that Section 7802(a)3 has one minor
provision which recognizes "the interest of the national security";
we shauld press for an extension of that to other aspects of the
question against the event that should CIA ever find itself involved
in such a proceeding.
6. Section 7804 provides- for the complainant to appeal to the
courts, which are authorized to order "further proceedings". Open
court review raises the question of sources and methods, and were
the court to order "further proceedings" that were of an apen nature
we could find ourselves in an intolerable situation.
7. My reaction to the legislation is that at this point it is
badly considered and badly drafted. The Agency should oppose it in
this form, at least, and if something-similar to it eventually
gains support then the Agency should seek special provision for the
way 1n which it conducts the inquiry and reports its findings.
~' S''~"~ .9a 77 r.1`,"' ~ ~ ;?+r;~ y .7 ir~z~ .fi't' ~?~{ ~~~~
Approved ~or~l~eleas~ ~0~411'(f~28 : (~1A'R?DP8`IldI00J~'~R088~0 040056-9