REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LOYALTY-SECURITY PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP59-00882R000300220007-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 22, 2000
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: June 21, 1956
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2001/08/24,: CIA-RDP59-008$ .R000300220007-5
25X1A9a
MEMORANDUM FOR:
21 June 1956
JECT:
initial reading leaves the following thoughts in connection
e recommendations in Section Three:
Recommendation 1. I would have no objection to the
Director of Personnel and Information Security having a right to
iew our methods and procedures generally, but we cannot, I
believe, permit him as a matter of right to review individual
own sources are concerned, this would conflict with the Inrector s
application. Aside from the practical problems insofar as our
t
review and possibly alter our classification.standards and their
y responsibility.
. Recommendation Z. This could cause us great difficulty
who normally would never receive classified information perta n ng
but I suppose we could live with it. Often we have to go to people
ii
consider all CIA positions sensitive, and I believe this ruling would
criteria established by the President or anyone else we would
,hat potential for compromise may be. Also, I believe under any
*OGC Has Reviewed*
Report of the Special Committee on
Federal Loyalty-Security Program
security, 1. e., certain lower Federal and most state
tau officials, and take up with them quite sensitive matters. The
present requirement for a clearance is at least some assurance of
c. Recommendation 3. At present there are Presidential
standards and criteria and methods for the classification of
information and for its declassification. The application is
properly left to the heads of the agencies and I think we would
Approved For Release 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R000300220007-5
 Approved Fc . elease 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-008 000300220007-5
e to insist that this continue. I would personally favor some
~.
entrsl a1ent to encourage declassification, but the final say must
be left with the individual agencies.
4, Recommendation 4. I have no objection at all to the
standards suggested.
e. Recommendation S. We have in the past and are currently
this principle.
Recommendation 6. My personal reaction is highly in
favor of this recommendation on the Attorney General's list.
This list has been very troublesome to our boards in the past.
Recommendation 7. 1 think this would be excellent.
h
a
ps needed less by us than by most. Still, suc
couldn't hurt and should help.
Recommendations 6 through 17. Since we are exempt
om all proposals under the procedural section, I do not suppose
oints raised
i
n p
eedbe concerned with them. However, the ma
ould be commented on.
connection with the screening board In
tions a and 9. its functions should not
us as a matter of right and probably we would
~d it feasible to coordinate with them at all.
Recommendation 10 is fine, although coa inuance
ti
l
i
on.
a
s
suspended employees would require leg
Recommendation U on hearing boards appeals
one of this Office.
a me and is somewhat in line wits previous rec
(4) Ia connection with recommendation 12, subsection
I arsonslly believe it is essential to have a very senior
d written findings, facts, and conclusions and reeluen y
t I
d
a
certain security provisions. Subsection, 141 we ve y
9 #1
attorney present at any hearing and for all of it. Subsection
(3) - employees should have an attorney subject only to
alwa s
h
eretga art'.
nigh them to the employee if they are
de
b
e ma
d go further and insist that specific findings
suitability. We are doing this and it appears that the
Approved For Release 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R000300220007-5
 Approved For Re1se 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R0Q,&300220007-5
Supreme Court is of this view as set forth in Col
Young. Subsection (5) - charged employee is of course
given the transcript of his own testimony but cannot always
be given any more nor do I think he should have any right
to it as that would tend to limit the freedom of testimony
by other witnesses.
(5) You will note in recommendation 13 that there
ould be a limited power of subpoena. Unless you have
ubpoena rights some of your most important witnesses
ot appear or give statements unless they themselves
are protected. This violates the traditional concept of
sfrontation and cross-examination of witnesses. but I
not quite see how you are going to make it work otherwise
is you could bring these things out for a formal public
Normally I feel it is up to the board on advice of
counsel to do what it can to bring the derogatory information
4e employee's attention for such refutation as he can
provide, but even this is not always possible. We have
had a case where key evidence of practically unquestioned
was made available to us only on the strictest
Condition that we could not inform the employee or his
attorney that we were aware of its existence. Subsequent
termination of the employee resulted in large part from
his flat denial that any such evidence existed, and yet
we were unable to confront him with the documents. This
be covered by subsection (3) of recommendation 13
e there is a limitation on cross-examination, although
bseection (3), recommendation 12, there is no such
tation on cross-examination by the attorney.
(6) Recommendation 14. 1 have no objection to
provision for reimbursement of attorney's fees but
consideration might be given to the fact that the
expenses incurred by the employee in clearing himself
are deductible for income tax purposes.
(7) Recommendation 15 is the present law and is
essential.
(8) Recommendation 16 is also most necessary and
is the policy which has been followed by this Agency.
With regard to subsection (4). this reflects our views
in relation to Q clearances, but the Atomic Energy
Commission takes the opposite viewpoint.
Approved For Release 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R000300220007-5
 Approved For.4elease 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-0088N000300220007-5
Recommendation 17 is not objectlonsble so far
concerned but is not our current practice.
However. as to probationary employees some such
system will be utilized.
LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON
General Counsel
OGC:LRH:jeb
cc: OGC chrono-no circ
'ubject-Security 2- EO 1045?
Approved For Release 2001/08/24: CIA-RDP59-00882R000300220007-5