Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118570764
label
Wick, Charles Z. (Correspondence) (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118570764
contentType
document
title
Wick, Charles Z. (Correspondence) (2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
137
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
Michael Deaver's Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118570764
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3a3202d4c43b4c07
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Deaver, Michael
Folder Title: Wick, Charles Z. (correspondence)
(2)
Box: 60
To see more digitized collections
visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name DEAVER, MICHAEL: FILES
Withdrawer
KDB
8/30/2011
File Folder
WICK, CHARLES Z. (CORRESPONDENCE) (2)
FOIA
F97-0066/19
Box Number
62
COHEN, D
186
DOC Doc Type
Document Description
No
of Doc Date Restrictions
NO
Pages
1
LETTER
WICK TO DEAVER (PP. 5-6 CLOSED IN
3
2/23/1984 B6
WHOLE, PAGE 7 IN PART)
2
LIST
RE MEETINGS AND REVIEW SESSIONS
3
ND
B6
B7(C)
ATTENDED
B7(D)
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
United States
Office of the Director
Information
Agency
Washington, D.C. 20547
dill
USIA
February 23, 1984
Dear Mike:
The question of an Agency maintained "blacklist" has been very much an issue
in the press in recent days. I am enclosing my response to a number of the
most frequently raised questions regarding this, which I hope will prove
helpful to you. I would only reiterate that I knew nothing about this list,
that I was appalled to learn that such a list was being maintained, and that
the practice has been stopped. I am particularly concerned about any
possibility that this may have damaged our American Participants (AmParts)
Program.
With your indulgence, I would like to initially provide some background on the
USIA management-directed inspection of the AmParts program which caused the
"blacklisting" practice to be disclosed before the press awareness.
Last summer, in response to a draft GAO report on USIA's Office of Inspections
and Audits, I took a number of steps to strengthen those functions. The most
significant of these were (1) the appointment of an INSPECTOR GENERAL and (2)
the formation of the AGENCY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
The AGENCY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE was established to bring top management
attention to issues raised by the inspection and audit functions. Its members
are the General Counsel, the Associate Director for Management, and the
Director for European Affairs. It is chaired by Mark Everson of my office.
He is a CPA and had over six years of audit experience with Arthur Andersen &
Co. before joining the Agency in 1982. Mr. Everson serves as USIA Assistant
Director for Management Policy and Coordination.
After establishing procedures for overseas inspections, last fall the AGENCY
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE asked the Office of Inspections to develop a list of
domestic program elements for possible inspection. This was based on my
request that our inspections, historically limited generally to overseas
operations, be expanded in scope to include programmatic examinations of
domestic Agency elements.
The Honorable
Michael K. Deaver
Assistant to the President
and Deputy Chief of Staff
The White House
- 2 -
The AGENCY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, after consultation with Deputy Director
Designate Leslie Lenkowsky in the fall of 1983, requested that the first
domestic inspection for fiscal year 1984 be the AmParts Program. This
reflected his judgment, based on discussions with me, that we wished to review
and strengthen the AmParts Program.
As its ninth meeting since formation, on November 22, 1983 the AGENCY
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE formally authorized the inspection of the AmParts
Program. See item 3 of the attached minutes of the November 22 meeting
authorizing the inspection at (TAB C). In accordance with procedures
established by the AGENCY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, the Office of Inspections
conducted a pre-inspection study in December in order to identify precise
precepts for the inspection. The prospectus for the inspection was submitted
to the AGENCY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE on January 6, 1984 (See TAB D). The
selection process for AmParts was specifically included within the parameters
of the inspection.
The inspection of the Office of Program Coordination and Development began as
scheduled on January 17, 1984. The "blacklist" came to the Inspector's
attention during the first week of the inspection. The inspectors have
stated, "we did not report the problem to the Director because we were
persuaded at the time that program management was in the process of solving
it" (See Tab E).
The inspection is not yet completed, but I have attached an interim status
report covering the work to date (See TAB F). The Chief Inspector has been
recalled from an inspection in Brazil to accelerate the AmParts inspection.
I will of course keep you fully informed of the status and results of the
inspection, which is expected to be completed in March.
One of the unfortunate aspects of the press accounts surrounding this incident
is that they have failed to disclose that the inspection, set in motion by my
office, caused the disclosure of the "blacklists" practice.
As you may know, the American Participants Program (AmParts) exists to send
U.S. speakers abroad to discuss a variety of topics with foreign audiences.
Primarily, speakers are sent in response to requests from USIA posts
overseas. The names of potential AmParts come from a variety of sources:
posts may make specific requests, especially for spokespersons to explain the
policies of the current Administration; individuals who plan private travel
abroad may advise the Agency of their availability and qualifications; the
names of potential speakers are recommended to the Agency by third parties,
other experts in given fields, etc. I have from time to time myself suggested
the names of potential speakers.
- 3 -
Starting in August 1981, a weekly list of potential AmParts was compiled
within the Office of Program Coordination and Development. At the suggestion
of the then Deputy Director of the Agency, the list of potential AmPart
nominees was then reviewed by the management of the Bureau of Programs and
sent to the Deputy Director, Counselor and four Associate Directors of the
Agency. Any of these individuals had an opportunity to comment to the
Associate Director for Programs on prospective AmParts. This review process
did not extend to my office.
The total number approved through this process as potential AmParts was 4,896;
since August 1981, 84 AmPart nominees were suggested for deletion from the
weekly selection lists. Individuals rejected as potential AmParts usually
were rejected without any reason being stated to the Office of Program
Coordination and Development. Some may have been rejected for political
reasons; others were dropped for such reasons as they were likely to be
unavailable (such as journalists prohibited by their news organizations from
speaking for the government, see page 6, point e), were thought to be poor
speakers, or were deemed inexpert in their proposed fields. Sometime after
the process of circulating the review list of AmParts began, officials in the
Office of Program Coordination and Development began keeping a separate,
unsanctioned list of those who had been rejected for whatever reason in order
to avoid renominating such individuals automatically. This list was regarded
as a working tool and it has since become called a "blacklist."
With regard to the specific questions raised recently:
1. WHY WAS THE LIST DEVELOPED?
Officials within the Office of Program Coordination and Development
believed that individuals whose names had been eliminated from con-
sideration at a specific time were not to be submitted in the future. I
have been told by the Director of the Office of Program Development and
Coordination that, in fact, when officials in the office challenged
candidates previously rejected, generally the challenge was sustained and
the individuals were then approved.
2. WHO COMPILED THE LIST?
A compilation of such names was made at the office director or deputy
director level within the Office of Program Coordination and Development.
The names listed were those rejected by the USIA Deputy Director, the
four Associate Directors and the Counselor during the review process
mentioned above. The list was closely held by the four program managers,
the two Deputy Directors and the Director of the Office of Program
Development and Coordination.
- 4 -
3.
WHAT CRITERIA WERE USED TO PLACE INDIVIDUALS ON THE LIST?
Individuals rejected as potential AmParts by the USIA Deputy Director,
Associate Directors or Counselor during the review process usually were
rejected without any reason being stated to the Office of Coordination
and Development. Some may have been rejected for political reasons;
others were dropped for such reasons as they were likely to be
unavailable, were thought to be poor speakers, or were deemed inexpert in
their proposed fields.
4.
HOW MANY USIA EMPLOYEES HAD ACCESS TO THE LIST?
Eight had access to the so-called "blacklist". The Director of the
Office of Coordination and Development, two Deputy Directors, the four
program managers, and a secretary.
5. WHO CONTROLLED DISTRIBUTION OF THE LIST THROUGHOUT USIA OFFICES AND
DIVISIONS?
To my knowledge, the so-called "blacklist" was not distributed. It was
held closely within the Office of Coordination and Development.
6. DID YOU TAKE PART IN ANY WAY IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR UTILIZATION OF THE
LIST?
No. I did not receive the weekly lists of potential AmParts and was
unaware of the fact that a so-called "blacklist" of rejected names had
been developed and maintained.
7. AT WHAT POINT IN YOUR TENURE AS USIA'S DIRECTOR DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF
THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A LIST?
I heard a report that such a "blacklist" might exist on Friday, January
27, 1984 just prior to my long-planned departure on January 29 for
official business to Europe concerning NATO and Worldnet, USIA's new
global television network. I told my Executive Assistant, Robert Earle,
that if such a practice existed it should be discontinued immediately.
8. ONCE YOU BECAME AWARE OF THE LIST, WHAT DID YOU DO ABOUT IT?
I directed that the maintenance of the so-called "blacklist" be
terminated as soon as the practice was confirmed to me the week of
January 30, 1984. In discussions with Mark W. Everson, USIA Assistant
Director for Management Policy and Coordination, I asked that a full
accounting be made for the entire practice.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
DEAVER, MICHAEL: FILES
KDB 8/30/2011
File Folder
FOIA
WICK, CHARLES Z. (CORRESPONDENCE) (2)
F97-0066/19
COHEN, D
Box Number
62
186
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO Document Description
pages
tions
1
LETTER
3 2/23/1984 B6
WICK TO DEAVER (PP. 5-6 CLOSED IN WHOLE,
PAGE 7 IN PART)
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
-7-
b(6)
I, and members of my staff, of course stand ready to answer any and all
further questions you may have.
In closing, I would like to repeat my own belief that the practice of
"blacklisting" is repugnant, poor public policy and inconsistent with our
democratic form of government.
Sincerely,
Branke Charles Z. Wick
Director
CANDIDATE
STAFF
DATE
Abcamovitz, Morton
DF
8/25/82
Agee, Philip
DC
10/14/81
Albright, Madeline
DF
12/5/83
Baldwin, James
DC
1/29/82
Bender, Jerry
DF
REB 10/27/82
Bialer, Seweryn
DF
REK 9/19/83
Blacker, Coit Dennis
DF
Bosworth, Barry
DE
3/30/83
Bradlee, Ben
DP
8/31/81
Brement Mrs. (Pamela Sanders)
DC
11/20/81
Brinkley, David
DP
10/14/81
Brooks, Jack (D-Texas)
DF
10/7/81
Bundy, McGeorge
DF
8/4/83
Burger, Clair (R-Cal)
DF
10/7/81
Burton, Phil (D-Cal.)
DF
10/7/81
Calleo, David P.
DF
12/1/83
Cerrell, Joseph
DP
5/6/83
Chisholm, Shirley
DP
8/31/81
Chutkow, Paul
DP
11/4/81
Coffey, Joseph
DF
Cooper, Richard
DE
6/24/83
Cronkite, Walter
DP
10/14/81
Cummings, Robert J.
DF
HOLD
Davis, James
DF
6/24/83
de Borchgrave, Arnaud
DP
8/25/81
Diamond, Sigmund
DP
6/24
Dillon, Dorothy
DF
HOLD
Dinerstein, Herbert S.
DF
12/1/83
Dominquez, Jorge
DF
12/10/82
Downey, Thomas
DF
12/23/82
Drew, Elizabeth
DP
11/4/81
Eldersveld, Samuel J.
DP
WST Call 8/12/82
Etzione, Amatai
DP
REB Verbal
Fagen, Richard R.
DP
1/6/83
Fallows, James
DP
10/14/81
Feinberg, Richard
DF
12/10/82
Feith, Douglas
DF
3/3/83
Fitzgerald, Frances
DC
9/22/82 REB
Friedan, Betty
DP
9/22/81
Gailbraith, John K.
DE
2/24/83
Garcia, Robert (D-New York)
DF
10/7/81
Gelpi, Alexander
DC
6/24/83
Gelpi, Barbara
DC
6/24/83
Ginsberg, Allen
DC
11/29/82
Glazer, Joseph
DP
1/20/82 GM
Gosho, John
DP
9/22/81
Grey, Robert R., Jr.
DF
FK 2/3/83
Harris, Fred
DF
12/16/82
Harris, Patricia
DP
1/12/83
Hart, Gary (D-Col)
DP
10/7/81
Haviland, H. Field
DF
FK 2/3/83
Hermann, Charles
DF
HOLD
Jaramillo, Mari-Luci
DP
12/15/81
Johnson, Peter
DF
HOLD
Kaplan, Stephen
DF
3/9/82
CANDIDATE
STAFF
DATE
King, Coretta
DP
REB
Kutler, Stanley I.
DP
6/24
Lacayo, Hank
DP
5/6/83
Lindblom, Charles E.
DE
11/4/81
Lofstrom, William
DF
6/24 OK 7/18/83
Lowenthal, Abc
DF
4/8/82
MacDonald, Bruce
DF
9/25/81
Mason, Bruce
DP
11/23/83
Mastny, Vocjeh
DF
8/31/81
Miller, William
DP
WST Memo 7/7/82
Mohammed, Imam Wardith
DP
6/24 OK 7/18/83
Momaday, Scott
DC
3/11/82
Nader, Ralph
DP
2/5/82
Neal, Fred
DP
9/22/81
Needler, Martin
DF
Norman, Joy Y.
DE
6/24/83
Norman, Mark A.
DE
6/24/83
Nosenzo, Louis
DF
8/25/82
Prager, Karsten
DP
9/11/81
Ravenel, Earl
DF
12/5/83
Reedy, George
DP
10/14/81
Remick, H.
DP
11/23/83
Samuelson, Paul
DE
8/31/81
Schlesinger, James R.
DE
11/13/81
Scranton, William
DP
HOLD Counselor
Seymour, Jennifer
DF
HOLD
Stiehm, Judith Hicks
DP
10/28/81
Thornton, Thomas Perry
DF
8/16/83
Thurow, Lester
DE
REB to HH 10/6/8
Turner, Stansfield
DF
10/22/81
Ullman, Al
DE
10/14/81
Valdez, Abelardo
DE
9/11/81
Weitz, Margaret Collins
DF
10/7/81
Whitaker, Ms.
DF
HOLD
Wicker, Tom
DP
8/31/81
Wilson, Ernie
DF
HOLD
Wolins, Sheldon
DP
5/18/83
Wolpert, Stanley
DP
WST Memo 7/13/82
Wzrinsky, Greg
DF
10/7/81
United States
Information
Agency
Washington DC 20547
February 16, 1984
USIA
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Associate Directors
Area Directors
General Counsel
Director - Public Liaison
Director - Television
FROM:
D - Charles Z. Wick Mrs
Last summer, in response to a draft GAO report on USIA's Office
of Inspections and Audits, I took a number of steps to
strengthen those functions. The most significant of these were
the appointment of an Inspector General and the formation of
the Agency Oversight Committee.
As you all know, the Agency Oversight Committee was established
to bring more top management attention to issues raised by the
inspections and audit functions. Its members include the
General Counsel, the Associate Director for Management, and the
Director for European Affairs. It is chaired by Mark Everson
Coordination. of my office, Assistant Director for Management Policy and
After establishing procedures for overseas inspections, last
fall the Agency Oversight Committee asked the Office of
Inspections to develop a list of domestic program elements for
possible inspection. This was based on my request that our
inspections, historically limited generally to overseas
operations, be expanded in scope to include domestic elements
of the Agency.
The Agency Oversight Committee, after consultation with Deputy
Director Designate Leslie Lenkowsky, requested that the first
domestic inspection for fiscal year 1984 include the AmParts
Program. This reflected his judgment, based on discussions
with me, that we wished to review and strengthen the AmParts
Program. This was also prior to the discovery of the
unsanctioned so-called "blacklist" in the Office of Program
Development and Coordination, in January, 1984.
On November 22, 1983, the Agency Oversight Committee formally
authorized the inspection. In accordance with procedures
established by the Agency Oversight-Committee, the Office of
Inspections conducted a pre-inspection study in December in
-2-
order to identify precise precepts for the inspection. The
prospectus for the inspection was submitted to the Agency
Oversight Committee on January 6, 1984. The selection process
for AmParts as it serves the needs of the field was
specifically included within the parameters of the inspection.
The inspection of the Office of Program Development and
Coordination began as scheduled on January 17, 1984. The
unsanctioned so-called "blacklist" was discovered by this
inspection during the first week of the inspection. As you
know, I have directed that the maintenance of that list be
stopped. It is also my instruction that no such list should be
maintained anywhere in the Agency.
Members of Congress have inquired as to whether the Agency does
or did in fact keep any other "blacklists" (beyond the one in
the Office of Program Development and Coordination) which it
uses or used to prevent Americans from participating in other
agency-sponsored programs.
I have responded that to my knowledge, no other "blacklists"
are being kept.
Please let me know right away if you are aware of anything
within your official purview or otherwise pointing to any other
"blacklist" now or in the past. I would appreciate your
reviewing this issue with your managerial staffs as well.
All of us have a public trust to report questionable practices
or activities whenever they arise. My office will review any
issue of concern, and of course the Inspector General's role is
to address such issues in depth. This is a major feature of
our commitment to a well-managed Agency.
I am sure we all agree that a "blacklist" is repugnant to the
very foundation of our democracy.
United States
Office of the Director
Information
Agency
Washington, D.C. 20547
USIA
November 29, 1983
Minutes of the Agency Oversight Committee Meeting
November 22, 1983
1. AOC membership and procedures: Mark Everson is to chair
future meetings of the AOC and Mr. Lenkowsky will be
represented by Mark Dillen, who will act as the secretary
for the Committee. If questions arise that cannot be
resolved through consensus, dissenting views will be noted
along with the recommendation of the body to the Deputy
Director and the Director.
2. Office of Inspections:
Proposed change of procedures in inspection reports: Mr.
Everson recommended an amendment to the procedures approved
on September 28 to include post/element comments in the
actual inspection reports. The procedure, as Mr. Everson
outlined, would be for the draft summary of the inspection
report to be sent or given to the post/element with a
provision that the post/element has fifteen days to
register a reply or to comment to the inspection summary
draft. The comments shall be recorded in the final report
unless, by mutual agreement, the summary references are
changed to make the post comments or replies unnecessary.
If there is a personnel issue involved in the inspectors
draft summary, M/P will receive a copy of the summary. In
the case of a field post inspection, the appropriate
geographical area may also comment on the findings of the
inspection. The intent of his procedural change is to
give the post or element the opportunity to give a reaction
on paper to the findings of the inspection report.
3. Domestic Inspections in FY 84: The approved list of
domestic offices for inspection in FY 84 was reconsidered,
with the suggestion that P/D*and M/PT be the first domestic
units to be inspected. It was agreed that precepts for
each inspection need to be developed at least two weeks
before the inspection is undertaken. Mr. Winkler and Mr.
Werbel are to work on domestic inspection precepts and will
consult with Mr. Bridges also on this question.
P/D is the Agency symbol for the Office of
Progrem Development and coordints
- 2 -
4. Inspector General: The AOC reviewed the proposed
delegation of authority for the Inspector General and
approved it. Once this delegation has been approved by the
Director and announced, Mr. Bridges will move forward in
implementing its various provisions, in particular Mr.
Bridges will look at the staffing pattern required for the
Office of the Inspector General and arrange for the hiring
of professional auditors as specified in the FY 84
authorization bill. Mr. Bridges described the steps that
need to be taken to put his office into action and said
that he would like to post a description of the office by
December 12. He said that he needs to establish a type of
information system with Agency elements and one of the
first announcements that he intends to circulate relates to
"whistle blowing." Finally, it was agreed that there
should be no dotted line on the Agency organizational chart
connecting the IG and Office cf Inspections to Management.
Distribution:
DD - Mr. Lenkowsky
C - Mr. Hedges
D - Mr. Everson
M - Mr. Kingman
M - Mr. Werbel
M/I - Mr. Winkler
IG - Mr. Bridges
Approl
United States Information Agency
INFORMATION MEMO
January 6, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR
Agency Oversight Committee
D - Mr. Everson
M - Mr. Kingman
GC - Mr. Harvey
EU - Mr. Courtney
FROM:
D IO - - Mr. Gordon Dillon Winkler VON
SUBJECT:
Precepts for Domestic Inspections
Attached is a revised draft of the precepts for domestic inspections. This
has been worked out with Mr. Kingman and Mr. Werbel. Also attached are
precepts for the inspection of P/D. * Preliminary meetings are now being
completed for this inspection. The inspection will begin January 17.
* P/D is the Agency symbol for the Office of
Program Development I Condination
mor 2/16/84
IA-1215
(11-82)
PRECEPTS FOR USIA DOMESTIC INSPECTIONS
The following precepts serve several purposes. They provide a common
framework of analysis for domestic inspections. They establish uniform
benchmarks, for both inspectors and Agency managers, for reviewing the
performance of Washington units. They also serve as a point of departure for
the more specific questions and issues to be raised in inspecting a given
domestic unit or program.
These precepts define the basic focus for inspectors in reporting to the
Agency Director on domestic operations: effectiveness in support of Agency
objectives and field needs. Inspectors will evaluate management and
operational questions from this perspective, with particular attention to
issues that have emerged from field inspections.
Inspectors will not normally evaluate options for future action, pending
decision by Agency management, unless expressly asked to do so by the Agency
Director, nor will they prescribe specific organizational solutions to the
problems they find. Instead, they will report their findings and
recommendations for further action to the appropriate Agency unit.
Because of the wide variety of domestic operations, the process of
domestic inspections will begin with two to three weeks of preliminary
interviews. Based on this, the inspectors will produce a prospectus of
inspection issues and methods for the specific unit or program to be
inspected. Such precepts will normally fall within the general framework
described below. If specialized skills or other resources are needed for a
given inspection (e.g. consultants or information from the field), they will
be identified at this point.
The inspectors will seek to determine:
1) How effectively the unit is achieving desired results in support of the
Agency's mission.
Inspectors will accept unit objectives as defined by Agency management as
a given and measure performance primarily against those objectives.
Inspectors will evaluate domestic units' achievement of such objectives with
particular emphasis on issues identified in field inspections. At the same
time, inspectors will be free to comment on the substance of these objectives
when it appears that modification should be considered. In this connection,
inspectors will review:
-- Whether unit leadership has a realistic strategy for implementing
objectives, including specific goals and timetables;
-- Whether the strategy is clearly understood by subordinate managers and
staff members, as well as by senior officers outside the element, both
in Washington and at field posts, as appropriate;
-- Whether the unit has a workable method for evaluating progress towards
objectives and for making changes in direction, when necessary;
-- Whether the results actually achieved are adequate in terms of stated
objectives and whether the work actually performed justifies the
investment of Agency resources;
-- Whether, in the case of units engaged directly in the communication
process or in support of it, the products or services provided by that
unit support Agency regional and global objectives and play an
appropriate role in an international communications mix.
2) How well the unit is managed to accomplish its objectives and maintain
or improve its effectiveness over time.
Inspectors will review the internal allocation and use of a unit's
personnel, funds and other resources to determine whether the unit is managed
effectively and efficiently to accomplish its stated objectives. Recognizing
the constraints imposed on domestic managers, this review will focus on:
-- Whether managers have established clear priorities for allocating their
resources, including their own time and effort, and have developed
realistic plans for implementing those priorities;
-- Whether the unit's complement is appropriate to its objectives and its
staff has the knowledge and experience to accomplish its objectives;
-- Whether alloted funds are utilized to achieve desired results at least
reasonable cost:
-- Whether managers have thoughtfully evaluated alternative means of
accomplishing objectives and made changes in operations when
appropriate.
-- Whether the unit successfully coordinates activities with other units
in the Agency and with other organizations, including appropriate
private-sector organziations.
Inspectors will ascertain the quality of internal communications and
policy guidance as well as communications with and guidance to outside
contractors and grantees. Unit management's leadership qualities will be
reviewed to determine whether they result in maximum return on personnel
capabilities.
3) The quality of unit personnel.
While inspectors will not normally comment in detail on the performance of
individual staff members, they will note especially good performance of an
individual employee or group of employees as well as significant weaknesses.
Positive comments on performance may be included in the inspection report
itself or in a separate memorandum to the Director; adverse comments on
performance will be documented outside the inspection report per se.
4) The quality of direction given to the unit by senior managers and the
quality of support provided by other Agency offices.
Dr
PROSPECTUS
INSPECTION OF THE OFFICE OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION (P/D)
The Office of Inspections met during the past several weeks with a number
of officers interested in the Amparts program, including the Deputy Director
and the Deputy Associate Director of P. Based on these meetings and
discussions of the Amparts program at field posts during the past several
years, we have identified a number of basic issues and concerns about P/D
operations that are shared by officers throughout the Agency.
These issues, listed below in the framework described in the inspection
precepts, provide the basic direction for the P/D inspection. While it may
not be possible to answer all such questions in the course of the inspection,
they focus attention on the fundamental issue of the inspection: the
mission. effectiveness of P/D and the value of the Ampart program to the Agency's
We anticipate the need to contact a sample of USIS posts to assess the
quality of the Amparts program in the context of its implementation and the
success of present methods in meeting field objectives. Inspection teams
visiting eight posts (in EA, NEA and AR) concurrently with the P/D review will
be asked to prepare papers for the P/D inspection team.
In light of prior domestic inspections, we also anticipate the possible
need to include selected desk audits in the P/D inspection. For this purpose,
we would request the services of a personnel specialist from M/P to work with
the inspection team. We believe we may also need assistance from a systems
specialist and, possibly, a management analyst to help evaluate present use of
technology and organizational structure in P/D. We will make those requests
if and when the need arises or recommend the attention of these special
capabilities in our report.
Issues
1) Effectiveness of P/D in achieving desired results:
-- What is the mandate and the function of the Office of Program
Coordination and Development (P/D)? What are the office's goals
(quantitative, qualitative) Are those goals relevant to Agency and
post objectives?
-- Are P/D objectives clearly understood by subordinate managers, area
offices and field posts, as well as by other Agency offices with an
interest in the Ampart program?
-- Do P/D procedures for identifying and responding to post needs produce
results that adequately support Agency and post objectives (country
plan proposals, themes and concerns, selection of speakers, etc):
*
Do field posts provide adequate information on program strategy,
audiences, goals and standards for P/D to identify and recruit
effective Amparts?
*
DO P/D standards for selecting Amparts assure that content and
quality support agency and post goals?
*
Are P/D and post procedures for briefing and other orientation for
Amparts effective?
-2-
-- How does P/D define the success of its efforts? How does it evaluate
results against goals? Are field reports on Amparts sufficiently
substantive to assist in this?
-- Are the results of the Amparts program worth the investment of Agency
resources in the program? Are there workable mechanisms for reviewing
program results and reprogramming resources if needed (RMS) etc)?
2) Quality of P/D management:
- Does P/D have adequate resources (employment ceiling, funds and
qualified staff) to successfully accomplish its objectives? Does it
make effective use of consultants and contract employees?
-- Does P/D have clear and reasonable priorities for accomplishing its
objectives? Does it allocate staff time and funds accordingly? Are
resources allocated sensibly in terms of subject, area, country and
program method (Amparts, electronic dialogues, etc)?
-- Is the P/D staff well motivated and is it using available time and
skills effectively? Are procedures for managing the flow of
information within P/D and between P/D and the field (including
communications and paperwork) efficient and effective?
3) Quality of personnel:
-- Does the P/D staff have the knowledge and experience required to
accomplish all program objectives at an acceptable level of quality?
Are the goals of P/D best served by the present balance of foreign
service employees and domestic specialists in supervisory and
subordinate positions? Does P/D have need of expertise now lacking on
staff?
-- Does the Agency's Office of Personnel adequately support P/D in
recruiting, selecting and training staff members?
4) Coordination with other offices:
-- What is the quality of P/D coordination with USIA area offices, other
agencies that have an interest in the formulation and execution of
foreign policy (State, AID, etc), and private-sector organizations that
can make significant contributions to identifying Amparts and helping
arrange their programs overseas?
-- Is coordination between P/D and TV on video dialogues working well?
5) offices: Quality of direction by senior managers/Quality of support by other Agency
-- Does P/D receive adequate guidance from P on policy and operations,
including methods of operation?
-- Does P/D coordinate its activities effectively with other offices in
USIA that may deal with the same Americans in their programs or with
the same audiences?
United States Information Agency
INFORMATION MEMO
February 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR: D - Mr. Everson
FROM:
IO - James L. Culpepper
ge
SUBJECT:
Inspection of the Office of Program Development and
Coordination
The question has been raised why the inspectors did not inform the
Director of the existence of a "black list" in the Office of Program
Development and Coordination as soon as it came to our attention during the
first week of the inspection.
When we initially discussed the list with the Director of the Office of
Program Development and Coordination, we were assured that he and the Acting
Director of Programs were deeply concerned about the list, and were
considering corrective action. Shortly thereafter the list was abolished, and
revisions made in the review process. We did not report the problem to the
Director because we were persuaded at the time that program management was in
the process of solving it. If we had not been so persuaded, we would have met
with the Deputy Director, who has shown interest in the speaker program, and
reported our findings to him. We did not anticipate the existence of the list
being leaked to the media after the list was abolished.
United States Information Agency
INFORMATION MEMO
February 17, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR: D - Mr. Mark Everson
Chairman, Agency Oversight Committee
FROM:
IO - James L. Culpepper
V
SUBJECT:
Interim Inspection Report on Use of Review Lists in the
Office of Program Development and Coordination (P/D)
The inspection of the Office of Program Development and Coordination was
begun on January 17, 1984. Included in the precepts or issues identified as
basic to the direction of the inspection was the question of whether "Office
of Program Development and Coordination standards for selecting Amparts assure
that content and quality support agency and post goals?".
In the first week of the inspection, it came to our attention that it had
been a long standing practice in the Office of Program Development and
Coordination to prepare review lists of speakers being considered for USIS
programs, which were forwarded to the Director of Programs, who then reviewed
them and circulated them to other senior agency officers for any comments they
might wish to make. If found wanting in one or another respect, either in
terms of expertise, authority to speak on policy issues, or speaking ability,
the candidate was rejected.
This practice has been in effect since shortly after the new
Administration took office in 1981. It replaced a more ad hoc, informal
review of the qualifications of proposed speakers by the Director of the
Office of Program Development and Coordination and Acting Director of
Programs, who were concerned that potential speakers contacted before the new
administration took office were still appropriate to explicate its policies,
and would satisfy criticism of posts that had complained about the quality of
speakers sent them.
The system remained in force with slight modifications until the end of
last year, when the new director of the Office of Program Development and
Coordination began discussions with the Program Director on how it could be
made less cumbersome and reduce delays in obtaining approval for program
development officers to use speakers. These discussions also were stimulated
by the new Deputy Director's interest in the Ampart program, and his expressed
concern whether the agency was recruiting the best possible qualified speakers
in their respective fields of expertise. In a meeting with the inspectors on
February 3, the Director of the Office of Program Development and Coordination
IA-1215
(11-82)
-2-
said he was in the process of developing a new procedure that would eliminate
circulation of the review list outside the Office of the Director of
Programs. The new procedure was confirmed to posts by telegram on February 9,
but not before the story of the "black list" had been published in the Atlanta
Constitution on February 8.
The "black list" is a list of rejected speakers compiled by the management
of the Office of Program Development and Coordination from the weekly review
lists to make it easier to keep track of speakers judged unsuitable for
programs. This practice, too, dates back almost as long as the review lists.
The list was compiled and updated about every six months, and distributed to
program managers for reference. Use of the "black list" was terminated by the
Director of the Office of Program Development and Coordination and the Acting
Director of Programs on January 30, as the result of their growing concern
that the list might receive critical attention in the media and Congress, and
reinforce suspicions that agency programs were being politicized. This action
corrected a major deficiency in the management of the office initially noted
by the inspectors.
A negative aftermath of this action has been a lingering discontent and
resentment by the staff in the Office of Program Development and Coordination,
who feel unjustly blamed in the media for developing the "black list", which
they view as a result of the review system imposed on them. The inspector
believes that a major cause for misunderstanding, suspicion of politicization,
and lack of trust or being trusted among the staff has been the almost total
lack of communication with them by higher agency management on the selection
process. No reason has been given to program development officers for
disapproval of names submitted for review, no discussion has taken place of
the abilities of a proposed speaker related to the program in which he was to
participate and the topics he was supposed to address, no clarification has
been given whether a speaker was disqualified only for one program, or for all
programs indefinitely. The common assumption has been that rejection was
permanent. It is clear that staff morale will continue to be adversely
affected unless management improves its dialogue with the people charged with
carrying out the program.
The inspector has discussed the problem with the Director of the Office of
Program Development and Coordination and the Acting Director of Programs, who
recognize it as serious. The Director of the Office of Program Development
and Coordination is considering a weekly meeting with his program managers
that will be devoted to discussing the pros and cons of speakers under
consideration or already recruited for programming. Other means of
communication with staff members also should be considered.
The Director of the Office of Program Development and Coordination, the
Acting Director of Programs, and the Deputy Director have agreed that another
-3-
area where action is required is creation of a computerized speaker data base
that will assist both managers and staff in quickly identifying qualified
speakers in various fields of expertise for possible recruitment. No such
data bank or master speaker file now exists. The final inspection report will
recommend that budget and personnel resources be allocated to remedy this
deficiency. Both the Director of the Office of Program Development and
Coordination and Acting Program Director have told the inspector that
development of such data may make it possible to do away completely with the
present review system by incorporating input from all agency elements that can
contribute useful information for the selection process. It is the consensus
of all agency directors and members of the Office of Program Development and
Coordination interviewed by the inspector that a review system should have a
positive, rather than negative objective, and should permit as much
responsibility as possible to be placed where programs can be most effectively
implemented, at the program development officer-program manager level.
It therefore is the tentative conclusion of the inspector that the
management of the Office of Program Development and Coordination is taking
positive steps to correct existing deficiencies, to amend the selection
process so that a wider selection of qualified speakers will be considered,
and to improve communication with staff members. It is expected that the
inspection of all aspects of the Ampart program will be completed by the end
of March, 1984.
Attached is a chronology of the conduct of the inspection and the
discussions preceeding it. In addition to selection of Amparts, other issues
covered by the inspection have been the effectiveness of the Office of Program
Development and Coordination in achieving desired results, particularly it's
support of post communication strategies; the quality of the program's
management and the adequacy of its resources; the quality of the staff and its
utilization; coordination with the area offices, TV, the library, and the
international visitors program; and the quality of direction by senior agency
managers. Meetings with managers and staff have been held on almost a daily
basis. Speaker files, review lists, program support materials and pertinent
agency memoranda also have been reviewed.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection Name
Withdrawer
DEAVER, MICHAEL: FILES
KDB 8/30/2011
File Folder
FOIA
WICK, CHARLES Z. (CORRESPONDENCE) (2)
F97-0066/19
COHEN, D
Box Number
62
186
DOC Document Type
No of Doc Date Restric-
NO Document Description
pages
tions
2 LIST
3
ND
B6
RE MEETINGS AND REVIEW SESSIONS
B7(C)
ATTENDED
B7(D)
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
B-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
B-2 Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
B-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
B-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
B-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
B-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
B-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
B-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
United States
Information
Agency
Washington, D.C. 20547
USIA
February 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM TO:
D - Mark Everson, Chairman
Agency Oversight Committee
FROM
:
IG - Jerry G. Bridges, Inspector General
/
SUBJECT
:
Request for IG Investigation of the AMPARTs Program
At your request, I have explored whether my office should perform an
investigation of the AMPARTs program and more specifically the so called
'blacklist'.
As you know, the Office of Inspection is now engaged in an inspection to
independently evaluate the AMPARTs program. The Office of Inspection
inspection, which started the week of January 17, and will be completed in
March, is addressing the issues and circumstances surrounding the
'blacklist'. It is my view that, given its organizational independence and
responsibility for reporting to the Director, Office of Inspections should
have the sole responsibility for investigating the AMPARTS matters. Direct
involvement of my office at this time would only distract and confuse the
investigation in process as a part of the Office of Inspection's inspection.
The Office of Inspection staff has informed me that corrective actions are
being implemented by the Bureau of Programs. The attached cable (USIA 07691)
is the first step in that direction. Also, I am informed that a computerized
master list of potential speakers is planned that will be indexed by subject
matter and will be used as the source for selecting speakers in the future.
This would be a positive step since the Agency would then have ready access to
a larger pool of speakers in any given field. I am sure that the Office of
Inspections interim report to the Director as well as their final report will
include other actions taken or to be taken.
Under the circumstances, I do not plan to pursue an investigation.
However, I will continue to monitor the progress of the ongoing inspection to
satisfy myself that an independent and objective job is done.
Attachment
UNCLASSIFIED
OUTGOING
3)
UNITED STATES
TELEGRAM
INFORMATION AGENCY
550
PAGE B1
#36319 NIA116
#36313 ⑉
09/22292
SUGGESTED TO PASTICIPATE as AMPARTS ARE or THE MIGNEST
QUALITY AND REPRESENT THE BROADEST POSSIBLE DIVERSITY.
DRIGIN OFFICE 0-93
CONSISTENT WITH FULFILLING TME AGENCY'S MISSION 10 PRESENT
INFO ACD-B1 AF- #S AR-03 EA-53 MEA-83 EV-#3 GC-B2 /823 A1 16
TME FACE or AMERICA AESORD TO THAT ENC. I PROPOSE THAT
KENCEFORTH TME AMPART SELECTION PROCESS BE AS FOLLOWS:
DRAFTED BY D
RLEARLE
AMPART NOMINEES WILL 2E SUBMITTED BY THE PROGRAM
APPROVED BY D
LLENKOWSKY
DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS THROUGH THE PROGRAM MANAGERS, VPC MAY
as
JRCLINGERMAN
ADD NOMINEES SUBMITTED FROM OTHER SOURCES THE PROGRAM
EV
CECOURTNEY
MANAGERS WILL SUBMIT THESE TO THE DIRECTOR of PROGRAM
EA
REMNEVITT
COORDINATION AND DEVELOPMENT THE DIRECTOR or P/C WILL
AR
SFDACHI
FORWARD THEM TC THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAMS, UHO
NEA
JTHURBER
WILL, AS APPROPRIATE, CONSULT WITH OTHER MEMEERS OF THE
EC
THARVEY
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR NOTIMEE IS
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR & GIVEN PROJECT DOES NOT MEAL THAT THIS
0 #522252 FEB 84 ZFF-4
INDIVIDUAL WILL NOT 25 CONSIDERED FOR OTHER FUTURE PROGRAMS.
FM USIA WASHDC
THE CRITERIA FOR SELECTION WILL BE QUALITY, DIVERSITY, AND
TO ALL PRINCIPAL POSTS IMMEDIATE
RESPONSIVENESS TO THE MEEDS or THE FIELD." INC OF TEXT)
RUENOR/AMEMBASSY GAEORONE IMMEDIATE
4. THE QUALITY or THE AMERFTS PROGRAM MAC BEEN & SOURCE OF
RUENBH/AMEMEASS) NASSAU IMMEDIATE
SOME CONCERN TO THE CIRECTOR AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
RUENPO/AMEMBASSY PARAMARIBO IMMEDIATE
BEGINNING SEVERA. MONTHS AGC AND BASED IN PART on COMPLAINTS
RUENVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA/RPO IMMEDIATE
ABOUT IT FROM THE FIELD. IN AN EFFORT TO INSURE THE QUALITY
RUENVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA/REX IMMEDIATE
AND DIVERSITY OF THE PROGRAM AND ENRICH ITS OFFERINGS TO THE
RUFHDU/AMCONSUL DUSSELDORF IMMEDIATE
FIELD, THE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY CIRECTOR INSTRUCTED THAT THE
RUFNOM/AMCONSUL FLORENCE IMMEDIATE
OFFICE or INSPECTIONS CONDUCT AN INSPECTION OF THE AMPARTS
RUFNAM/AMCONSUL MAMBURG IMMEDIATE
PROGRAM. THIS INSPECTION MRS BEEN UNDERWAY FOR APPROXIMATELY
RUDKRW/AMCONSUL KRAKOW IMMEDIATE
ONE MONTH AND IS EXPECTED TO CONCLUDE LATER NEXT MONTH.
RUFHOML/AMCONSUL MILAN IMMEDIATE
5. ANY QUERIES FROM THE PRESS WHICH CANNOT BE MANDLED WITH
BUFRSHH/AMCONSUL NAPLES IMMEDIATE
THE ABOVE GUIDRACE SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE AGENCY 11 A
RUFHOM/AMCONSUL PALERMO IMMEDIATE
CABLE SLUGGED FOR YOUR AREA OFFICE, PL AND D.
RUDKRW/AMCONSUL POZNAN IMMEDIATE
LENKOWSKY, ACTING
RUENAU/AMCONSUL THESSALONIAI IMMEDIATE
ST
RUENON/AMCONSUL TORONTO IMMEDIATE
07691
RUFKOM/AMCONSUL TRIESTE IMMEDIATE
RUENVC/AMCONSUL VANCOUVER IMMEDIATE
AUDRRE/AMCONSUL ZAGREE IMMEDIATE
RUENVA/AMEMBASSY SUVA IMMEDIATE
RUFKOM/AMCONSUL GENOA IMMEDIATE
RUENBG/AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG IMMEDIATE
RUENDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN IMMEDIATE
RUEHBE/AMEMEASSY BELIZE IMMEDIATE
RUNOHQA/USCINCPAC MONOLULU MI IMMEDIATE
BT
UNCLAS USIA 07691
USIA
FOR PAOS FROM ACTING DIRECTOR LENKOWSKY
EO 12356 N/A
1. THE WASHINGTON POST AND THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
CARRIED A STORY TODAY WHICH IN THE POST WAS HEADLINED "USIA
BLACKLISTED LIBERALS FROM SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS ABROAD.
YESTERDAY THE ATLANTA CONSTITUTION CARRIED A STORY HEADLINED
"NUMBER OF WELL-KNOWN AMERICANS REJECTED BY USIA FOR TALMS
ABROAD."
2. FOR YOUR GUIDANCE ON AN IF-ASKED BASIS, THERE WAS AM
UNSANCTIONED SO-CALLED BLACKLIST MAINTAINED IN THE AMPARTS
PROGRAM FROM APPROXIMATELY AUGUST 1981 TO JANUARY 1984
CONTAINING 84 NAMES. WHEN THE EXISTENCE OF THIS UNSANCTIONED
LIST WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DIRECTOR AND THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR AT THE END OF LAST MONTH, THE DIRECTOR AND
DEPUTY DIRECTOR INSTRUCTED THAT MAINTENANCE OF THE LIST DE
STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.
3. THE AMPARTS SELECTION PROCESS MAS BEEN CLARIFIED AS
OUTLINED IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO FROM GIFFORD D. MALONE, ACTING
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAMS TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR LENROWSKY.
BEGIN TEXT) "FIBRUARY 1. 1584
IN THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS, WITH YOUR NELP, VE NAVE BEEN
REVIEWING THE AMPARTS PROGRAM TO ASSURE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS