REORGANIZATION OF DOMESTIC FIELD OPERATIONS

In the name of efficiency and simplicity the State Department reorganized its Domestic Field Operations effective September 1, 1964. It sounded plausible as outlined to the subcommittee.

But, coming at a later hour in the disputes over the Otepka case and his insistence on keeping records of personnel performance, this new reorganization raised some questions as to why it was ordered.

For instance, in dramatically reducing the number of supervisory field offices and in its plan for the destruction of some field office records and the transfer of others to files in Washington, the whole scheme caused some concern in the Internal Security Subcommittee. Would it mean a downgrading of security, in the broad sense?

Would it mean a downgrading of the Office of Security and one of its component units?

Would it mean a downgrading of the importance of records as they are maintained and held available to the men in the field service?

Because of the lateness of this reorganization, as to the closing of this series of hearings, not all these questions could be properly explored at the moment. Time would be needed, of course, to test the efficacy of the structural changes.

But there still remained the question of why it was done right then, except that somebody had drawn up a chart. Testimony brought out that William J. Crockett, the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration, approved the plan as presented to him by G. Marvin Gentile, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security, but that Mr. Crockett in describing it to the subcommittee was uncertain about a lot of the details, at first, at least.

Discussion (September 16, 1964) of the reorganization started this

MR. SOURWINE. The committee, Mr. Crockett, understands that you have ordered or approved a reorganization of the Office of Security with respect to its domestic field operations. Can you tell us a little about this?

Mr. CROCKETT. Well, the thing that we are trying for there is, again, to make our field operations more effective, and I will have to correct the numbers. But at one time, we had, I think, about 14 supervising security officers or agents in the field, all reporting into Washington. The present organizational concept is that this would be reduced to about six and they, in turn, would have officers in their regions reporting to them.

I think that the objective is to select officers capable of supervising others and capable of planning operations in an area, hopefully to get a better job done than we have had in the past, with perhaps a saving of some people that will be brought into the Washington security office.

I think this saves-I don't know how many-in the field operation that would be brought into Washington operation.

Mr. SOURWINE. Haven't you had a very high standard, really, of performance and experience, and considerable buildup seniority, among the men who have been running your field offices?

Mr. CROCKETT. With three or four exceptions, this is true.

1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, p. 1571.

The effective date for the reorganization was September 1, 1964, Mr. Crockett said, but when he was asked just what would it do, he faltered over figures. He said as he understood it the plan would reduce the number of field supervisors from 14 to 6, but later checking showed it to be from 19 to 7. A portion of this: 2

Mr. SOURWINE. How many resident agents do you have now?

Mr. CROCKETT. The Office of Security has provided for 7 field offices; 20 city locations have been designated for resident agent assignments. Personnel have been designated for incumbency at all 20 locations except Richmond, Va. Eightyfive special agent positions are assigned to the domestic field.

Mr. SOURWINE. Under this reoganization, is it correct that you are going to have one resident agent for each regional office city except Philadelphia, St. Louis, Denver, and Seattle, where he will also have a special agent assisting him? Mr. CROCKETT. Mr. Sourwine, I am not acquainted with any of the facts of it or any of the details of it, and I would be glad, if you would give us the questions, to supply that.

Mr. SOURWINE. Who has been handling this-Mr. Gentile?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes. He cleared with me the general concept of the reorganization and the concept that he thought that they could have a more effective field operation and perhaps save some people in the field that could be brought to the central office. Under this general concept, I approved it. But I don't know the specific details. But I will be glad to supply them.

Mr. SOURWINE. I wish you would. I have a number of questions that I am going to ask. It may be that you don't know the answers, but you can supply them when you correct the testimony, if you would?

Mr. CROCKETT. I would be delighted to.

Transfer of more direct control over the domestic field operations to Washington was indicated as further details were pointed up:3 Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know how work assignments for the field are now controlled?

Mr. CROCKETT. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. It is our understanding that they are controlled by the 19 domestic field officers, the man in charge of each office controls the work assignments under him, under that office, and that under the reorganization, this is going to be much more greatly reduced and all the work assignments will be controlled under the investigative service of the Office of Security.

The fieldmen will have no control over the assignments.

If this is incorrect or any of the other statements I make in this area are incorrect, please indicate so.

Mr. CROCKETT. Work assignments in the field are directed from headquarters to the seven field offices under the present organization. This was the procedure followed under the prior organization structure.

WHAT BECOMES OF FIELD OFFICE RECORDS?

Mr. Crockett was asked what was being done with the field office records, the subcommittee's information being that they would all be destroyed.*

Mr. CROCKETT. I doubt that. But I will check. We will have to amplify what we mean by records, but certainly we would not want to destroy anything that would be material to our future cases or future problems. So I will check that one carefully.

(Mr. Crockett later furnished the following statement:)

"The reorganization did not change the retention of records in field offices."

As the subject was pursued, Mr. Crockett said the field agents would retain "only instruction files along with current work assignments" but that special agents were encouraged to retain confidential source and contact files."

Mr. SOURWINE. It is our understanding there was a specific directive that no administrative files will be maintained by resident agents, that they will retain only current work assignments and necessary instructions.

Mr. CROCKETT. The directive indicates that only instruction files will be retained along with current work assignments. All special agents were, of course, encouraged to retain confidential source and contact files.

In some respects the instructions were "clarified" to assure the retention of protective security index material, Mr. Crockett advised the subcommittee on May 4, 1965:

Mr. SOURWINE. It is correct that an important part of the work of the field offices of the Office of Security is in connection with the protection of visiting dignitaries?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Is it true that to facilitate their work in this area, the field offices have maintained files of material relating to risks and hazards in their respective areas, points to be checked, proper precautionary measures, names of leaders and hotheads in certain minority and other groups, and other information which would be of value in doing a protective security job?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, in conjunction with other agencies.

Mr. SOURWINE. Is it true that much if not all of this information has been kept on index cards?

Mr. CROCKETT. I presume so, although there is no directive.

Mr. SOURWINE. Nothing in the instructions sent to the field with respect to the reorganization of field offices excepted any of this material from the general order for destruction of index cards?

Mr. CROCKETT. The instruction was clarified to assure that necessary index material would be retained. Further, that the destruction of index cards was to refer only to those control cards which related to duplicate investigative report copies, all originals of which are available in Washington headquarters.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was this material ordered destroyed?

Mr. CROCKETT. No. I believe the answer to your last question clarified the matter.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know if it has been destroyed?

Mr. CROCKETT. Not the information you refer to with regard to protection. Mr. Crockett acknowledged (September 16, 1964) that some of the files in 12 of the field offices that were converted into resident agent's offices had been destroyed by burning. There also was some further information about the abortive use of the short form report of job applicants: 7

*

*

*

*

Mr. SOURWINE. Would you also include a statement as to what happened with regard to recent invesitigative files?

Mr. CROCKETT. If this question relates to investigative files in the 12 field offices which are now designated as Resident Agents, those investigative file copies were destroyed by burning. The originals of those investigative reports are filed in the central repository at headquarters.

Mr. SOURWINE. What happens to reports and agents' notes which are required under these instructions to be forwarded to the appropriate special agent in charge? Is he going to integrate them and keep a file or destroy them and cull them or send some to Washington, or just what is the procedure?

Mr. CROCKETT. Investigative report copies and agents' notes are retained in the field office.

Mr. SOURWINE. This new procedure certainly facilitates centralized control from Washington. Doesn't this reorganization in all its aspects diminish the ability of the Department to protect itself against unsuitable and undesirable persons who might want to insert themselves into Government jobs of some importance?

State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, pp. 1584-1585.

7 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, p. 1582.

Many of Mr. Crockett's answers were supplied long after the hearings, in correcting or amplifying his testimony.

Mr. CROCKETT. I don't see how, but we will talk about it in that regard. Mr. SOURWINE. I think it would be helpful if you could include a statement with respect to what records have in the past been kept in field offices and whether all of these records are now to be destroyed, including investigative reports.

Mr. CROCKETT. In field offices, administrative records have been maintained for 2 years. Personnel investigative report copies are presently retained for a full calendar year. Short form reports with notes attached were originally scheduled for 5-year retention in the field offices. The Department now contemplates permanent retention in the central files at Washington after the 5-year period has elapsed.

Mr. SOURWINE. The letter of instructions of August 28 which has just been put in the record refers to destruction by burning and appears to make the excep tion of only current investigative assignments and any investigative files relating thereto, and all short form background investigative reports which were completed during the period between November 6, 1962, and January 13, 1964. It is difficult to accept this interpretation and yet, on the face of the instruction the only interpretation appears to be that all short form background investigative reports completed prior to November 6 are to be destroyed, and that all those completed subsequent to January 13, 1964, are to be destroyed.

Mr. CROCKETT. This is correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. So there must be something missing.

Mr. CROCKETT. No, I think the missing thing is that there wasn't such a thing as short form reports beyond those dates-before that date or after that date. This is something, as I understand it, that Mr. Reilly instituted, and in January we discontinued the short form security report. This is my understanding.

Mr. SOURWINE. This may well be the answer, though why order destruction of something nonexistent? I hadn't realized that the practice had been completely discontinued as early as January 13.

Mr. CROCKETT. That is correct. January 13, 1964.

Harry M. Hite, an evaluator in the Division of Evaluations, said the short form reports system had been ordered abandoned by Raymond W. Laugel, at the time Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Security Affairs. Testimony (March 5, 1964) included this: "

Mr. SOURWINE. You do feel that the preparation of these shortform reports for appointees in the Department is a bad practice?

Mr. HITE. Why, of course.

Mr. SOURWINE. And the abandonment of that practice is a move in the right direction?

Mr. HITE. It certainly is.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was it Mr. Laugel who ordered the abandonment of that practice?

Mr. HITE. Yes, sir; it was.

OTHER ASPECTS ARE EXAMINED

There were a number of aspects of the modification of the domestic field organization that caused concern. One was whether the resident agent would be forbidden to keep notes on his cases. Another was whether field reports would go forward to Washington unchanged. As to the latter, Mr. Crockett was not sure.

10

Mr. SOURWINE. Is it true that the instructions forbid the keeping of notes by the resident agents with regard to cases and recommendations? Does this also apply to field agents?

Mr. CROCKETT. Investigative notes are not retained by resident agents but are retained with investigative report copies in the field office. The term "field agents" in the question evidently refers to special agents.

Mr. SOURWINE. Does the Department regard this as something that will have no effect on morale or does it consider the need so great that the loss of morale is a necessary evil?

State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, p. 1617.

10 Ibid., pt. 19, pp. 1581-1582.