MEMO: NEW JFK REVIEW PROCESS
Agency: CIA
Originator: CIA
From: NOTE TO:  JFK TEAM
To: BARRY HARRELSON
Document date: 3/6/97
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM

IDENTIFICATION FORM

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : CIA

RECORD NUMBER : 104-10331-10340

RECORD SERIES : JFK

AGENCY FILE NUMBER

:PROJFILES-CORRESPONDENCE

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

Released under the John

F. Kennedy

assassination Records

Collection Act of 1992

144 USC 2107 Notel.

Case#:NW 53217 Date:

06-24-2017

AGENCY ORIGINATOR

FROM

TO

TITLE

DATE

PAGES

: CIA

BARRY HARRELSON

NOTE TO: JFK TEAM

MEMO: NEW JEK REVIEW PROCESS

03/06/1997

2

SUBJECTS : JFK ASSASSINATION

HIGHLIGHTING

POSTPONEMENTS

DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPEF

CLASSIFICATION : SECRE'

RESTRICTIONS : 1A

CURRENT STATUS : RELEASED IN PART PUBLIC - RELEASED WITH DELETIONS

DATE OF LAST REVIEW

JFK-M-16: F13 :

2000.02.14.10:26:24:170054

[R]

- ITEM IS RESTRICTED

104-10331-10340

HH 53217

DooId: 32404469

Page 1

---

## Page 2

SEGRET WORKING PAPER

6 March 1997

Note to JFK Team

From:

Barry Harrelson

CIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

RELEASE IN FULL

2000

Subject: New JFK Review Process

David Marwell, ARRB Executive Director, is planning to

propose to the Board that they change the review process.

The focus would change from'tracking individual

postponements to tracking the release of documents.

Under

the new approach his staff would have the authority to

negotiate with the Agency on the release of information and

to make decisions on the released versions of documents.

Only issues/documents of disagreement would be placed before

the Board.

decsing

natfies

Bind

Marwell is convinced that even with an additional year -

they will not finish the project with the current approach.

He and I spent some time discussing how a new process for

would work. He would like to test this process for the April

meeting.

The following is a rough outline with some notes for

your review . Please provide me with comments by COB Monday.

1) HRG and DO reviewers would review the documents the

same as they do now (postponements would be blue

highlighted). Ino change in our procedures]

2)

document.

ARRB staff would review the blue highlighted

a). If they agree, they would stamp the document

"ARRB approved" and return it to HRG to process.

for NARA.

b) If they disagree they would highlight over the

blue with yellow (creating green highlighting), or

mark in some way, the information they think

should be released.

If the two staffs cannot

resolve the issue,.

then the document would go

before the Board.

Major change: ARRB staff would no longer record all the

proposed postponements, no Do "damage review"

, no detailed

determination letter requiring HRG reviewers

to use the

"grid" to determine what happen.]

SECRETIo

HA 53217 ,D0010:32404469 Page 2

---

## Page 3

- SECRET - WORKING PAPER

"Non-issue" documents would be prepared by HRG for

NARA and sent to the ARB staff when ready.

At that time

the ARRB staff would prepare a simplified final

determination notice and letter.

I No further action on the document would be required; HRG

would file the final determination notice with the document

in the retention and "new ORIS" filel.

"Green" highlighted documents that go to. the Board

would be handled the same as today.

[The expectation is that a lot less documents would require

Board action. ]

A major impact will be an increase in the number of

documents reviewed.

The new process creates a continuous

flow of documents to be reviewed and prepared for NARA.

capability of the ARRB to handle documents would greatly

increasing requiring us

to pick up the pace of the review.

53217

Doc1d:32404469

Page

---