MEMO: NAME ISSUES/STATUS OF REVIEW
Agency: CIA
Originator: CIA
From: CHIEF/HRG
To: BARRY HARRELSON
Document date: 3/5/97
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM

IDENTIFICATION FORM

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : CIA

RECORD NUMBER: 104-10331-10339

RECORD SERIES : JFK

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : PROJFILES -CORRESPONDENCE

DOCUMENT

INFORMATION

Released under the John

F. Kennedy

ussassination Records

Collection Aet of 1992

i44 USC 2107 Notel.

Case#:NW 53217 Date:

06-24-2017

AGENCY ORIGINATOR : CIA.

FROM : BARRY HARRELSON

TO: CHIEF/HRG

TITLE

:MEMO: NAME ISSUES/ STATUS OF REVIEW

DATE: 03/05/1997

PAGES

: 3

SUBJECTS : ANNUAL REPORT

JFK ASSASSINATION

ARRB PROCESS

DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER

CLASSIFICATION : SECRET

RESTRICTIONS : 1A 1B

CURRENT STATUS : RELEASED IN PART PUBLIC - RELEASED WITH DELETIONS

• DATE OF LAST REVIEW

: 04/22/03

COMMENTS : JFK-M-16 : F13 : 2000.02.14.10:20:44:873054

[R]

ITEM IS RESTRICTED

104-10331-10339

HH 53217

DocId: 32401468

Page 1

---

## Page 2

SECRET -

WORKING PAPER

5 March, 1997

Memorandum For: Chief/HRG

From:

Subject:

Reference:

Barry Harrelson

Name Issue / Status of Review

Meetings with

ARRB staff (Marwell & Gunn)

4 March 1997

Name Issue

I met with Gunn and Marwell (separate meetings) to

discuss the reopening of the names issue

per my memo to you.

Both Gunn and Marwell reacted positively. They found the

proposal to be reasonable one and they are willing to work

with us in approaching the Board.

However, both said they.

could not predict the Boards reaction.

Per Marwell, one

member of the Board (Anna Nelson)

seems to believe that if a

person worked for the CIA it should be known.

Apparently our timing is excellent.

Marwell is

planning to propose to the Board that they change the

process

from the focus on individual postponements to

documents. Under the new approach his staff would have the

authority to negotiate with the Agency on the release of

documents, and only issues/documents of disagreement would

be placed before the Board.

Marwell is convinced that even

with an additional year they will not finish the project

with the current approach.

He sees our proposal

on the

names as an example of how the process would work.

Marwell recommends that we include examples of .

documents containing names of little or no connection to the

story.

Bob Skwirot (he was in the meeting with Marwell)

said that there were a number of names that appeared in only

one document and that the number of names had reached 590.

Marwell wants to start immediately on preparing a joint list

of important/releasable individuals.

Action: Advise DO, OGC, upper management of our proposal to

reopen the name issue (how?).

Need to decide what level

would sign the memo to the Board, and who would prepare the

memo. If you agree I can send a copy of my memo to you to

Linda and Fred for background use.

HRG and DO team will collect examples of documents and

prepare (with ARRB staff) a list of individuals. The DO

should focus on any person on the list that needs protection

and prepare the evidence ASAP li.e. not wait for the issue

to be resolved).

SECRET

NW 53217 DooId:32404468 Page 2

---

## Page 3

SECRET

WORKING PAPER

New ARRB Review Process

Marwell and I spent some time discussing how a new

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

the April meeting. The following is a rough outline with my

comments:

HRG reviewers would

review the documents the same

as they do now (postponements

would be blue highlighted).

[no 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 in

yellow (creating green highlighting).

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.]

Non-issue documents would be sent to the ARRB

staff when ready for NARA.

At that time the ARRB staff

would prepare a simplified final determination notice and

letter to the Agencies.

I No action would be required; HRG would file the final

determination notice with the document].

4)

"Green" highlighted documents that go to the Board

would be handled the

same

today.

[The expectation is that a lot less documents would require

Board

action.

Comments: With some fine tuning, I think this process could

work, and we would be able to complete the re-review of

documents released in 1993

and 1994 by Oct. 1998.

Completing the entire project will depend on how quickly the

"non-related" material

and the

"addition records"

reviewed by the ARRB staff.

SECRET

HH 53217 DocId:32404468

Page 3

---

## Page 4

SECRET - WORKING PAPER

Pending Issues

As part of the change in process, Marwell wants the

Board to focus on outstanding

substantive issues as opposed

to micro managing the review. We discussed the following:

1) Nosenko. ARRB staff needs to review the non-related

material and make a recommendation to the Board. Marwell

leans toward not treating all of Nosenko as assassination

related. Could be a hard sell with some Board members.

Should

we request that Nosenko meet with the Board?

Marwell

thinks they would react favorably.

2) Personnel Files.

Again the first step is to have

his staff confirm that only a part of a file is related and

that those documents are in the released material.

3) Gibson. FBI file issue; we need to present case to

the Board

4) LI 9. Continuing to protect will be a hard sell

given that Newman has published identity; we need to present

case to the Board.

5) CRC Financial Files. ARRB staff needs to review

Annual Report and Extension

Marwell ask me to draw you attention to the Annual

Report and the request for an extension. He would still

like a letter from the Agency (could be addressed to him)

along these lines:

"reviewed Annual Report"

"note that the Board has ask for extension"

"support the request/feel it is in interest of

Agency and public /or something along these lines"

Other issues (not discussed with Marwell/Gunn)

Linda (OGC) says CI Staff has ask Gunn to rewrite his

notes, and opposes Gunn's suggestion to release pages from

the CI histories he reviewed.

Gunn indicated in his notes

that some of the pages should be released and might be

considered assassination records.

We are going to run into

similar problems with the other histories.

Gunn will be in

HQ tomorrow to re-do his notes.

She will discuss the "pages

issue" with the goal of having him drop the request to

release.

As to the question of designating the pages as

assassination records, she will inform him that CI will

oppose.

If he insist, she will refer back to HRG.

CRET

HH 53217 DocId: 32404468 Page 4

---