A Report by Mark Pattison

Mark Pattison who is on the executive board of the Washington Baltimore Newspaper Guild and has been past it’s president and works for the Catholic News Service.

Mark PattisonCatholic News Service

Having served continuously on the Executive Council since 1990 — including two years as WBNG president, four as treasurer and nine as secretary — Mark can provide the context and connections between past and current struggles. He’s a big believer in steward training and has sought to expand the union’s strength to make it more effective. That service includes shepherding to completion WBNG’s five year strategic planning process; serving as chair of the local Election and Referendum Committee from 2014-18, and as a member in 1991; serving as co-chair of the Bylaws Review Committee from 2001-02 and committee member from 2016-20; serving as co-chair of the Front Page Awards Committee from 1994-2008; serving as a member of the Finance Committee from 1995-2015; and participating in the search committee for every professional staff hire since 1993. Within TNG, Mark has been secretary of the Southern District Council since 1992 and treasurer since 1998, and is secretary of its Election and Referendum Committee. He also been to every TNG convention and sector conference since 1990. Still, none of this work is done solo, but with the cooperation and collaboration of others. Mark looks forward to continuing to serve the local, the Guild, and the union movement. He was honored with the local’s Member of the Year award for 1992, and the Lifetime Achievement Award in 2019, but he’s not done yet.

By Mark Pattison

Member Executive Council Washington-Baltimore News Guild

The American Newspaper Guild, as it was then known, started an international affairs program in 1962. But it was not until press reports emerged five years later of U.S. government subsidies to the Guild and other unions for such programs that the Guild’s international affairs program appeared on the agenda at the journalists’ union’s annual convention — held, of all places, in the Canadian capital of Ottawa, Ontario.

Morton Mintz, a reporter at the Washington Post and a Guild member, had written in 1964 the story of a House Select Small Business Subcommittee hearing that was looking into a charity receiving donations from a foundation that was believed to be a front for the CIA.

But in February 1967, both the Post and the New York Times published articles featuring acknowledgements from Charles A. Perlik Jr., then the international union’s secretary-treasurer and later the Guild’s president, and Richard P. Davis, then international affairs director of the union, that the Guild had received money through CIA front “foundations,” while claiming not to have known of the CIA connection.

Journalists — Guild members in particular — bristled at the revelations. The last audit prior to the 1967 convention showed the international affairs program’s budget at $214,000 — a figure nearly 40 percent of the union’s $547,000 general fund, or what the Guild spent for everything else, including organizing, bargaining, contract servicing, and administration.

The Guild took pride in calling itself the most democratic union in the United States. A rank-and-filer holds the top elective position, that of international chair, although the Guild’s president and secretary- treasurer (now executive vice president) are full-time staff. The same holds true for most locals’ officer structure. The convention is considered the supreme authority of the Guild, and those opposed to government funding of international affairs were poised to get it out of the union, even if it meant dropping the international affairs program.

At Guild conventions, delegates sign up for committee assignments, and each committee produces a report — sometimes multiple reports. The 1967 convention had an international affairs committee, and the majority report was silent on the acceptance of government funds. However, a minority report was moved on the convention floor that accepted the entire majority report with one addition to be made: “No government funds will be accepted for the purpose of carrying on the international affairs program.”

Thus began a three-hour debate that took place on the convention floor after a dinner break.

Irv Kreisman of the Guild local in Madison, Wisconsin, said the revelation of possible CIA involvement “burst like a bomb from one end of the country to another. Many of us had a feeling — perhaps all of us had a feeling — of revulsion, disgust, many of us had a feeling that we had been had.”

Kreisman added, “I recall in my own situation being asked on the beat the next day, a couple of days later, ‘I see that you’re a CIA agent.’ I answered in kind, but I resented the remarks, and I think many people here resented the whole implication.”

“You can’t be a paid agent of one nation and still pretend to be an international union,” declared Ross Henderson of the Toronto local. “I think that the CIA is probably more clever in hiding the way it pays money than our officers are in uncovering the way it pays money,” he added. “I don’t expect our people

to have this kind of skill. It is not their profession. It is the profession of the CIA to put money in places and wield influence in places.”

“I speak for people who are ashamed the Guild, because they took money and they woke up in Turkey one morning or Porto Alegre saying, ‘Oh, boy, this is wonderful,’ and two years later they read in the paper that they were being used, that they were spies. Then they come along tonight and say, ‘Well, let’s make a deal with the government. Let’s get it on top of the table,'” argued Buffalo delegate John Hill. “I am ashamed to have to get up here when these people have the audacity to ask for money.

Washington-Baltimore delegate John V. Reistrup said the two Guild headquarters staffers who oversaw the international affairs program were “sincere in telling us that the program is worth almost any price to keep it alive, short, of course, of spending our own money to pay for it.” Some delegates who voiced opposition to the use of CIA money said they believed the program — which consisted largely of Guild rank-and-filers visiting other countries and talking with journalists during seminars — was valuable, but not so valuable it should be paid for by the government.

Reistrup, while on the floor, mentioned the American Institute for Free Labor Development as “supposedly a private group and is the most likely source of the $300,000 if the State Department doesn’t come through” with funding.

AIFLD, Reistrup said, “has the distinction of having nearly everything wrong with it because it gets 90 percent of its money from the Agency for International Development. That is the State Department.” Other sources of AIFLD funding at the time, he added, was 6 per cent from the AFL-CIO, and 4 per cent of its money from large corporations including W.R. Grace and Co. Coca-Cola, and United Fruit Company, that last, he said was “synonymous throughout Latin America for Yankee imperialism.”

But after the supporters of the minority report had their say, the convention floor was swayed by those who opposed it. Opponents used a variety of arguments to turn the tide in their favor, including Americanism.

One such opponent Robert L. Bain Jr. of the Kingston, N.Y., local, took a swipe at Kreisman’s argument that “in accepting funds one does take the color of those who have contributed.” “Well, I as an American citizen and a delegate to this convention,” Bain said to applause from the delegates, “can think of no finer color than red, white and blue.”

Robert Nordin of the Vancouver-New Westminster local and a Guild vice president, had been on some of the trips abroad. “The newspaper workers in the other countries that we spent the time with, were dedicated, they were eager, eager for advice that would somhow [sic] enable them to become more effective in their organizations and be able to find some way of improving the very, very difficult conditions they work under,” he said, adding he had no problem accepting outside funds.

Dave Schick of the Philadelphia local, who introduced himself during the floor debate as “007 from Philadelphia,” said he saw no problem in taking government money, whatever the source. “Well, what money is it that is dispensed by the AID?”, Schick asked. “It’s our money. It’s no gift from somebody or from another planet. It is money taken every week out of your pay envelope and out of my pay envelope.”

In the end, the vote wasn’t even close; 263-5/9 votes to reject the minority report — meaning to continue to accept government money — and 134-4/9 votes to accept the minority report, nearly a 2-to- 1 margin.

The 800-pound gorilla in the room was the New York local, then the Guild’s biggest. It cast all 79 of its votes to reject the minority report. The New York local has long observed the practice of “unit rule,” whereby if a majority of the local’s delegates support a certain position, then all of the local’s voting strength is committed to the majority stance.

If the New York delegates’ position was the opposite, the use of government money would have been banned right then and there. (In fact, a voice vote taken before the roll call seemed to indicate, at least to backers of the minority report, that their substitute language had been approved, although Guild president Arthur Rosenstock said he had not made that determination and proceeded to a roll-call vote.) But New York was far from the only local to back the continued use of federal cash. In fact, 30 other Guild locals cast a majority of their votes — and in almost every case, all their votes — to keep the outside money coming. By contrast, 19 locals voted to ban outside money, while two split down the middle.

What may have been more astounding was that two dozen small locals with delegates in attendance chose not to vote at all on the issue. Their combined strength of 49 votes, though, would not have changed the outcome.

And in researching the 1967 Guild convention, there was a slip of paper in page 126 of the 1967 convention proceedings, where the debate started. On the slip was this handwritten note, scrawled in pencil:

1967 — Gov’t financing O.K.
Jan 1976 — motion tabled
I auth [illegible] to cont report w Africa Labor contracts [illegible] educ progr contracts 
To translate as best as possible:
“1967: government financing O.K.”: This is what happened at the Guild convention.

“Jan 1976 — motion tabled”: This would not have been a Guild convention, but, more likely, the union’s International Executive Board, consisting of the full-time president and secretary-treasurer, plus a rank- and-file international chair and about a dozen at-large and regional vice presidents, which met three times a year.

“I auth [illegible] to cont report w Africa Labor contracts [illegible] educ progr contracts”: I authorized (illegible) to continue report with Africa labor contracts [illegible] education program contracts.” Who is the “I”? Could it have been Perlik? While it’s impossible to say definitively, Perlik would have had the institutional memory, not to mention easy access to prior Guild convention proceeding books to insert the slip of paper as a bookmark of sorts.

As the 1967 convention proceedings illustrate, the nature of CIA involvement was still the source of speculation and conjecture. Over the following decade, however, much, much more would become known about how the CIA operated.

And there the issue stood, in a state of suspended animation. Three months before the convention, the Guild announced it would no longer take money from foundations which were suspected of being CIA conduits. This effectively ended the international affairs program.

This uneasy truce held for more than a decade until October 1978, when Perlik, by this time Guild president, announced his intent to start a new international affairs program focusing on Latin America. He sought the IEB’s approval for him to continue discussions and negotiations with AIFLD, the African- American Labor Center and the Asian-American Free Labor Institute on prospective contractual relationships with each of the institutes to enable TNG to undertake journalistic and trade union education programs and activities.

Betsy Wade of the New York local, a Guild vice president, failed in her bid to defer the issue until the Guild’s convention in 1979. She told the IEB she thought AIFLD was far from open and above-board. She also had inserted into the IEB minutes a statement which she said backed up her position and cited allegations in a book by onetime CIA agent Philip Agee that AIFLD is CIA controlled.

Perlik said he knew of no one who could demonstrate that the CIA is still involved with AIFLD. Wade said she knew of no one who could demonstrate that it was not.

Perlik prevailed at the IEB on a 9-6 vote. That set the stage for several months of mobilizing by opponents of Guild involvement with AIFLD to make their case prior to the convention.

In the next issue of the Guild Forum, the member newspaper of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, a series of stories displayed the depth of distrust the local’s leaders had with their parent union and any arrangement it may have with AIFLD — and, in effect, the CIA.

WBNG reprinted, in its entirety, Wade’s 2,100-word statement that had been entered into the IEB meeting record.

Wade pointed to 1976, when Perlik sought IEB approval for a sub-grant “designed to strengthen free democratic trade unions” in the newspaper field. The money would have come from AIFLD, which in turn got its money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The approval bid failed in an 8-8 tie.

Since the 1967 convention, Wade said, “we had had the Pentagon Papers and numerous investigations in the press of CIA operations. We have also had the [Victor] Marchetti-{John D.] Marks book on the CIA: ‘The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence,’ which was published in the U.S.A. but was highly censored.

“Then we had Philip Agee’s book, ‘Inside the Company,'” which contained a caveat that, although the organizations he mentions in the book were CIA fronts during his CIA employment, they might not remain “CIA creatures” at the time of publication. Wade said, adding that Agee’s account of how AIFLD’s establishment and its funding from USAID remains the same: “I have heard no one say that AIFLD has been reorganized or redirected. The most recent report I have from the organization itself shows no withdrawal from the conditions Agee cites.”

Wade said Guild members, who had exposed government duplicity over the past decade, “would be furious to find that its own union had a contractual relationship with a government-financed group whose history shows it to be a shield for covert actions by the CIA.”

WBNG member Mintz, whose reporting on CIA dealings was parlayed into a book he co-authored called “Power, Inc.,” said in 1978 that reporting, writing and speaking out critically about involvements of the Guild was most painful. “Knowing that the strength of the Guild might well be damaged, it was disturbing and painful. But I felt and feel that the acceptance of any government funds by the Guild to foster such programs is wrong and, more seriously, damages the integrity of the members which is serves,” he said.

The Guild was “among the labor organizations that received covert funding from the CIA through conduit from ‘foundations’ for international-affairs programs. Guild leaders never explained, satisfactorily if at all, precisely who had made a decision so dangerous to the relations for independence and integrity of the members whose dues paid their salaries,” Mintz said in “Power, Inc.” “They never explained why their curiosity had not been stirred by as improbable an act as foundations giving $1 million to a labor union, why they had failed to notice news stories naming the particular foundations as CIA funnels, why they had never looked at public records on their benefactors, and why they had not celebrated the gifts with large headlines in the Guild Reporter,” the international union’s biweekly newspaper.

At its 1979 convention in Boston, the Guild continued its custom of meeting after a dinner break — and on one significant night, dispensed with the hospitality suite — to take care of necessary business.

As in 1967, the 1979 convention’s Resolutions Committee drafted a final report — just two paragraphs — for the delegates to consider. The final sentence of the first report read: “A resolution removing authority for the IEB to use government or corporate funds in conducting an international affairs program was rejected.” This means the issue never got to the convention floor for discussion and debate, let alone action.

After the committee report was moved for adoption, delegate Larry Hatfield from the San Francisco- Oakland local moved substitute language for the international-affairs sentence of the report, reading: “Be it resolved that the 1979 Convention of The Newspaper Guild reverse the policy, effective immediately, of the 1967 Guild Convention that authorized acceptance and use of government funds for international trade-union activities. Be it further resolved that no money from private corporations be accepted for similar purposes.”

Hatfield gave the floor to Perlik, who how IEB had given its approval to accepting money for use in international affairs the previous October, but in taking the pulse of delegates in Boston, had asked the union’s international chair to recess the convention and call the IEB into session “where I could report that, in my judgment, a new decision had to be made on that October action.”

Perlik said he had told the IEB that “deep and difficult divisions had been reached which boded ill for The Newspaper Guild, and it seemed to me the remaining business was to see to it that that decision was made an official action of this Convention in as harmonious and as beneficial a way as we could possibly devise,” hence the substitute language. “I think there are people out there in this world who need our help. It is obvious there is a will and a desire by this union to provide it. It is incumbent upon us now to find the kind of financing and resources that are acceptable to everyone.”

As if to leave no doubt, Wade read into the record a statement that current projects with the African- American Labor Center and the International Federation of Journalists, and any others “involving direct

or indirect acceptance or use by the Guild of government or corporate grants will be terminated.” The motion carried on a voice vote. After some laudatory remarks by Hatfield, the convention recessed for the night at 1:50 a.m.

While this effectively put the nails in the coffin of the Guild’s involvement in international affairs, there was an effort to pry open the casket lid at the 1980 convention.

The San Jose Guild local had stated its intent to participate in a program in Costa Rica that July sponsored by the Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees. A minority report from the convention’s Foreign Affairs Committee produced a resolution calling on locals “to investigate thoroughly such programs befor[e] agreeing to participate in them,” and to “report in writing to the International Executive Board the results of such investigations when they have agreed to participate in such programs in the Guild’s name.” This was being proposed, its backers said, to adhere to “the principle of local autonomy.”

Asked whether such a proposal defied the 1979 convention’s intent, Guild counsel David Barr said, “It’s clear that TNG cannot dispatch one of its officers to a meeting that is government-sponsored and the government pays for, where the expenses of that officer are paid by that international organization. It is also clear that that a local union cannot do likewise.”

But Harry Fisdell of the New York local argued that the loss of local autonomy was “not contemplated” by delegates in passing the 1979 resolution. “We represent people who can think and who can reason and who can, after proper investigation, decide what is right and what is wrong, and we want the opportunity to continue to do just that,” he said to applause.

John Edgington, a delegate from San Diego who would later become the Guild’s secretary-treasurer, also backed the minority report. “If, for example, I am asked to come to Mexico to speak on freedom of the press as a member of the Guild,” he asked, “should I then turn that down because we are 20 minutes away and because the international says we can’t?”

Guild VP Floyd Tucker, of the San Francisco-Oakland local, declared his opposition to the local-autonomy bid. “Clearly the several parts of the body cannot act in an unco-ordinated manner against the interest of the entire body,” Tucker said. “To argue otherwise is to invite chaos.”

Patty Lane, of the Vancouver-New Westminster local, observed that local autonomy was already limited elsewhere. “We are mandated by this convention to make certain proposals at the bargaining table,” she said. “We are mandated by the convention to carry out certain human rights objectives, and we are told by this convention that we must get strike sanction before we go on strike.” Cleveland delegate John Nussbaum blew another hole in the autonomy argument: “Citing local autonomy to claim the right to do something that The Newspaper Guild has said that The Newspaper Guild shall not do is sophistry to my mind.”

“Now, perhaps New York has a vast machine whereby they have all kinds of paid investigators that can get into subterfuge and counter insurgency and all kinds of things like that, but we sure as hell don’t, and I would like to know what the heck a local like San Jose or some of the other locals are going to do when they have to investigate something like this,” said Brian Dawson of the Southern Ontario (formerly Toronto) local. “I mean, if you have a pipeline into the workings of the CIA, that is fine, okay, but we have locals with one person, two people, no paid staff. How the heck are they supposed to properly

investigate something like this? They are open to all kinds of manipulation and usage and things, and they can be totally turned around by people whose job it is to do such things. This doesn’t prevent anybody from going anywhere to do anything for any reason. All it says is that you can’t take money from sources outside of the union to do it, and I don’t see what the problem is there.”

Another roll-call vote was necessary. This time, with only three locals absent from the floor during the count, the minority report went down to defeat, 216.4 to 175.7, with 2.9 votes abstaining.

Much has changed within the Guild since the 1967-80 period covered by this essay.

Acknowledging the growing presence of Canadian locals, the union changed its name in the 1970s to The Newspaper Guild. Following a merger in 1997 with the Communication Workers of America, it appended “-CWA” to its moniker. At the Guild’s 2013 sector conference, it renamed itself The NewsGuild-CWA to appeal to journalists who didn’t work at newspapers, as that industry continued to contract.

New York is no longer the largest local in TNG-CWA, but the Canadian Media Guild is, after the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. — in an effort to cut down on the number of unions with which it had to deal — called for elections between members of different unions to state their preference. The Canadian Media Guild ran the table and won every election, as Canada-based unions’ appeals for Canadian autonomy — which caused nine Canadian locals to cleave from the Guild in the early 1990s — failed to gain favor a decade later.

As the Guild has changed its name, so to has the American Institute for Free Labor Development. It first changed its name to the Free Trade Union Institute, or FTUI, prompting some union wags to mimic spitting sounds upon pronouncing the acronym. A second change in the early 2000s brought forth the unwieldy moniker American Center for International Labor Solidarity, later shortened to the current Solidarity Center moniker.

And the Washington-Baltimore Guild local, one of the early opponents to the use of suspect federal funds to run their union’s international affairs division? Its annual journalism awards competition bestows an award for investigative reporting named after Morton Mintz. And it took on the Solidarity Center as one of its bargaining units in 2002.


President Charles A. Perlik, Jr. pushed through the October International Executive Board meeting a controversial motion giving him the authority to re-institute an International Affairs Program starting in Latin America and financed through U.S. government funds.

The approval came on a 9 to 6 roll-call vote after a motion by Betsy Wade of New York, region 5 vice president, seeking to defer the proposal until the 1979 TNG convention was defeated by a similar 9 to 6 vote.

Wade’s motion would have recommended in the convention that the Guild, in offering all possible support for trade unionists in other countries, rely on its own funds, the funds of other unions

and bona fide individual gifts, but specifically avoid the use of any government funds in overseas projects.

The approved motion authorizes Perlik to continue discussions and negotiations with the African-American Labor Center, the American Institute of Free Labor Development (AIFLD) and the Asian-American Free Labor Institute on prospective contractual relationships with each of the institutes to enable TNG to undertake journalistic and trade union education programs and activities, and to enter into such contracts or memoranda of understanding on behalf of TNG.

All three groups receive most of their financing from the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) and a related limited amount from the AFL-CIO and other unions. Perlik’s proposal also seeks direct contracts with AID and TNG.

Perlik told the IEB the first step in reinstituting the program would be a three-week survey trip through Latin America to determine interest in the program. It would be financed by a $17,000 grant from AID.

The Guild’s International Affairs Program was ended to all extent and purposes in 1967 following disclosures by various newspapers that the Guild, then the American Newspaper Guild, had received more than $1 million in funds for the program through “foundations,” which were actually conduits for the Central Intelligence Agency. 

Perlik, who was then secretary-treasurer, confirmed receipt of the funds but denied knowledge of the CIA connection.

In the furor across this country and Canada raised by the disclosures, the IEB ended the Guild ties with the “foundations.” (IEB Cuts Foundation Ties,–Guild Reporter of March 24, 1967.

And at the 1967 convention, Guild officials were barred from accepting any funds from covert sources for such a program.

However, the convention did authorize the IEB to seek financing for international affairs which would be “completely open” and “if possible … from private sources” while continuing efforts to obtain government funds with the “preferred relationship” a contract with AID.

The 1967 convention acted after the 264 to 134 defeat of a minority report that would have forbidden use of any government funds.

During more than three and a half hours of debate in 1967, those seeking a complete shutoff of government funds argued that such funds received covertly or overtly put the Guild in the position of being an arm of U.S. foreign policy agencies and that Guild members, especially those reporting from overseas, would be tainted and lose credibility.

Perlik told the board at the October meeting that because of inadequate finances since 1967, TNG has not been able to live up to its “obligation to assist brothers and sisters struggling elsewhere against inferior salaries and working conditions and against widespread restrictions on press freedom.”

He said a full year’s budget for full scale international activities would be about $100,000

Albert Schtirbu of Buenos Aires, full-time paid secretary of the International Federation of Working Newspapermen’s Organizations under TNG former overseas effort, would be hired as a co- ordinator to develop the new Latin American program.

Perlik said the program seeks to develop Latin American journalists’ organizations into “strong representative unions and national federations that will affiliate with and collaboration with the International Federation of Journalists.”

He said the initial activity would be in Latin America because of a “substantial upsurge” in recent years of activity there by the Prague-based International Organization of Journalists, which opened a full-time secretariat in Mexico City in 1976.

Wade and others opposed the Guild’s acceptance of any government funds for such programs and they believe the exposure over the last 11 years of government duplicity and manipulation call for a reconsideration of the 1967 convention’s action which authorizes accepting government funds when the arrangement is completely in the open and when no conditions are placed upon the use of money other than the responsibility to use it to carry on the agreed upon program, and to provide accounting for such funds.

Wade told the IEB she thinks that AIFLD is far from open and above-board and that the 1967 convention mandate on “open” arrangements is not met by Guild operations through AIFLD. She had inserted into the IEB minutes a statement which she said backed up her position and cited allegations in a book by one-time CIA agent Philip Agee that AIFLD is CIA controlled.

Louis M. Calvert of San Jose, in opposing such funding, said that because AID is an arm of the State Department, accepting AID financing now would seem equivalent to adopting State Dept. policies.

Perlik said he knew of no one who could demonstrate that the CIA is still involved with AIFLD. Wade said she knew of no one who could demonstrate that it was not.

Voting with the majority in both roll calls were: Perlik; Elwood B. Bigelow of Portland, Robert C. Holt Jr. of St. Louis, John M. Lowe of Southern Ontario (Toronto), Faye McCracken of Memphis, David M. Mulcahy of New York, Richard V. Sabatini of Philadelphia, Harry S. Culver, international chairperson, and Secretary-Treasurer Robert M. Crocker.

Voting in opposition to the Latin America program were Vice Presidents Calvert, Wade, Carla Beck of Great Falls, Roger L. Stonebanks of Victoria, Floyd Tucker of San Francisco-Oakland and Diane M. Woodstock of Madison.

At the Fall meeting of the Middle-Atlantic District Council Oct. 28-29 in New York, a resolution was overwhelmingly passed deploring the projects as of doubtful value and the sending of a letter to Perlik in protest.

“Perlik Plans U.S. Financed TNG Program in Latin America.” Guild Forum, Oct. 31, 1978, page 1 ==

Morton Mintz, a reporter for the Washington Post, author, and member of the Washington- Baltimore Newspaper Guild, has reported for years on the controversy over Labor organization involvement in foreign affairs through U.S. funds and clandestine dealings with the CIA.

On September 1, 1964, he wrote a story in the Post which was headed: Hearing Looks Into CIA Role in Tax Probe of Charity Fund.

It was an account of an August 31, 1964, hearing of a House Select Small Business Subcommittee headed by Congressman Wright Patman (D-Tex.) at which the Andrew Hamilton Fund was among several “foundations,” identified as fronts for the CIA.

Not until February 1967, however, did Guild members learn that the Hamilton Fund was a CIA conduit to the American Newspaper Guild, as the international was then named. On February 18, 1967, the Post and Times each published acknowledgements by Charles A. Perlik, Jr., then secretary-treasurer of ANG and now president of The Newspaper Guild, and Richard P. Davis, then international affairs director of the union, that the ANG had received money through CIA front “foundations,” while claiming not to have known of the CIA connection.

As a Guild member, Mintz was in the forefront of those in the membership who opposed Guild involvement and sought a cutoff from all U.S. funding, covertly or overtly, to the Guild.

Mintz says today that having to report, write and speak out critically about involvements of an organization to which he belonged was most painful.

“Knowing that the strength of the Guild might well be damaged, it was disturbing and painful. But I felt and feel that the acceptance of any government funds by the Guild to foster such programs is wrong and, more seriously, damages the integrity of the members which is serves,” he says.

Mintz in his book Power, Inc. — Public and Private Rulers and How to Make them Accountable –, which was co-authored by Jerry S. Cohen, summed up his observations of the situation in the following paragraphs:

“Under President Kennedy, the Lovestone-Brown operation (an AFL-CIO International Affairs program) began to get open government money in addition to CIA funds. Kennedy said this was needed so “the talents and experience of the U.S. labor movement could be brought to bear on the danger that Castro … might undermine the Latin American labor movement.” The source of these new funds was the Agency for International Development.

“When Ramparts magazine in 1967 disclosed secret CIA funding to the National Student Association, other publications followed with disclosures that labor unions and other organizations also were receiving covert CIA funds. The Newspaper Guild was among the labor organizations that received covert funding from the CIA through conduit from “foundations” for international-affairs programs. Guild leaders never explained, satisfactorily if at all, precisely who had made a decision so dangerous to the relations for independence and integrity of the members whose dues paid their salaries. They never explained why their curiosity had not been stirred by as improbable an act as foundations giving $1 million to a labor union, why they had failed to notice news stories naming the particular foundations as CIA funnels, why they had never looked at public records on their benefactors, and why they had not celebrated the gifts with large headlines in the Guild Reporter. Thanks to protests mainly by the Washington-Baltimore and Detroit locals, the International Executive Board in March 1967 terminated its relations with the foundations. Still, the Newspaper Guild gratuitously had damaged the credibility of reporters, particularly those in overseas assignments.”

–“A Background on CIA Involvement,” Guild Forum, Oct. 31, 1978, p. 3 ==

“The following is the text of International Vice President Betsy Wade’s statement read into the record at the October IEB meeting in protest of President Perlik’s proposal on an International Affairs Program financed through government funds.

Over the summer I was told by someone I trust that President Perlik planned at this board meeting to bring up the question of the Guild’s signing a sub-grant with the American Institute of Free Labor Development. The basic grant would be between the American Institute for Free Labor Development and the Agency for International Development, known as AID, a United States government agency.

A 1976 sub-grant document, which was not approved by this board, provided that the Guild would undertake certain tasks in Latin America “designed to strengthen free democratic trade unions” in the newspaper field. The money would be provided by the American Institute for Free Labor Development, or AIFLD, which, under the basic grant would in turn be receiving the money from the Agency for International Development.

When President Perlik sought the approval of the IEB in 1976, he was refused this approval because the result was a tie vote, 8 to 8.

Let me now go back 11 years. Part of this material may be found in the records of a New York Newspaper Guild special membership meeting of March 6, 1967, and more will be found in the record of that year’s Guild convention, in Ottawa, starting on page 126.

What had happened to trigger the New York membership meeting was the disclosure in the press, starting with Ramparts magazine, Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, and later other publications, including the New York Times, that a number of foundations, some merely fronts, some quasi- legitimate, had been funneling CIA money into the international affairs programs of the Newspaper Guild, among other unions and organizations.

These foundations became known as “conduits” and the role of the guild in receiving almost a million dollars from them over six years caused an uproar in the membership. Various officers of the Guild asserted that they had not known that the money from the foundations had bene covert CIA money, but in any case the Guild agreed to stop taking money from the conduits, or another cover groups for the flow of Government funds.

For those of you who were not there, it may be hard to realize the tone and atmosphere of that gigantic general membership meeting. Some of our members, as we know, will seize upon any excuse to find fault with our union, and they were out in force. Many of us who have a long record of work and support for the Guild were also out in force, hoping, not to shove the matter under the carpet, but to get the Guild disengaged from this activity and its reputation restored.

The outcries were loud from reporters and editors who found themselves associated — and at that time we did not have a full union shop in the newsroom at the Times — with an organization that was doing what became known as government “dirty tricks.” I want to stress this aspect of the problem –

– the resentment and resistance that these revelations caused among a membership that was dependent upon voluntary sign-ups — because I think it has a great parallel with today.

Now we come to the Ottawa convention in 1967. The majority report of the convention resolutions committee authorized the IEB to continue projects overseas and to seek financing for them but with restrictions that included, among others, and I quot4:

$ “The arrangement must be completely open.”

$ “If possible funds should be from private sources such as foundations which can establish to the satisfaction of the IERB that their funds are, indeed, private.”

$ Efforts should continue to obtain a contractual relationship whereby government funds would be available…”

$ “The convention further asks the IEB to continue to bear in mind that the main task of ANG is to improve working conditions of members in Canada, the United States and Puerto Rico.”

There was a minority report. It was the same as the majority report except that it said: “No government funds will be accepted for the purpose of carrying on the international affairs program.” There was three hours of debate on the minority report, and it was defeated 134 and 4/9’s to 263 and 5/9’s. The majority report was adopted on a voice vote.

The authority of the majority report which has not since been altered is, along with the Guild Constitution, what underpinned the resolution that President Perlik presented to the IEB in January 1976, and the one that lost, 8 to 8.

At the meeting of the board in April 1976, the minutes show, Perlik reported that he had informed the International Federation of Journalists of the IEB’s wish not to participate in the international affairs program with the American Institute for Free Labor Development, the African- American Labor Center, and the Asian-American Free Labor Institute. He subsequently urged the IFJ to Re-establish its relationship with AALC and appealed to the AALC to do likewise. As a result of this renewal, a seminar has been scheduled for Lesotho, in southern Africa, in November under IFJ auspices. Instructional participation will be provided by the Guild but other arrangements will be handled by the IFJ.”

The Lesotho seminar was held and Bob Steinke of St. Louis participated and reported on this seminar.

And there the matter lay, so far as action by the IEB was concerned, until we heard that President Perlik was expected to try again with his sub-grant plan.

Lou Calvert and I, among others, thought it would be more helpful to put forth in advance a resolution specifically stating our intentions, so that new board members would not arrive unaware that the issue was coming, and so that the issue could be discussed informally before debate began.

There are two general steps that led to our resolution. I will summarize what I perceive them to be.

First, there is the intent of the 1967 convention mandate. It says that financing arrangements for Guild activity overseas must be, and I quote, “completely open.” It further says that funds should be for private sources, if possible. The convention resolution then says that efforts should be made for contractual arrangement “whereby government funds would be available,” preferably with the Agency for International Development. It seems clear that the 1967 convention opposed association with money from conduits or unknown sources, or even “laundered” money. That is the intent of the 1967 convention action.

There has been a lot of water under the bridge since 1967 so far as understanding the methods and activities of the CIA is concerned, and I think that the intent of the convention should be viewed in the light of what has been disclosed since. We had had the Pentagon Papers and numerous investigations in the press of CIA operations. 

We have also had the Marchetti-Marks book on the CIA: The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, which was published in the U.S.A. but was highly censored. Then we had Philip Agee’s book, “Inside the Company,” which was initially published in England to avoid censorship and has now been published here unexpurgated. Agee was s a CIA agent for 12 years until early 1976.

Before I quote from Agee’s book, which is in diary form from his CIA years, I want to repeat a warning be included: “the organizations he cites as front as CIA controlled groups, and so forth had such a status in the years he cites, and it should not be presumed that these groups necessarily continued to be CIA creatures.

However, Agee’s description of the setting up of the American Institute for Free Labor Development and of its ongoing funding principally by the Agency for International Development, and of its functions does not appear to have lost validity and I have heard no one say that AIFLD has been reorganized or redirected. The most recent report I have from the organization itself shows no withdrawal from the conditions Agee cites.

In the back of his book, in Agee’s list of those “financed, influenced or controlled” by the CIA, there is summarized the American Institute for Free Labor Development and how it works: “CIA- controlled labor center financed through AID. Programs in adult education and social projects used as a front for covering trade-union organizing activity.”

What he means by a “front for trade-union organizing activity” is made clearer in the text — “the U.S. government may want, for instance, to create a more friendly trade union force in a foreign country in opposition to a Communist or Socialist trade union, but the U.S. can’t go around organizing unions. So the institute did that work under the guise of education or social projects, but with U.S. Government money and direction.”

I will quote just a few of Agee’s references in the text to the American Institute for Free Labor Development, which is often referred to as AIFLD, or even sometimes as at the Guild convention as AIRFIELD.

“This new program … is to be channeled through the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), founded last year (1961) in Washington … Business leaders are front men on the Board of Directors so that large sums of AID Money can be channeled to AIFLD and so that the institute will appear to have the collaboration of U.S. business operating in Latin America.

“Nevertheless, legally, AIFLD is a nonprofit, private corporation and financing will also have to be obtained from foundations, businesses and the AFL-CIO … Although these training institutes will nominally and administratively be controlled by AIFLD in Washington, it is planned that as many as possible will be headed by salaried CIA agents with operational control exercised by the (overseas CIA) stations.”

“Quito, 1963: He’s strong to arrange to have Emilio Garza, the AIFLD man in Bogota, who is a recruited and controlled agent, come here … to make sure the AIFLD program is run the way Dean (the Quito CIA station chief) wants it run … sooner or later all the AIFLD programs will be run closely by the (CIA) stations…”

1966: “In Washington, the (Central Intelligence) Agency has arranged to have … the Communications Workers of America’s training school in Front Royal, Virginia, turned over to the AIFLD … Not a bad arrangement: 76 acres on the Shenandoah River where the isolation and control will allow for really close assessment of the students for future use in Agency labor operations … AIFLD hasn’t been exactly cheap: this year its cumulative cost will pass the 15 million dollar mark with almost 90 percent paid by the U.S. Government through AID and the rest form U.S. labor organizations and U.S. business…”

There is more, including a reference to the CIA role in the reestablishing of the International Federation of Journalists, but an entry for Mexico City for 1971 sums up rather succinctly:

“These measures constitute the four most important counter-insurgency programs through which the government strengthens the ruling minorities in Latin America. CIA operations, military assistance and training missions, Aid public safety programs to help police, and trade-union operations through (two other organizations) and AIFLD, all largely controlled by the CIA.:”

The details in the Agee book support my belief that the 1967 convention mandate on “open” arrangements is not met by Guild operations through AIFLD; I think that AIFLD is far from open and above-board and that in effect the Guild would be giving up its good name for use in a program whose motives are not direct and not clear and whose thrust is beyond our control.

The second step in the rationale of the resolution is the likely impact on the membership. I feel that in a time when the Guild, like all other unions, is under strong attack from the employers and is getting no help from the NLRB and needs all the solidarity, all the fighting strength it can muster, that such an involvement would once again be a blow to us internally. In a nutshell, I think that our membership in newsrooms in the U.S. and Canada, having over 11 years won many prizes and achieved many governmental reforms and through exposure of duplicity and manipulation, would be furious to find that its own union had a contractual relationship with a government -financed group whose history shows it to be a shield for covert actions by the CIA.

That is why I am a sponsor of this resolution. I think that the proposal for a new AIFLD sub-grant is unwise. I would like to head it off through a direct statement closing the door on involvement with Government-financed operations overseas.

–“Why TNG Vice President Opposes Perlik Program,” Guild Forum, Oct. 31, 1978, p. 3 ==

FINAL REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE Chairperson Culver: Are there other additions? Proceed, Larry?

Brother Hatfield (San Francisco-Oakland): Brother Chairperson, I would like to move a substitute for the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Final Report of the Resolutions Committee [which read, “A resolution removing authority for the IEB to use government or corporate funds in conducting an international-affairs program was rejected.”], to wit:

BE IT RESOLVED that the 1979 Convention of The Newspaper Guild reverse the policy, effective immediately, of the 1967 Guild Convention that authorized acceptance and use of government funds for international trade-union activities. Be it further resolved that no money from private corporations be accepted for similar purposes.

Chairperson Culver: Is there a second to the motion?
(Seconded by several.)
Chairperson Culver: It has been moved and seconded.
Brother Hatfield: Brother Chairperson, I should read the signatures on this Minority Report:

Larry D. Hatfield, San Francisco-Oakland; Laurence Wall, Winnipeg; Emily McDonald, Chattanooga; Raymond J. Dick, Washington-Baltimore; Eugene B. Jones, Philadelphia; William Salganik, Washington-Baltimore; Eugene Meyer, Washington-Baltimore; Joan Cook, New York; Douglas E. Davis, Victoria; George McCormick, Twin Cities; Richard M. Peery, Cleveland; Milt Whaley, Bakersfield; Richard Hubbell, Pacific Northwest; Kay Henneberger, Providence; Carolyn Toops, Terre Haute; Bill Wilson, Detroit; Susan Chicoine, Chicago; Anthony M. Natale, Cleveland, Mike Sweeney, Twin Cities; John B. Mitchell, Gary; Gerald Huntley, Southern Ontario; R. Emmett Murray, Pacific Northwest.

Brother McCarthy (Ottawa) Mr. Chairman, may I add the name of Katie FitzRandolph, alternate, please?

Chairperson Culver: Yes, Please add that name; Katie FitzRandolph.

Brother Cameron (Canadian wire Service): Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my name also.

Chairperson Culver: You are recognized to speak to your motion.

Brother Hatfield: For purposes of my opening remarks, I yield the floor to our president, Chuck Perlik.

President Perlik: Brother chairperson, brothers and sisters:

Eight months ago the International Executive Board authorized a program of international- affairs activity consistent with and supported by convention actions in 1967. 

Two hours ago I asked Chairperson Culver to recess this Convention and call the Board into session where I could report that, in my judgment, a new decision had to be made on that October action.

I told the Board that, indeed, I did believe a decision had been reached by the delegates to this Convention, but there remained an unfinished piece of business. It was quite clear that in the process of reaching that decision, deep and difficult divisions had been reached which boded ill for The Newspaper Guild, and it seemed to me the remaining business was to see to it that that decision was made an official action of this Convention in as harmonious and as beneficial a way as we could possibly devise.

I was concerned that in the process of reaching that decision through debate in this court a record would be built that would be to the everlasting pain of our union. I sought a way and an opportunity to avoid that so that division would not result any more than necessary, so that people who didn’t deserve or need to be hurt, or people whose motives needn’t be impugned, would not unnecessarily run that experience.

The product of that discussion with the Intentional Executive Board is before you. I do, indeed, think it reflects the decision of this union that is expressed by the delegates to this Convention, certainly by a substantial majority of them.

I think there are people out there in this world who need our help. It is obvious there is a will and a desire by this union to provide it. It is incumbent upon us now to find the kind of financing and resources that are acceptable to everyone.

I would hope you could join me in laying this issue behind us and vote for the report that was moved by Brother Hatfield.

(The audience rose and applauded.)

Chairperson Culver: Brother Hatfield is recognized.

Brother Hatfield; Thank you, Brother chairman.

I think the issues are clear and the arguments have been made, and I move for the question.

(Seconded by several.)

Chairperson Culver: Are you ready for the vote? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? The motion is adopted.

Chairperson Culver: I recognize Sister [Betsy] Wade.
Vice President Wade (New York): This is a statement for the record:

“The 1979 Convention, in adopting a new Guild policy on use of government money, notes that we are currently involved in seminars of the African-American Labor Center, as well as projects of the International Federation of Journalists using government and corporate money. It is understood that projects like these involving direct or indirect acceptance or use by the Guild of government or corporate grants will be terminated.”

Thank you.

Chairperson Culver: We now have before us the Final Report of the Resolutions Committee, as amended. Are you ready for the vote? All in favor, pleas say aye. Opposed? The motion is adopted.

Motion carried

Chairperson Culver: I recognize Larry Hatfield.

Brother Hatfield: Brothers and sisters, it is the strength of this union and of our brothers and sisters. I would like to say on behalf of many, many union members here, indeed, all the members in this room, to President Perlik and to all members of the International Executive Board, we offer our profound thanks for settling an issue that had the potential for seriously dividing the Guild, both here tonight and in all of our locals. You have done a great service to our union. The issue is gone, and it is time to get on with the business of the union. So let’s do it!

I move we recess until 9 a.m. this morning. (Applause)

(Seconded by several)

Chairperson Culver: Is there a second? All in favor, say aye. Opposed. The motion is carried, and we are recessed until 9 a.m.


(The convention recessed at 1:50 a.m.) ==


The 1980 Convention notes that the San Jose Newspaper Guild, Local 98, has agreed to participate in a seminar sponsored by the Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees (FOET) in Costa Rica, July 14-19, 1980.

The 1979 Convention action on foreign affairs restricted the Newspaper Guild’s involvement in such programs. In keeping with the spirit of that action, and in adherence to the principle of local autonomy, the 1980 Convection directs locals to investigate thoroughly such programs befor[e] agreeing to participate in them.

The Convention further directs locals to report in writing to the International Executive Board the results of such investigations when they have agreed to participate in such programs in the Guild’s name.

Signed: Peter Jones, New York ; David Isaac, Canadian Wire Service.

Chairperson [Harry] Culver: On my right.

Brother Isaac (Canadian Wire Service): Yes. A point of information. I have asked that the Guild general counsel answer this question.

Chairperson Culver: First, is there a second to this report?

Brother Isaac: I am seconding.

Chairperson Culver: All right. There is a request that David Eisen respond to a question — David Barr, I am sorry. We have so many famous Davids. Barr would probably prefer to have Eisen. Would you ask the question.

Brother Isaac: On the original motion, the one that we had the minority report on, did you not say in committee last night that the first paragraph of this is ambiguous and, therefore, really is no policy to an individual Guild member who may, because he is a trade unionist, be personally invited to take part in some sort of a seminar?

Counselor Barr: My answer in committee was in response to several specific hypothetical questions that you posed, an in response to the second of the hypotheticals you posed I said that I was not able to answer on that specific fact situation because the first paragraph read together with the action last year and the 1967 action, which was said to be reversed last year, was ambiguous with regard to that fact situation.

Brother Isaac: In other words, there is no provision for delineation of what the situation is for a member who may be personally invited — not through the Guild but with the knowledge, of course, that he is a member or officer of the Guild — to participate.

Counselor Barr: All right. Let me state the response another way.

This resolution, in order to determine how it applies to specific fact situations, such as the ones you posed in committee, has to be read with the 1967 Convention action and the 1979 Convention action that purported to reverse it.

Reading the three in combination, it is not difficult to interpret what the convention’s will is with regard to certain conduct.

For example, it’s clear that TNG cannot dispatch one of its officers to a meeting that is government-sponsored and the government pays for, where the expenses of that officer are paid by that international organization.

It is also clear that that a local union cannot do likewise on those fact situations.

On the other end of the spectrum — and I think I responded in that fashion at the committee meeting last night — if an organization of that type issued an invitation directly to an individual member of that union, directly to an individual member of this union invited him to participate as a trade unionist, without being labeled a Guild member and his participation did not involve a delineation of Guild policy, then it seemed to me clear the convention would not prohibit that activity. But the moment you got me into a situation of responding to hypotheticals between those two positions, I had difficulty responding to you and said so, and the reason is that it is not clear what this convention or last year’s convention would wish and would mandate in regard to each of those specific fact situations that you posed to me.

Chairperson Culver: Harry Fisdell.

Brother Fisdell (New York): I speak in support of the minority position, minority report, and I want to tell you why; First of all, I would like to describe to you what the intent of this report is and what the intent of this report, minority report, is not.

The intent is to provide for local autonomy. What it does not seek to do and what it does not do is to abrogate the 1979 decision of this convention that the Guild international shall not participate in programs which are funded by government and/or corporate money.

This minority report was written in response to rally, the majority report which passed the Resolutions Committee last night.

Our fear was that what has happened has not been a compromise, but what has happened has been, perhaps inadvertently, the loss of local autonomy on this issue. We don’t think that was contemplated in 1979.

If you read the minority resolution, what it says is that a local, if approached to participate in a government program, must thoroughly investigate such program before it can agree to it. It has been directed by the convention to do so.

Obviously what the locals would have to look at are thing like (a) in its judgment is this a Guild trade union program whose objective is really solely to improve the wages and the working conditions and the lives of workers and their families in other parts of the world; does the Guild have control of that program; can the Guild amend that program in the event that it feels an amendment to that program is necessary.

By “the Guild,” I mean the Guild local.

If those questions are answered in the affirmative and it is the wish of the local to participate in such program, we say there is no reason why local autonomy under those conditions should not be exercised. We feel that our locals negotiate contracts with publishers, make decisions, have the ability to think, have the ability to discriminate, and that nobody should take that away from them. That’s what we say to publishers. We represent people who can think and who can reason and who can, after proper investigation, decide what is right and what is wrong, and we want the opportunity to continue to do just that. (Applause.)

However, we hedge it in even with further restrictions. We say that we are not the sole fount of wisdom. We know our motivation is good. We believe we will conduct that kind of investigation. We are certainly not going to support a program which is designed to repress people instead of to help them. But we stipulate further in here that following such an investigation, following an acceptance, consult with the international, get back to the IEB. Maybe there is something they know or see that we don’t see, so that if we are advised, “Hey, there’s something wrong here,” can rectify that decision, too.

What we are interested in doing is not reversing the convention mandate of last year but keeping alive the principle and believe that our people on the local level that we represent have the right to think, to judge, to act and to represent people that we tell the publishers can think for themselves. Nobody ought to take that away from us.

We urge that you support this minority resolution. (Applause.)

Chairperson Culver: Bob Steinke, St. Louis.

Brother Steinke (St. Louis): I think if one of our members gets an invitation to go to Finland, and Finland is sending the money to that individual, and our Executive Board approves that action and our local approves that action, I don’t think the International Executive Board has any right to try to take it [a]way, and I will close with this. All the brains in this union are not on that IEB, and don’t forget it. We got some brains, too. (Applause.)

Chairperson Culver: John Edgington.

Brother Edgington (San Diego): I rise to support the minority resolution. I think there’s probably a great deal of confusion about what was done at last year’s convention with regard to the local, and I think it is about time that we had some general direction as to what we can or what we can’t do, either as locals or as individuals.

I think there are a number of programs this union is involved in which could conceivably fall under the control of TNG or under TNG’s mandate, none the least of which would be the Harvard Trade Union program. There are a number of persons who have attended Harvard from this international union. There are a number of other trade union students there who are sponsored by their countries or by labor organizations within their countries. It is an exchange of information, but it is certainly something that could come under question if the resolution or the interpretation is placed on last year’s mandate as encompassed in the first resolution, the yellow resolution.,

I don’t support the government paying my way to go somewhere as a Guild member, but I don’t also believe that this international union ought to set restrictions on that. 

If, for example, I am asked to come to Mexico to speak on freedom of the press as a member of the Guild, should I then turn that down because we are twenty minutes away and because the international says we can’t?

I think that what we ought to be doing is spreading the word about freedom of the press because Mexico is certainly one of those areas which certainly needs more of a free press than they have in their country today. We have had problems with journalists being incarcerated in Mexico. We have passed resolutions in our executive board to support Mexican journalists, and if I am asked to come and speak or any member of this local is asked to come and speak, we are going to go, with or without the permission of TNG, because freedom of the press is something we believe in.

We don’t think there ought to b restrictions on the locals, and for that reason we are going to support the minority report. (applause.)

Chairperson Culver: Roy.

Brother Kruse (Hawaii): Mr. Chairperson, what Harry explained while he tried to explain his position on the motion was the intent of that motion, the intent of the minority report.

If you were here at our last convention and the convention in 1977, you would recognize that there was an intent when that was passed also. The intent is that we are here as representatives of our local. We are here to determine the policies of The Newspaper Guild.

We are not here to just leave the decisions that we make here up to TNG. What that means is that we make the decisions, and that’s why we have been elected to come here.

On the other hand, if I was asked in the middle of the Pacific to go to Japan, to go to Australia or any other Pacific-based country to speak about The Newspaper Guild, I should not go as a representative of The Newspaper Guild because my feelings may not be The Newspaper Guild’s feelings, but if I went of a representative of the Hawaii Newspaper Guild —

What this motion means is that local autonomy must remain. We make the rules that establish what this TNG is, and TNG should not be telling us then what the question we have decided here is. We decided that in 1979, in 1977, and I think that the minority report provides us with the necessary local autonomy that is needed in the Guild, and I urge you to vote for the minority report.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Chairperson Culver: Barry Lipton.

Brother Lipton (New York): I speak in favor of the minority report, the intent of which is to preserve the all important autonomy of both the individual members and the locals of this union.

It does not fly in the face of the 1979 Convention action on restricting the Guild’s involvement in foreign affairs programs. It simply preserves our all important right to make decisions for ourselves, and I strongly urge its adoption. (Applause.)

Chairperson Culver: Floyd.

Vice President Tucker (San Francisco-Oakland): Brother Chairperson, I rise to oppose this minority report. Clearly the several parts of the body cannot act in an unco-ordinated manner against the interest of the entire body. To argue otherwise is to invite chaos.

I think it is clear also that it is an important interest and policy of The Newspaper Guild that our union should not accept funds from government or private corporate sources to participate in foreign programs abroad. I think the record of the 1979 Convention illustrates truly that this is an important policy of our union. Only chaos can result if the local unions are free to pursue divergent sources of policy from the parent union.

I think that it’s obvious in the name “union” that the parts of the union by joining have surrendered some measure of autonomy. This does not restrict local autonomy. It defines one very narrow, specifically defined area in which the union, the parent union, has defined the limits of its interest, its interest which crossed by the local unions would be chaotic in the future of our organization.

Thank you. (Applause.)
Chairperson Culver: Dave.
Vice President Mulcahy (New York): Mr. Chairperson, Dave Mulcahy, New York.

I rise to support the minority resolution. Earlier some of the speakers discussed the action of the 1979 Convention. It could well be considered that the action of the 1979 Convention would impede local autonomy, and Mr. Chairpersons, fellow delegates, this is exactly what this minority report speaks to. One of the prior speakers spoke, used the word “chaos.” I see no chaos here whatsoever. What I see in

this minority report, and I reiterate, “The convention further directs locals to report in writing to the International Executive Board the results of such investigations when they have agreed to participate in such programs in the Guild’s name.” I think it is totally clear, and I think some of the prior figures have said it far more eloquently than I, and that is, that we feel that local autonomy is the issue. We want to maintain local autonomy, and we ask for your support.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Chairperson Culver: David Isaac.

Brother Isaac (Canadian Wire Service Guild): I was on the committee that drafted this original, the main resolution, and I felt at the time that it caused a great deal of problems for a lot of us, particularly in my local.

My local has the majority of its employees working for a government funded agency. News in our jurisdiction at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We fought long and hard for 28 years to maintain that. I have gone on strike to maintain that jurisdiction, and our position is news. Having the jurisdiction over news at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, we are, on occasion because of that, asked to attend, as participants, international seminars.

As I read the main motion, we wouldn’t be allowed to do that in the future. It goes further. The Canadian Labour Congress has a labor college funded in part by the Canadian Government. It on occasion deals with international affairs. None of us as members of the Guild would then be able to attend that.

Sister Lane (Vancouver-New Westminster): Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I believe the speaker has already spoken.

Brother Isaac: Point of personal privilege.

I asked questions of the general counsel on a point of information.

Chairperson Culver: Yes, it was a point of information awhile ago. I was concerned about the same thing and had second thoughts, and he is correct.

Brother Isaac: Thank you.

Let’s examine the issue closely. If one of us were to be invited as an individual to a labor congress or labor seminar on an international basis, why would we be invited? Would we be invited because we are a lot of fun to get along with or because we lose as poker or because we make people laugh by wiggling our ears? Of course not. We are invited because we are trade unionists and Guild members, and the two cannot be separated.

I hate to draw this analogy. I have used it several times to try to come up with a compromise, and I know people don’t like the idea of prior restraint, but that is what we are doing. You know, we have had a problem in the past where we have been possibly involved with possible questionable groups. If we as journalists, as many of us are, had written a story five years ago about a corrupt politician and had been sued and lost and w now had new information on another corrupt politician, what would our reaction be if our publisher or supervisor said, “No, we can’t use that because we lost

last time.” We’d say, “No, let’s check it out. Let’s make sure we know where are going. Let’s make sure we’re right and go.”

That’s what I’d say in this case. Let’s leave the authority to the Guild, the local Guild, to check out, make absolutely sure we know where we are going but still have the opportunity to participate. (Applause.)

Sister Lane (Vancouver-New Westminster): Mr. Chairperson, I have two points I wish to address.

The first one is the issue of local autonomy. It seems to me that a great deal is being made out of this issue. Locals have their autonomy limited. We are mandated by this convention to make certain proposals at the bargaining table. We are mandated by the convention to carry out certain human rights objectives, and we are told by this convention that we must get strike sanction before we go on strike.

I put it to you that there is a precedent for the limitation of local autonomy if indeed that is the issue.

The second point that I wish to address is that I do not think that local autonomy is the issue. The issue here is the acceptance of government or private funds. If a local wishes to pay its own way to Finland, they are free to do so.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Chairperson Culver: Emmett.

Brother Murray (Pacific Northwest): Patty Lane just about stole all my thunder. There is a great deal of stress being placed on local autonomy here, and I wanted to make the same point that she did, and she did it very well. At the bargaining table you are not entirely free of TNG.

This, the original motion, not the substitute, not the minority report, if you read it, really does nothing to abrogate the rights of locals. As Sister Lane put it, if you want to send somebody to Finland, go ahead. It has nothing to do with that. That is the point I wish to make.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Brother Nussbaum (Cleveland) : I would like to oppose the minority.

In opposition to the minority resolution, I think it is time that we consider exactly what is being evoked here when local autonomy is being called into play.

Local autonomy that is being asked here is not local autonomy from TNG or local autonomy from the IEB. What they are asking for is local autonomy from the policy of TNG as set by the 1979 convention. It is true that the wisdom of this union does not lie in the IEB, as Harry Fisdell has said.

But the wisdom does not lie in the locals, either. The wisdom lies in the members as represented by the convention, and the 1979 Convention did set policy, and citing local autonomy to claim the right to do something that The Newspaper Guild has said that The Newspaper Guild shall not do is sophistry to my mind.

Thank you.

Chairperson Culver: Drew Von Bergen.

Brother Drew Von Bergen (Wire Service): I, too, am unhappy with the majority report. I don’t think it is strong enough and, as such, I oppose the minority report.

Those of you who were here last year at the convention know what happened and know that today there would be no question about what the intent of the convention last year was, except for the fact that the majority of last year’s convention, in an effort to keep the union together, and in an effort to avoid a bitter floor fight, agreed to have things said from the floor, agreed to have President Perlik take action within the IEB and agreed to avoid having a lot of language which would have clarified this issue be not in the proceedings of the convention.

There is nothing at all that prevents a local or the TNG or any member from attending any of these conferences that they wish. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they can do it accepting funds from government or accepting funds from a corporation. So we should not believe that this is a local autonomy issue. If any local in the TNG wants to send someone to a foreign conference, they can do it. This only says they can’t do it using corporate or government funds.

Again, I think all those who were here last year, just think back and remember what the issue was then. And, as I say, I don’t think this is strong enough, but I guess I didn’t learn my lesson very well, and I am willing to accept what I think is a watered down resolution again.

Chairperson Culver: Victor.

Brother Ciuccio (Denver): Brother Chairman, Ciuccio, Denver Local.

I rise to speak in support of the minority report I beg to differ with Brother Tucker’s analogy that all parts of the body must work together. All parts to not work together even though they eventually work out their differences. Right now, in fact, my head hurts, I have a backache, my little toe says “don’t run today,” but I must play through my injuries and work it out for myself. (Applause.)

Chairperson Culver: Steve.

Brother Hatch (Cleveland): Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely ironic that a resolution which raises the flag of local antonomy [sic] in fact directs locals to do something. (Applause).

Chairperson Culver: Jerry.

Brother Minkkinen (Chicago): I rise in opposition to the minority report, and I find myself in the position similar to that of one of our sisters earlier today who indicated that she felt as though she was speaking against motherhood, and I think that the issue that was presented before us is somewhat similar, like as before, local antonomy. [sic] I think, has very little to do with what we are dealing with all week long.

All of us have had the arguments, all of us understand the various merits of positions, and I think that it should be very clear that with regard to the issues that we are talking about, this convention and the members here in this convention have not only the right but also the responsibility to determine the principles under which we are going to act, not only as an international union but with regard to its subordinate bodies.

We stated those principles in 1979. Unfortunately, there has been some miscommunication, there have been some mistakes made. There have been things that have happened that have caused us to be at each other’s throats in some measure.

I hope that we can put this measure to rest, and I urge you very strongly to defeat this minority report. Let’s get on with it, and let’s get on with this convention.

I thank you. (Applause.)

Chairperson Culver: Over here.

Brother Brian Dawson (Southern Ontario): The difficulty we face here is that we are being asked to support the minority report versus the original motion which came out. I really can’t understand how a body of newspaper people find it so difficult, certain members of the newspaper industry find it so difficult, to perceive what the heck the original thing was saying. They have twisted and distorted the meaning of it so thoroughly, brought in all kinds of things, the next thing I expect to hear is that they are suggesting that this somehow is against freedom of the press, and they are bringing in all kinds of obscene things which I think are totally destroying the nature of this, and they are causing divisiveness within our ranks.

In connection with the original motion that was brought in, it clarifies what was basically an error in procedure or loophole left in the 1979 statement and that is quite clear.

In 1979 I think it is obvious to everyone that the intent of the original resolution that was brought in was to restrict activities by the union whereby those activities were paid for by outside sources which we may or may not know the ulterior motives of those sources. In other words, so that ten years down the road some anti-union forces should not point their finger at the union and say they have bene accepting money from the CIA or perhaps from the KGB.

Now, they want us to pass a substitute motion or a minority report that says, well, all we want to do is investigate it. Now, perhaps New York has a vast machine whereby they have all kinds of paid investigators that can get into subterfuge and counter insurgency and all kinds of things like that, but we sure as hell don’t, and I would like to know what the heck a local like San Jose or some of the other locals are going to do when they have to investigate something like this. I mean, if you have a pipeline into the workings of the CIA, that is fine, okay, but we have locals with one person, two people, no paid staff. How the heck are they supposed to properly investigate something like this? They are open to all kinds of manipulation and usage and things, and they can be totally turned around by people whose job it is to do such things. This doesn’t prevent anybody from going anywhere to do anything for any reason. All it says is that you can’t take money from sources outside of the union to do it, and I don’t see what the problem is there.

In the original motion nobody is suggesting San Jose is in the wrong or being stepped on. We are jus saying an error was made in the 1979 Convention, and we want to plug that loophole.

Now, as a member of a Canadian local, I think if anybody is going to scream about local autonomy, it is the Canadian locals, but we recognize that we represent the Guild and, therefore, it behooves us to follow a path of action that makes sure we don’t get eh Guild into hot water.

Now, if somebody wants to go to a convention as a working journalist, as a member of the press, a s a private individual, there is nothing in here that says they can’t. “There is nothing in here that even says they can’t accept foreign money to go as a member of the working press, and I think it is foolish for somebody to get up and say that somehow this restricts a person form going.

The original motion is quite clear. It says, states, that locals or members actin gin the name of the Guild. It means that some member somewhere out there or some local somewhere out there cannot stand up and broadcast the fact that they belong to the international Newspaper Guild — okay — and purport to be representative of the opinions of the body.

Chairperson Culver: One minute.

Brother Dawson: I don’t want to be in a position of having somebody somewhere down the road tell me that I am an agent of some weird force — CIA, KBG, [sic] or what have you, all kinds of things. We know the way publishers and other anti-union forces try to twist these things around.

I don’t want somebody pointing a finger at me and saying, “Well, it is a well known fact The Newspaper Guild is a paid agent of so-and-so.” Therefore, I think we have to have unanimity on this. We have to have some sort of standard policy that we can all agree to and follow.

I strongly, strongly urge you to support the minority. I think that is important. (Applause and cheers.)

Hold it. Hold it. Sorry. Hang in there.

(The New York delegates arose and applauded).

Brother Dawson: Mr. Chairman — (Prolonged applause.) I think that just goes to show you, it just goes to show you the influence good old Harry’s got around here. He can even put thoughts into your head. And Harry — wonderful.

No, it is quite clear what I was saying. It is essential that we vote against this minority report. Thank you. (applause.)
Chairperson Culver: Well, there is nothing like having both sides.

Brother Calvert (San Jose): Well, here we are again. (Laughter.) And it is a pity. It really was my fond hope that the convention had given a proper, a decent and permanent burial to this issue last year. Obviously, the grave wasn’t deep enough. And that’s really too bad.

I thought the message was quite clear. For the good of the Guild, for the good of the Guild, get out of these programs and stay out.

That was the message. It didn’t work. There was a backdoor approach. The majority report of the Resolutions Committee addresses that issue. It is not addressing, not restricting the local’s involvement as so many speakers have said before me.

For eleven months last year’s directive was heeded and then came that backdoor approach.

Some would have you believe that this resolution destroys the local’s autonomy. It is simply not so. That’s the majority report.

What it says is that, consistent with all the other constitutional and policy restraints that are adopted by this convention, or by any other convention, and that are passed by other conventions in the future, we have to abide by them. Certainly, how else could we operate if we didn’t have that kind of a structure?

The commitment of the people involved in this particular issue is a very cold commitment, the kind of commitment that all of us in this room have and that is to this great union that we call ours. It is our organization. We are proud of it, and we want to continue to be proud of it. That’s why we don’t want even the potential to sully our name.

We don’t expect, however, to have to come here year after year after year in order to rebury an issue that should not have been resurrected in the first place.

I urge a vote against the minority report. (Applause.)

Brother Patrick Gilbert (Washington-Baltimore); The Washington-Baltimore Local always has been, is right now, and will continue to be one of the strongest proponents of local autonomy because they are autonomists. But I am here to speak against the minority report because I can see instances where a local can undertake the kinds of programs or activities that the majority report is trying to prevent that could cause irreparable harm to this international regardless of whether those programs or activities are undertaken in the name of TNG or in the name of that local. And, I say, if that happens and we don’t have an international any more, we don’t have local autonomy, because we don’t have locals, because we won’t have a union.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Chairperson Culver: Richard.

Brother Perry [sic]: I think it is with typical Guild irony that we are in such a heated debate over local autonomy only to be exercised thousands of miles from our shores. (Laughter.)

The fact is that the majority report would not prohibit the exercise of such local autonomy, and I am glad of that. I think that we have to recognize that the international does have the right and the obligation to set certain restrictions and certain mandates on all of our locals. Otherwise we wouldn’t have an international.

There were numerous groups of newspaper workers through the country before 1933, and they went all over the map, and they did all kinds of things that were at variance with each other, and it was only when Heywood Broun issued the call for us to come together that we were able to sit down and establish rules and regulations so that we don’t conflict with each other.

I am happy to say that there is nothing in this majority report that gives the IEB or any other local or international person the right to come into a local meeting to dictate what much be done on the local level to anybody, and if they try to do it, we can kick them out, and there is nothing here that says they have a right to do it.

There are certain things that affect the international broadly that certainly the IEB and the international officers and the convention have the right to control. We cannot, for instance, approve the most basic local activity — that is a contract — without the international being involved and saying it is okay. So there is precedent for international mandates to locals in some areas — and those areas that would jeopardize the international — not in those areas in which the local should have freedom or could operate freely without in any way hurting the international.

In this instance, when we are talking about going miles form our shores, we are talking about going to Latin America or wherever, the behavior of anyone acting in the name of the guild obviously has something to do with everyone in the Guild, and it is proper for the convention to sift the guidelines and the mandates to see that what is done is proper and is not harmful to the rest of us. (Applause).

Chairperson Culver: Betty Anderson, center mike.

Sister Anderson (Pacific Northwest): This is my first convention, and everybody refers to the 1979 convention, and a lot of freshmen may not have read a copy of the proceedings to really understand the whole issue.

I have a question and I have a comment after that question is answered.

Action taken by the convention the year before, does that mandate policy that is to be followed by all the locals the following year?

Chairperson Culver: Brother Barr? The answer is yes. Sister Anderson: The answer is yes?
Chairperson Culver: Yes.

Sister Anderson: Okay. I have another question also. Does the word “the Newspaper Guild” refer specifically to the international officers of the Guild or does that refer to everybody that is a Guild member?

Chairperson Culver: Brother Barr, would that not depend on the context in which it is used? Yes, it would depend on the context in which it is used.

Sister Anderson: I interpret that this resolution from the 1979 convention — I interpret that to mean that it governs everything that our organization does, which means the locals who are affiliates of this organization, and I think that the majority report is redundant. I think that the minority report is unnecessary, because we have already passed that in 1979, and we are to follow that policy, and I think that we all are intelligent people so that in the meantime if we get invitations, that we should investigate them anyway.

Is this organization that has invited San Jose government backed? And if it is, we shouldn’t even allow them to go this year.

Brother [Bill] Salganik (Washington-Baltimore): I am sorry that Brother Minkkinen said that local autonomy is a motherhood issue. I would have hoped with our raised consciousness he would have said it is a parenthood issue. (Applause.)

But I otherwise rise to support what he said.

There are times when two strong principles are in conflict, and one must to some extent yield. The labor movement has fought long and hard and still fights long and hard for seniority rights in areas like promotion, but when seniority rights interfered with the promotion of women and minorities, we realized that this was a time when a strong principle had to yield.

Yesterday this convention mandated locals, ordered locals, to file information with the international on their local employees, and there were not too many people who rose then to save the flag of local autonomy. And I think that is because the people here did not have any problem seeing why a strong principle such as local autonomy should yield somewhat to our strong commitment to human rights.

All right. Why should local autonomy yield somewhat on this issue? The reason that this issue has been fought in various forums since 1967 is because people felt that for the union to take government or corporate money looked bad. For a local of this union using the name of this union to take government or corporate money for this type of activity will look as bad.

Chairperson Culver: On my right.

Brother Reed (Montreal): This is my first convention, as well. I want to speak and make very plain my opposition to the minority report, and I have a slightly different perspective that I would like to offer in terms of how we can view this issue.

I think that the issue of so-called local autonomy is essentially a subterfuge. I think what this issue is, at least from my point of view, is the issue of the autonomy of our movement, the trade union movement as a whole.

It appears to be very clear that the employers or agents in governments would like nothing better than to control our movement, to dictate to it one way or the other how it will proceed with its affairs., what it will say and how it will operated. It seems to be the essential, fundamental bedrock on which our every other union is based that we will operate our own affairs and finance our own affairs, and if we can’t do it, it is a sign, unfortunately, of our weakness, but it also indicates to us what we must do to correct that.

One of my brothers from Canada mentioned the funding by the Canadian government of labor education schools. It seems to me that is an ill chose example. It strike me as a government which legislates the end to a postal strike, as the Canadian government did two years ago, is not in a potion to tell the labor movement or to offer it labor union education. It gave us, in fact, education in the negative sense, and that is an education I think we can do without.

It seems me that any sort of intervention by governments or employer-bodies in the affairs of our union are to be discouraged, and the autonomy of our movement is what is at stake. That to me is the fundamental issue, and therefore, I would oppose the minority report.

Thank you. (Applause.) Chairperson Culver: Dorothy.

Sister Struzinski: I rise in opposition to the minority report, and very briefly going to what one of the brothers had already spoken to the very nature of the union organization, that when we join that union, we do indeed give up some autonomy. And let me emphasize, some autonomy.

This issue before you now does not put up a broad barrier on local autonomy. It defines only one tiny part, one tiny part of autonomy.

And for those of you who joined The Newspaper Guild many years ago, you may have forgotten the membership card you signed. It says, the last sentence, “I pledge myself to abide by the Constitution of The Newspaper Guild and the bylaws of the local guild.” No local bylaws can be in conflict with the Constitution, and the Constitution says that the convention shall be the supreme authority. We have set the policy here.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Brother Bretts (Gary): I was to thank the sister from Washington for taking most of what I was going to say. There wasn’t any collaboration.

What is happening here — I speak also in opposition to the minority report. What we are here talking about ostensibly is local autonomy. Does the convention — should the convention legislate, mandate, direct locals Article IV, Section 1 of the TG Constitution, which we should read, says that the international Convention is composed of delegates of locals, and they shall be the supreme authority of TNG. If we talk really about local autonomy, why not sign sweetheart contracts? That is a great example of it. We know what’s the attitude to that.

With that I would move to close debate and call the question. (Seconded by several.)
Brother Edgington: Out of order.
Chairperson Culver: I don’t hear a second to that motion.

Go ahead.

(Cries of “It was seconded.”)

Brother Dick (Washington-Baltimore): Mr. Chairman.

Chairperson Culver: I’m sorry. Was the motion to close debate? What was the motion that was made that somebody challenged?

Brother Bretts: Pardon me?

Chairperson Culver: What was the motion that you made and somebody said was out of order — somebody challenged?

Brother Bretts: To close debate, call the question.
Chairperson Culver: I see. Well, such a motion is in order, but I don’t hear any seconds. (Seconded by several.)

Chairperson Culver: All rights. This requires — a motion for the previous question requires twelve seconds from five locals.

Brother Dick: Point of order.

Chairperson Culver: Yes, Ray.

Brother dick: Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe that the brother can move the question because he just spoke on it.

Chairperson Culver: I couldn’t hear you.

Brother Dick: I don’t believe that the brother can move the question because he spoke — he was speaking at the time.

(Cries of “that’s right.”)
Chairperson culver: Yes. You are correct. You are correct.
Brother Dick: Am I recognized?
Chairperson Culver: Yes, you are recognized.
Brother dick: I move for the question. (Laughter and applause.)
(Seconded by several.)
Chairperson Culver: all right. We need seconds.
Vice President Lowe: Harry, John Lowe, Southern Ontario. Second.
Brother Stewart: Vic Stewart, Albany, second.
Vice President Tucker; Floyd tucker, San Francisco-Oakland, second.
Sister Balkan: Donna Balkan, Ottawa, second.
Vice President Walker-Tyson: Walker-Tyson, Detroit, second.
Brother Jones; Eugene B. Jones, Philadelphia, seconds.
Brother Scheer: Jim Scheer, Ottawa, seconds.
Brother Hinz: Greg Hinz, Chicago, second.
Brother Littlemore: Ric Littlemore, Winnipeg, seconds.
Brother Rieger: Rieger, Toledo, second.
Brother Hatch: Hatch, Cleveland, seconds.
Brother Bradford; John Bradford, Victoria, second.
Chairperson Culver. We have enough. One moment.
All right: We will vote at this time on the motion to adopt the previous question.

I would remind you that the maker of the motion will have the right to close if this passes.

All in favor of moving the previous question, which closes debates, please say aye. Opposed? All right, the motion carries.


Chairperson Culver: If the maker of the emotion on the minority report cares to close, he may do so, and that will conclude debate.

Brother Jones (New York): Mr. Chairman, Peter Jones, maker of the motion. I waive my right to close.

Chairperson Culver: All right. We will take the vote at this time on the minority report. Brother [unidentified]: What color, Harry?
Chairperson Culver: It is the pink report, labeled, “Foreign Affairs.”
Al in favor of adoption of the minority report please say aye. All opposed?

(Cries of “roll call.”)

Chairperson Culver [sic]: Let’s have a show of hands on this. Maybe we can avoid a roll call. Would you have the tellers come forward. Rick Sabatini, Barbara Davis, John Edgington, please.

Chairperson Culver: all right. We are going to ask those on each side to stand when we take the vote, so please, everybody–

Brother [Richie] Brandow: Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully call for a roll call vote.

Brother Stewart: Vic Stewart, Albany, seconds.

Chairperson Culver: Just a moment. All right. There is a motion for a roll call. We want to get the names of the locals and seconds.

Anna, you are recognized.

Sister Padia; Padia, Pacific Northwest, seconds.

Chairperson Culver: Dianne.

Sister Martino: Martino, Manchester, second.

Brother Schultz: Schultz, San Diego seconds, hopefully for the last time ever on this damned issue. (Applause.)

Brother Isaac: Isaac, Canadian Wire Service, seconds, and my brother from San Diego. Brother [Robert] Townsend: Townsend, ?Brockton, seconds.
Brother Ciuccio: Ciuccio, Denver, seconds.
Sister Balkan, Donna Balkan, Ottawa, seconds.

Brother [Lou] Mleczko: Mleczko, Detroit, seconds.
Brother Hatch: Hatch, Cleveland, seconds.
Chairperson Culver: Center mike.
Sister Toops (Terre Haute) Point of information. I move to cost Terre Haute’s ballot out of order. Chairperson culver: You move to–

Sister Toops: To be able to cast Terre Haute’s ballot of our order. Chairperson Culver: Is that so you can catch a plane or something? Sister Toops; Yes, I am about ten minutes away.
Chairperson: All right. We will ask that that be done.

Brother Rieger, Toledo, seconds.

Chairperson Culver: Brian.

Brother Hill: Hill, Vancouver-New Westminster, seconds.

Chairperson Culver: all right. We have twelve seconds, and we will now prepare to call the role.

Secretary-Treasurer (Chuck) Dale: John Edgington, teller, we need you up here for the taking of the roll.

We are now going to take the roll, roll call on the minority report on Foreign Affairs. A “yes” vote is to adopt; a “no” vote is to reject.


4 2

6 3 8 7 9


(The roll was called by Secretary-Treasurer dale as follow:) Yes No

Bay City
Canadian Wire Service Central California Chattanooga* Chicago

Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Denver Detroit Erie

Great Falls
Hudson County Knoxville
Los Angeles Manchester Memphis
New York
Northern Ontario Ottawa
Pacific Northwest Peoria*
Greater Philadelphia Pittsburgh* Portland, Maine Providence
Puerto Rico Rockford
St. Louis


4 7

12 6 2 1

6 2


1 6


7 59


5 7.8 2.6#

3.25 9.75


6 6 2

10.4 1.3^ 2

San Diego SFONG
San Jose Scranton Sheboygan Southern Ontario Terre Haute Toledo

Twin Cities
Vancouver-New Westminster 12

Victoria Washington-Baltimore Wilkes-Barre Winnipeg
Wire Service Youngstown
*Absent from floor. #2.6 Abstain.
^1.3 Abstain.

4 22 3 3

3.75 11.25 3


9 1.5 1.5


3 1 5


Secretary-Treasurer Dale: Brother Chairperson, we now have the results of the roll call on the minority report on Foreign Affairs.

The results as certified by the tellers are as follows: “Yes,” 175.7. “No,” 216.4 2.9 abstentions. (Applause.)

Chairperson Culver: The minority report is defeated. MOTION LOST

Chairperson Culver: That brings us back to the main motion, which Frank Prosnitz read awhile ago.

Brother MacDonald: Jerry MacDonald, Canadian Wire Service Guild. I thank this convention for at least allowing us to vote on the issue. (Applause.)

Brother Perry [sic] (Cleveland): Mr. Chairman. Chairperson Culver: yes.
Brother Peery: Peery, Cleveland.
Chairperson Culver: Go ahead.

Brother Peery: I want to move consideration of the main motion.

Brother Stewart (Albany): Second.

Chairperson Culver: Are we ready to vote on the main motion, or will there be discussion?

(Cries of “Yes.”)

Chairperson Culver: All right. We will now take the vote on the main motion — the majority report. All in favor of adoption please say aye. Opposed? The report is adopted. (Applause.)


The Guild’s international affairs program has contributed to the well being of our brother newspapermen in the world.

Our participation in the activities of the International Federation of Journalists and the Inter- American Federation of Working Newspapermen’s Organizations has enhanced and strengthened the image of our union. The training given in both trade unionism and journalism has been constructive and worthwhile. It has stimulated many to look upon free and democratic trade unionism as the best instrument available for combatting and overcoming oppression, poverty, and ignorance.

The convention believes, the program should be continued

The Convention authorizes the IEB to seek means of financing international affairs activities in accordance with the following:

. Whatever the source of financing, the arrangement must be completely open. There can be no conditions placed upon the use of money other than the responsibility to use it to carry out the agreed- upon program, and to provide accounting for funds.

. If possible, funds should be from private sources, such as foundations which can establish to the satisfaction of the IEB that their funds are, indeed, private.

. Efforts should continue to obtain a contractual relationship whereby government funds would be available to finance ANG international activities. The preferred relationship would be for a contract with the Agency for International Development.

The Convention calls on the IEB to scrutinize carefully the source of all funds used for this program.

The Convention further asks the IEB to continue to bear in mind that the main task of the ANG is to improve working conditions of members in Canada, the United States, and Puerto Rico.

The Convention thanks the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations for the interim financial support which has kept the program in operation in recent months.

This report is signed by: Rex Adkins, SFONG, chairman; Robert M. Golden, Lehigh Valley, Secretary; Buck Lanier, Los Angeles; I. Kaufman, New York; Shirley Ionia, Toronto; Richard Lane, Memphis; Jan-Rae Turner Phillips, North Jersey; Thomas J. Murphy, Rochester; Charles Owen, St. Louis; Geoffrey Lay, Ottawa; Harry Ryan, New York; and Thomas M. Buckley, Jr., Pawtucket.

Mr. President, I move adoption of this resolution.

May I take a minute to tell of the disposal of the other resolutions? A parallel resolution from the Canadian Council was tabled. A resolution calling for further investigation, rejected. A resolution banning use of government funds, rejected. A resolution calling for referendum, tabled.

Thank you, Mr. President.
Brother John V. Reistrup (Washington-Baltimore): Mr. President. President Rosenstock: Just one moment. Are there second? (Seconded by several.)

Brother Reistrup: Point of information, Mr. President. It is my understanding that now that the resolution has been reported on by the chairman, I will be able to introduce another report. It is not a formal minority report., I t was my understanding, and I would like–

President Rosenstock: Are you referring to the glue or green sheet signed at the top by Bentley Orrick?

Brother Reistrup: Well, there are two signed by Bentley Orrick. This one calls for an investigation.

President Rosenstock: I don’t know where that is. I haven’t seen it.

Brother Reistrup: This hasn’t been distributed. It is not a minority report.

Brother Murphy (New York): Brother chairman, point of clarification. I am not interested in whether it is a minority report or a resolution, an amendment. It is either introduced now or the original report goes in for a vote. I would suggest that if the brother has either an amendment or an addition to the report, it should be introduced now. Otherwise we are debating something in a vacuum.

President Rosenstock: the parliamentary procedure is this. You just heard the report by Brother Adkins on the majority report from the Resolutions Committee. I have the green sheet which is a minority report, and it is simply a substitute of a number for this. I am asking you, I want to get clearly what you have in mind.

Brother Reistrup: All right. Perhaps Brother Adkins could explain it, because I am sure he is clear on it. All I want to do is make sure that I am in order to introduce something I want to introduce. It is as simple as that.

Brother Adkins: It is my feeling that the minority report and what you have to offer, Brother Reistrup, amount to amendments, do they not? Could they not be amendments?

Brother Reistrup: I intended this as a separate resolution. I will make it an amendment. I don’t care.

President Rosenstock: No, this cannot be done. The rules are very clear on committee reports. You sat in the committee, I presume, and the preamble omnibus was given by Brother Adkins.

I would say this, I don’t know what you want to do, and I don’t want to know now, but we are not on the main motion, and I am waiting to see whether the minority report to this is going to be placed before us. This is simply an act which would be a substitute motion. When we get to the total discussion on the main motion, let’s hear what you have to say, that’s all.

Brother Reistrup: This is one of the additional resolutions that was introduced and tabled. It is not an amendment to the motion we are discussion now. I just want to raise the point–

President Rosenstock: A the time we discuss the majority report, then you can raise and state your position. It is as simple as that.

Brother Kreisman: I would like to read the minority report, if I am in order.

Brother Chairman, fellow delegates, unlike former years I approach the mike this year with a great deal of hesitation, I am trying to save myself for Expo next week.

I might say, with the same thing in mind I got myself on the Resolutions committee, and for the first time since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, the Resolutions Committee camp up with a minority report.


It read the same as the majority report except for point, and that is as follows: “No government funds will be accepted for the purpose of carrying on the international affairs program.”

And it is signed by Bentley Orrick, Washington-Baltimore Guild; Leonard Millman, Wire Service Guild; Irv Kreisman, Madison; Oscar B. Teller, Philadelphia; Barry Schweid, Wire Service Guild; George McCormick, Twin Cities; J.V. Reistrup of Washington-Baltimore; William Monahan, Detroit;. And Philip Chase, Manchester.

I move that the minority report, the second report of the Resolutions Committee, be adopted. (Seconded by several.)
President Rosenstock: There are seconds. The floor is open.

Brother Kreisman: Brother Chairperson, approximately six months ago many of us read in the newspapers the report that the International Affairs program of the Newspaper Guild was being

financed with funds that at least were believed to be CIA-contributed. That news burst like bomb from one end of the country to another.

Many of us had a feeling — perhaps all of us had a feeling — of revulsion, disgust., any of us had a feeling that we had been had.

I noticed tonight — the first time I saw it — the Page One book on the Chicago Newspaper Guild. You have it on the tables, an there is a story on page 20 of the Chicago newspaper man, whom I don’t know, and the headlines on the story are “In the Shadow of the CIA,” and the subhead is “On a mission of journalistic mercy Guildsman finds himself in Cyprus under dark cloud of intelligence.”

A rather ominous start to a story, which I haven’t read.

I recall in my own situation being asked on the beat the next day, a couple of days later, “I see that you’re a CIA agent.” I answered in kind, but I resented the remarks, and I think many people here resented the whole implication. The leadership of the Guild, the leadership of the ANG, much to their credit, to their everlasting credit, put a quick halt to the program, or at least to the funds, and I want to point out that in this minority report no recriminations have come about, no investigation was asked.

The very simple difference in the report is that we ask that no government funds be used in our international program. We think the international program has been a good one. We think Dick Davis has done a good job. We think that John Sloan, whom I have known for a long time — an idealistic, sincere, young fellow — has done an excellent job. But we do feel that in using government funds there is a suspicion among many people that we take on the color, we take on the policies of those who do give — it is entirely possible for a pretty young girl, suppose, to wear a mink coat and have no visible means of support, but their air of suspicion is there, and this is what we are trying to avoid

You are going to hear tonight from those who favor taking government funds, and an adequate check will be made upon any funds that are accepted.

The curfew is running?
President Rosenstock: No, you have one minute. Go ahead. Brother Kreisman: Before my chariot turns to a pumpk9in. I presume that I will have more time later in closing.

(page break)

This is the principal argument, however, at least my principal argument, that in accepting funds one does take the color of those who have contributed. We would like to see these funds, if the program is continued, come from private sources. You are going to be told that this is a way to scuttle the whole program; that private funds are not available. We feel that if this is so — and we don’t know — that it isn’t worth it for the Guild to have the cloud of suspicion. We feel, like Caesar’s wife, the Guild should be above reproach and that our program, our international program, should be discontinued if we can’t get the funds from private sources. (Applause.)

President Rosenstock: We are only on the minority report, which is actually concerning or substituting number 3 for number 3.

Brother Ross Henderson (Toronto): Ross Henderson of the Toronto Star unit, the Toronto Guild.

I would like to place myself on record as supporting the statements made by the last speaker and to carry them one step further. Since I am a Canadian, I would like you to recall some of the remarks made by Dave __wls [sp] when he was speaking here the other night, and the peculiar position that Canadians who are members of international unions find themselves in.

In this case we have a so-called international union. I think it should be an international union. I want to be a member of an international union, playing the role, not an agency of one nation.

Now, there is a conflict in these two … You can’t be a paid agent of one nation and still pretend to be an international union. I think our sole loyalty should be to the working newspapermen. I don’t think that we should get into a position of putting some efforts of the Guild in some countries into the position of working whether or not there is a conflict between your citizenship of a certain country and your membership in a certain union.

I am not an anti-American, and I want to make this clear, that it’s not anti-Americanism that motivates it. I am not an American. I am a Canadian, and I don’t feel that I sould [sic] be furthering American foreign policy on this blanket basis.

it happens that I do very earnestly support the Guild’s international project, but i think it should be cut back to a size which we can support from our own funds, and we should not in our roles show this conflict of interest and positions.

I realize our goal of organizing the unorganized in some of the underdeveloped countries will have to be put back, and i think it is going to take a lot longer to do it with our own money, but when we finally do succeed, it will be a much more honest accomplishment, a more real one, and it will be above suspicion, which this can’t be.

One other point I would like to make, and that is the matter of the investigation of the sources and goals, aims, and objectives of the funds which would presumably be made if non-CIA funds were obtained. I think that the CIA is probably more clever in hiding the way it pays money than our officers are in uncovering the way it pays money. I think this is their business. It is not our business in this respect, and I don’t expect our people to have this kind of skill. It is not their profession. It is the profession of the CIA to put money in places and wield influence in places.

Well, that is their business. They are spies, spies for a particular country, not for my country, and while it may be necessary for a country to have this sort of agency, it is not our business. Our business is solely to serve the interests of the working newspaper newspapermen, and I don’t think that we should get into playing roles in which there may be a conflict. Thank you. (applause.)

Brother Hill: Mr. Chairman, Hill of Buffalo, Local 26. I sympathize with our Canadian brothers. I rise to support the minority report. Frankly, I am sorry there is a necessity to have a minority report on this. These people were so brazen that they come along and say, “let’s make a deal with the government. Let’s get our money. If we can’t get it under the table, let’s make a deal with the government.”

I speak for people who are ashamed the Guild, because they took money and they woke up in Turkey one morning or Porto Alegre saying, “Oh, boy, this is wonderful,” and two years later they read in

the paper that they were being used, that they were spies. Then they come along tonight and say, “Well, let’s make a deal with the government. Let’s get it on top of the table.”

Secondly, I don’t see the necessity of this program, when we have cut rate journalism here in Canada, all kinds of cut rate journalism in the United States, and I just wonder, brothers and sisters, who was minding the store while the boys were off to Porto Alegre and Panama and Turkey and wherever they went, and you know, they made it so convenient. The auditor’s report indicates to me they were like squirrels — they buried their money down there, too.

I am ashamed to have to get up here when these people have the audacity to ask for money. I think Americans will sympathize with Canadians, that if another agency of — if we were an international union and a counterpart of the CIA was financing people coming to our country, I think there would be a revolution. We have to back on the track. We have to recognize that we are the American newspaper guile, that we not in 22 state and that we are not in seven provinces, and let’s be an American Newspaper Guild. Let’s not go on a Cook’s tour, no matter who’s paying. (Applause.)

Brother Reistrup: Brother President, I rise in support of the amendment. The people who back the resolution of the International Executive Board would like to have you think the issues are whether Co-and-So is a nice fellow or not whether he his sincere or not. But all of us Canadians and Americans should be perfectly clear as to what i the real issue in this minority. The issue here is whether the American Newspaper is to be an arm of the foreign policy of the United Sates.

Tonight is the first chance the convention of the American Newspaper Guild has had to vote on this question. The Agency for International Development is an agency of the U.S. State Department. Its function is to carry out foreign policy of the United Sates. By law it spends it money for exactly that purpose.

All the people who have been involved in the International Affairs program up to now say it is a worthwhile program. Almost no one doubts until February this worthwhile program was financed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Two of the men who ran the program, Richard Davis and John Sloan, have been with us, were with us all during our meeting, valued members of our own local. I am sure they are sincere in telling us that the program is worth almost any price to keep it alive, short, of course, of spending our own money to pay for it.

But they both admitted to the Resolutions Committee on Tuesday that they suspected from the very beginning that the money to run the program came form the CIA, and as John Sloan put it, they simply waited for the other shoe to drop. They waited for pressure from the CIA to change the program. They told us the other shoe never did drop, and the CIA apparently never felt the need to apply pressure to achieve what it wanted to achieve. But the shoe did hit the fan last February. The people involved in the International Affairs program were embarrassed into action when the stories were written by enterprising newspapermen about the CIA.

Now, the people who ran the program decided to seek the money openly form the U.S. Department of state. They seem willing to drop the support of the AFL-CIO, which was generous enough to offer to take us over. They are looking for $300,000 or about half of the entire budget of the American Newspaper Guild’s General Fund. 

If the Department of State doesn’t come through, these people have another player in the wings. You won’t find it in the resolution, but for the name of it is American Institute for Free Labor Department, commonly known as AIRFIELD. This is supposedly a private group and is the most likely source of the $300,000 if the State Department doesn’t come through.

AIRFIELD has the distinction of having nearly everything wrong with it because it gets 90 per cent of its money from the Agency for International Development. That is the State Department. It get s6 per cent of its money from the AFL-CIO, that our organization seems too anxious to drop. It gets 4 per cent of its money from large corporations in this country — I am sorry, in the United Sates — that do business south of the border, W.R. Grace and Co. I believe Coca Cola, and I know the United Fruit Company. United Fruit Company, as it happens is synonymous throughout Latin America for Yankee imperialism.

Finally, people have charged that AIRFIELD is a front for the CIA. It this is true, it is apparently a new kind of front, not the kind we were dealing with before when it was just a channel for money. It is a front. If this is the case, it is to make key decision, but presumably we won’t know for sure about this until some other enterprising reporter finds out because our Executive Board, the people who ran the program all protest they don’t eve know if it was CIA money that was running the program.

President Rosenstock: One minute, brother.

Brother Reistrup: So in effect the Convention is told that because the Guild is on a program, and because it is embarrassing to take CIA money now — just embarrassing, apparently — and because none of the great philanthropic foundations can be talked into take it on — not the ford Foundation, not the Rockefeller Foundation, they can find better things to do with their money But now the Guild, we are told, has to hire out, by contract, to function as an arm of the foreign policy of the United States. We are told there is nothing wrong with this. We are told it is just like a Guild contract with a publisher. But of course a contract with a publisher we are covered only those people who come to work for the publisher. If I was to work for any publisher, it is my choice. I don’t want to work for the state Department. (Applause.)

President Rosenstock. Pardon me, that’s it.
Vice President Wical: Mr. Chairman, Wical of Cleveland. Do I have the mike? President Rosenstock: You are all right, yes.

Vice President Wical: without referring to anything that has gone before, and without mentioning any Cook’s tours, because I don’t think our ANG people have gone on Cook’s tours, I want to speak in support of the minority proposition. An audience like this doesn’t need to be told the current literature or the recent histories that allow labor organization have become instruments of government. Through their ___. You do not need to be told or reminded of the subtle, gradual obligation or where that is felt in accepting the government’s money. You do onto need to be told that perhaps at first an organization is only the fingertips of government policy, finger, then the knuckle, then the wrist, and then the arm of the government.

We many not think that would be too bad, like an arm of Mr. Johnson’s government, so if we do have, perhaps, Mr. Romney’s government to consider, or Mr. Nixon’s government, or Mr. X’s government, or Mr. Madigan’s government to consider.

We don’t take money for anything with any stipulations, which does remind me of Jeb Williams down in southern Ohio, my native health. Jeb Williams fell away from the church — he went to the poolroom, played cards on Sunday; he boozed and wenched, and his wealthy uncle, who wanted to salvage Jeb, offered him $200,000 to change his ways. Jeb wouldn’t change. He went on . he was a dissolute man. He kept on going that way until the rich uncle died and left $50,000 in the will. He gave it outright to Jeb with no stipulation whatsoever.

A strange transformation came over Jeb. He stumbled back to church. He started leaving the poolroom at 9 and then didn’t go to the poolroom at all. He isn’t play cards on Sunday, and he became an exemplary citizen in conduct, which puzzled his associates. They wanted an explanation.

They said, “Jeb, how come, when your uncle offered you $200,0000 to give up these things, you went right on? And then when he died and gave you $50,000 without saying anything, you suddenly changed.

And Jeb said, “Well, I guess it’s just because there weren’t any strings attached.” (Laughter.)

Brother albert L. Delugach (St. Louis): Mr. Chairman, Al Delugach, St. Louis. I am speaking in favor of the minority report.

The feeling that you have been duped is one of the more repugnant emotions to just about anyone, but it is more so to a newsman. I don’t know whether or not the ANG was duped by the CIA. The question may even be moot now. But K know in my own case the revelation of CIA funds possibly having bene funneled through the Guild was an injury to my pride as a newspaper reporter. We don’t like to think of ourselves as anybody’s patsy.

This is aside from any consideration of whether ANG should be using government money for purposes that impinge on foreign affairs or other public matters.

I feel that the Guild and its members have been subjected to derision as a result of the CIA disclosures. Whether or not anyone is to blame, I think the results were unfortunate, and not because of the blow to our newsmen’s ego.

There may be those who think the Guild was not harmed at all in the eyes of the general public by this affair, but I would say this, that I believe something has bene detracted form our stature in the view of some people who count, thinking persons in the community whose respect we like to have.

And then there is the feeling I can’t shake that we have given some ammunition to the cynics who like to deprecate the objectivity of the news media, not to mention those who are actual enemies of the Guild.

Last but not least, my feelings include one that there is a real principle involved in this matter of whether a union which includes newsmen should be in a position of accepting government funds for any purpose; even with the stricture that no strings can be attached to the acceptance of an aboveboard

government constriction, I have grave personal doubts that we should be in the position of taking such money.

Whether or not it would place the obligations on the ANG as to promoting foreign policy of any particular administration it seems impossible to take funds and avoid appearing in some eyes that we are beholden to an institution when it is the function of a free press in a democracy to give as impartial and unbiased information as possible.

I have no quarrel at all with the Guild’s previous international program. I have no recommendations to make against anyone about past events. But I do believe the Guild suffered a great misfortune in being involved publicly in what can only appear to be a fiasco surrounding the exposure of the CIA’s under the blanket influences in free institutions.

Let’s not compound the agony by going on the record at this convention in this very same year as favoring the use of any government money for any purpose, however laudable. If something is vital for the Guild to do, let’s find the money for it ourselves without giving umbrage to anyone and without giving any more aid and comfort to those who are only too willing to find fault with the Guild. I feel strongly that an important principle is involved here, and it is up to the convention to recognize it. The newsmen of today cannot afford to give even a semblance of being under obligation of any kind to any politician and/or political agency. Thank you. (Applause.)

Brother N. Bentley Orrick (Washington-Baltimore): Brother Chairman, Orrick, Washington- Baltimore, speaking in favor of the minority report. I am afraid our International Executive Board is so interested in saving the International Affairs program and thereby perhaps saving face, that the Board has overlooked what could prove to be a fatal case of internal unrest in our American Newspaper Guild. Our International Affairs program has been described officially by our International Executive Board as vital to our union. The word “vital” is usually understood to mean necessary for life. Our International Affairs program is not vital to our union. Our union will live on even if that program dies, but keeping the program alive with money from the Government of the United states could prove fatal to our union. No one here can deny that the membership of our union is divided on the question of accepting government money. The split is real; it exists. It has hurt our union already by diverting energy and attention from trade union tasks at this convention. It does not matter who is right about the issue of taking government money. What matters is that right or wrong, taking it disgusts some of our members. Their reaction is not the short-lived disgruntlement of a minority defeat on a policy issue.

Their reaction is the festering frustration of men and women who feel their principles have been betrayed. Rightly or wrongly, there is a doubt in the minds who is running this union, the membership or perhaps it has ben corrupted by a powerful espionage organization. This doubt must be removed if our union is to survive in fact and prosper.

The anger of these members has even produced talk of succession [sic] from our union. A suspicion of corruption, a belief that a systematic deception has been practiced among the members of this most democratic of unions, has sowed doub5t and dissention and mistrust. The guild is paying for that doubt and mistrust. They will continue to pay until our union closes ranks again.

All we need to do here is to renounce future government cash, thus doing this for what some our members would call honor, loss of face or even a loss of one worthwhile union program among many I don’t think is too great a price to pay to insure our survival as a free trade union.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Sister Klaric: Betty Klaric of Cleveland. I rise to support the minority report. Implicit in the acceptance of funds is an obligation, either actual or implied. I do not believe that the American Newspaper Guild, which includes members in two countries, should be in any way, either implicitly or actually, tied with a foreign policy of any one of these those governments.

We would, I believe, be doing a great disservice to our brothers and sisters in Canada and to many of them in the United Sates by accepting funds from the U.S. government when we know what many of our brothers and sisters in both countries are not in close or total agreement with the aims of the United States Government. Give my support of the minority report. (Applause.)

Vice President Lane: Lane of Memphis. First I want to apologize for appearing before you in a seersucker coat tonight. I should have my black trenchcoat and my black felt hat on. I made eight of these trips to South America. So i was working for the Cia. I spited on the Commies. I had drinks with United Fruit and ___ Line directors.

I also saw what the program was doing for worthy, needy newspaper people, people who have to have three or four jobs in order to exist, who need trade unionism and look desperately to the United states and to the American Newspaper Guild to fill this need.

If anything has given me pleasure in my long association with the ANG, it was to know that I was a part of this movement in South America.

You heard President Rosenstock say in his opening address to the convention that we’ve pulled out of this vacuum, someone who is ready to move into it, and they have the money and manpower to move in, then by golly, they will do it.

I have no qualms in taking government money. I take and use some of it every day, with or without 7 per cent, and I think you do too.

If you vote for the minority report you are in effect killing the International Affairs program. It is just as simple as that. I don’t want to go home and have this hanging around my neck, that I killed a worthwhile program. We are not going to be able to get money, I don’t think, and I don’t think the officers believe we will get money from private foundations, the kind of money we need to carry out this program. We are going to have to get it form a government source.

I say that the money is not secret. If it is all of the protection, no strings, why not use it? I speak against the minority report. (applause.)

Brother George McCormick (Twin Cities): McCormick, Twin cities. Brother Lane has just told us of the value of the international program, and he has asked us to continue it by any means, and apparently at any cost. But I submit that it is somewhat misleading to speak of continuing the present program, for we cannot be sure that it will indeed be the present program that is going to be continued. The majority report in the section that the minority report would change speaks of financing the

program, if possible, with funds form private foundations. The Resolutions Committee, however, in this group was told that this is highly unlikely. We are not going to get these funds from private foundations in all probability. So that apparently leaves AIFLD, as one of the earlier speakers said.

Well, the majority report then will authorize the IEB to enter into a contract with AID. What it would stipulate we don’t know; we are not told. We can’t be told because no one seems to know. Indeed out committee was told that the program would probably have to be changed to conform to AID requirements. In what way again we were not told. But it is obvious that the purpose of AID is the furtherance of American foreign policy, not the furtherance of free trade unionism in Latin America or elsewhere. If we are going to retain the International program, let us at least be certain that it is our program that we are retaining, it is a program that we control, that we can carry on in our own way an that we can be proud of.

I urge you to support the minority report. (Applause.)

Vice President George Muldowney (Wire Serivce0: Muldowney of the Wire Service Guild, IEB member, and also another James Bond operator in Puerto Rico in November.

When I was on that trip, I was on trade unionism. I discussed problems with trade unionist people down there, getting better working conditions.

I sat over here before and listened to some people. I guess they take LSD. They make accusations, and there is no foundation for them. They can’t prove them, and I think they are idiots, especially one gentleman. He made some remarks here that I think are away [sic] out of line. He can’t substantiate them, and he should come up and apologize to the Executive Board and everybody else for remarks like he made.

I see no fault in taking government money if we put down the rules we are dealing with. If they don’t conform to what we as trade unionists want, we will have nothing to so with them. To take a position not to get money from the government — and the government supports a lot of people, the poverty program and every other thing and the thing that bothers me the most is that we are going to hut and not help people who need help. This is the thing that disturbed me, and I am against the minority report. (Applause.)

Bother Patrick J. Owens (Detroit): Mr. President, fellow delegates, I stand here as I think–

President Rosenstock: Patrick Owens of Detroit.

Brother Owens: I stand here, as I think most of us speak for the minority report stand here, n a considerable anguish or vexation of spirit. We are having to say things we don’t want to say. We are having to say things that will be quoted against the guild.

We do this — or I do it — out of the conviction that these things are going to be said sooner or later and need to be said for the health of the organoiron. If some of it had been said five years ago on this convention floor, the Guild would not have been hurt in the past year the way it has been hurt.

Ow, what’s the problem? I take my text from Brother Schick who told us today in another context that there is no press table in the labor movement. We pay for what we get. I think we pay for what we get to give away to other people just like we pay for what we get for ourselves.

I DONT’ THINK THE American Newspaper Guild should be confused with the Salvation Army. Yet since February this union has been actively out there with the tin cup trying to raise money to run this International Affairs program.

We have been told — I have been sitting with the Resolutions Committee much of the week. We have been told that this program has no effect on the Guild. These resources in no way impinge on the domestic activities of our union. Yet, Brother Delegates, the last annual audit shows that $214,000 was spent on the International Affairs program. This compares with $549,000 in the General Fund [39.41%], General fund expenditures. I think all of us are trade unionists who realize that you don’t put out that kind of money without a considerable requirement for oversight and obligation overseas. I think one of the problems with the Guild is that the sights of many of us are in t Porto Alegre when they should be in Rockford or Duluth or Mississippi. We have had Guild people all over the world taking trade unionism to workers who lack. When last was there a Guild representative in Mississippi or Alabama? I don’t know. Perhaps there is an answer.

You know, the advocates of the program — and I have heard a good deal from them the past week — have told us that this money has had no strings, that the Central Intelligence Agency which is involved in such things as revolutions in Greece and the Dominican Republic, installation of rivaling military dictatorships around the world, gave us this money without any strings and that we were free to do with it as we would.

I know nothing to contradict this. I have no basis for questioning the program or the uses to which this money was put, and yet it is a traveling committee.

The fact is that the new government program which is proposed would have essentially the same oversight as the old program and by the same people, and I think these people, probably because their concerns were heavily on domestic problems of the Guild, failed to learn where this money was coming from. They got a million dollars out of this program, and according to the International Executive board statement, not only did they not learn it was Central Intelligence Agency money, but they can’t even remember who told them where to get it. According to the Executive Board statement, who gave what name to whom is lost i the sea of names and faces who befriended the Guild. With friends like that, we need enemies? (Applause.)

Vice President McLaughlin: Mr. chairman, Dan McLaughlin of North Jersey, member of the International Executive Board and member of the Executive Board of FIOPP. I speak against the report that is before us, and I submit that those people who have spoken of the stealth of the CIA in planting funds are experts compared with the CIA when they get around to the jobs of destroying character and reputations of Guild leaders and Guild personalities who have devoted half of their lifetime to this guild program. (Applause.)

We have heard her half truths, distortions, implications. We have heard the words “communist agents” or “conscious recipients” of U.S. foreign policy bandied about — not spoken directly, but implied. One brother just said he had no reason to question the source of the funds or the fact that the funds were not explained, but nevertheless he had serious doubts. If he had the right to question it, let him ask the questions and make the accusations. If he thinks that any one of us in these positions is dishonest, if he thinks that any one of us is a spy on behalf of the State Department, and if he thinks that any one of us any of those things, let him dome forward and make the charges directly, but don’t stand

here on the convention floor and use a lot of innuendoes and half truths. (Applause.) If you want to make these charges, I am willing to stand up against them and defend myself, but I am not going to become involved in a backbiting, backdoor assassination contest with this sort of person.

I stand on my record in this organization as I stand on my record of performance as a Guild leader. If you want to accuse me yes, but don’t go around behind my back and start spreading a lot of tales. (Applause.)

Now, there has bene a lot of talk about some people who have been involved in our foreign affairs program, furthering American foreign policy, and engaging in conflict of interest. I can tell you secondly there is no conflict of interest. In my experience in international affairs there have been two things that stick out in my memory. One is a knockout, drag-out fight at a FIOPP conference that was precipitated because the leadership of FIOPP steadfastly refused to take a political position and maintained right down to the end of the line that we were a trade union organization and taking no position except the trade union position.

The other impression that I carried back with me is having seen in Latin American countries conditions of filth, poverty, squalor and unbelievable hardships that are never, never, never going to be corrected in these countries until the working people who are forced to live under these conditions have the working knowledge and the know-how to form strong, solid trade unions and win their own fight to correct these conditions.

They are never going to get it from the government, never toing to get it from the padrones. I urge again, brothers and sisters, the defeat of this substi5ue motion., (Applause).

Brother Owens: Point of privilege, Mr. President.

Vice President Rupert: Mr. Chairman, Rupert, Ottawa.

President Rosenstock: Just on moment. You can state the point of privilege — there have been extensive remarks that I have tolerated. I haven’t taken the microphone yet to stop anyone in this hall from saying what they damned please. I am not going to do it. A point of privilege after you have spoken — and this man has stated his position. He is a Board member.

Vice President Rupert: Rupert, Ottawa. I represented Canadian Guildsmen in the last two years on the IEB. I have not been personally involved in the International Affairs program, but I am rather surprised at this time to hear any Canadian Guildsman come forward and say that he opposes the continuation of the program on the grounds that as a Canadian he doesn’t want to be considered a CIA agent. When the allegations of CIA involvement in the funding of the program were made, I took steps within my own region to attempt to find out if any of our people had been involved in the program, and if so, how they evaluated it and if they had received any instructions which would lead them to believe that our program was an instrument of American foreign policy.

I got hold of Rene Torre of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Montreal on the long distance telephone — I thought it was important enough to do that — from Washington when the Board meeting was on. I first asked him if he felt that anyone had attempted to persuade him to preach anything but a trade union message, and he assured me that no one had. I asked him if he thought the seminar at which he had been a lecturer was valuable, and he assured me that he did.

I have to be satisfied with what Canadian Guildsmen who have been chosen in an objective way to take part in the program say about the program, and I personally feel that anybody we can to preach trade unionism and further the trade union movement we should get.

From my experience her today, it is not very easy to get money for trade unions. (Applause.) Brother Robert L. Bain, Jr. (Kingstone): Somebody raised a point of privilege.
President Rosenstock: No, you go right ahead.

Brother Bain: Bain, Kingston, New York. First let me say I am not anti-Canadian. One of my best friends is a Canadian. (Laughter.) I have no feeling of revulsion, no stab in the back. My pride wasn’t hurt, and I certainly didn’t lose any sleep when this business about the funds from the CIA came out. One of the speakers this evening — I think it’s the gentleman who read the minority report –said that he was afraid that there would be a color attached to the money. Well, I as an American citizen and a delegate to this convention can think of no finer color than red, white and blue. (Applause.)

President Rosenstock: I am sorry it took so long to recognize a woman. Bess Eilber.

Sister Elizabeth Eilber (Philadelphia): Bess Eilber, Philadelphia: First of all, I want to say that I am not ashamed of being a Guildsman or a Guildswoman, and secondly, I am beginning to wonder where I am. I thought, or I am beginning to think, I am looking at the “Get Smart” program, and the agents are all mixed up.

We have heard speeches here tonight that put our officers in the position of being spies, which wouldn’t be too bad as long as they were spies for the Unite States.. we have made them feel, I am sure — we degraded them as much as if we had discovered they were and maybe we should trade them for an American prison. I think we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Brother Ryan: Harry Ryan New York. I think the important thing to remember here, one important thing is that the government never approached us to carry out its program. We are approaching — we intend to approach the government agency to carry out our program under conditions laid down by us. Indeed, there is no guarantee we will get money from the government. We don’t know. perhaps we won’t, and if we don’t that will probably be the end of the program.

Secondly, the ANC’s International Affairs program is not and never has been a secret operation. All these allusions to spying and undercover work are ridiculous. The program we have carried out has been carried out openly, and let’s forget the funding at the moment. The program itself certainly has bene carried out openly; it has been fully reported in the Guild Reporter, and it will be an open program in the future if it is continued.

Just what is the program? I think we all realize it is twofold. First, our people conduct seminars to teach newspapermen their own trade so that they can become better newspapermen — the technicalities of the business, which are perhaps old to us, but in developing countries they are not. So it is that basic school, first of all, and secondly, perhaps as important from a trade union standpoint, we are teaching these people the value of unionism, how they can again learn to help themselves through organization, through their own efforts.

We are not going in negotiating contracts for them. We are merely telling them what we do here, how trade unionism has helped our industry in the U.S. and Canada and Puerto Rico — indeed, Munich. And this is our aim. We are not spies, we are not agents, we are not carrying out any government program. We haven’t; we won’t. Perhaps it is unfortunate that the one place that appears open to us at the moment to obtain funds is the U.S. Government, and I think as long as our members know just where our money is coming from, who is supplying it, what the conditions are, I can see no reason why they look on this program any differently than our people look on foreign aid funds that are dispersed for Point Four programs. Youth Corps — Peace Corps, or a myriad [of] other overseas operations. So I speak in opposition to the substitute resolution. Thank you. (Applause.)

Brother Barnard: Barnard, Cleveland. I may be a little closer to the situation in many areas. A close friend of mine, Bill Treon, reporter from the Plain Dealer, was hired to serve as one of the International Representatives under this program. His tenure with AG staff lasted only a few weeks because of the CIA disclosure. And since it occurred, Bill and I have had many long conversations over it.

I am thoroughly convinced of the value of the program. I think I understand the need for it. I was prepared to come to this convention to defend it, but in the course of the evening tonight I find myself unable to do so. I think thinking of our Canadian members and the position the acceptance of money from the United States Government has put them in. I don’t know if the program which ha the support of many of the delegates here would have equal support if a resolution were to solicit funds from the States Department of Canada.

I am in accord with the program and ask that it can be carried out without the use of government funds. (Applause.)

Brother Kelly: Orr Kelly from the Washington-Baltimore Guild. I am one of those most vigorously opposed to the solicitation of funds form government by the Guild. I would like to tell you why. I should make it clear that I don’t want to be critical of the CIA, which I think is an important and valuable agency of our government, and I don’t want to be critical of our foreign policy because I agree with it in its broad outlines.

What I do object to is the proposal that the ANG be one of the tools of the foreign policy of our government, even the circumstances where our interests appear to coincide. Such a connection is contrary to the whole history of the free trade union movement, and it is particularly out of keeping with the traditions and principles of a union of newspapermen and women.

Like a number of reporters who belong to the Guild, I read the Officers’ Report more carefully this year than I did last year, an din the section on International Affairs I noted that the officers of the ANG had written a letter to William Gaud, the administrator of the Agency for International Development. I read here form the section of the report. They say, “Indeed the officers, in their letter to AID Administration, William Gaud, wrote ‘Historically, trade unions have felt they should operate totally independent of any other institution, including governments, in order to avoid situations which possibly might vitiate their life objectives. We have shared, a do hare, this view.”

I find it hard to understand how such a statement could be included in a letter asking for money from the government. I find it simply incredible that after writing such a letter, it was mailed.

Let me make one further point. Certainly the most practical argument against any request for government funds is this — whether or not the ANG decides to embarrass itself by asking for money, it is highly unlikely that government funds will be made available on a stable, long-term basis for international programs. In fact, it is a virtual certainty that they will not be made available.

Do you recall what Thomas Braden said in his controversial article article in the Saturday Evening Post a few weeks ago? He said in that, at least, that he was largely responsible for setting up the CIA program for which funds were channeled into such activities as the National Student Association, and we may now assume into the Guild.

He said the reason that such programs had to be financed covertly was that Congress simply would not knowingly provide money for such activities.

Is there anyone who seriously believes that this late in the budget year and with the 90th Congress which we have heard so much about that we are going to get government money for our international program any more than we would be successful in getting government money for our domestic program? And is there anyone who doubts that even if we should, through some miracle, get money from the government, either directly or indirectly, through such an agency as the American Institute for Free Labor Development, that we would be constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop?

The reality is that our intentional program is dad. The only realistic course of action is for this convention to acknowledge the fact and to terminate a program that despite its value has taken the skill and drained away the time and energy of its officers. (Applause.)

Executive Vice President Farson: The mike to the left.

Vice President Nordin: Nordin, Vancouver-new Westminster. I am a member of the International Executive Board. A year ago last May I was elected the Canadian delegate from the IEB to the fourth Congress of the Inter-American Federation of Working Newspapermen’s Organizations in Puerto Rico. I was very pleased to find that the group of representatives of the various trade union groups, the Caribbean, Central, south, and North America, all seemed to have one thing in common — and that was a desire improve the economic conditions that were given, and it is incredible to sit down with people who have a job like you have and find out the deplorable conditions under which they work.

Now, I would like to state categorically that there was no political inference or discussion at that conference. The entire scope and discussion was trade union matters, plus the normal trade union election processes which I really don’t think could be called political in the context that we are talking about.

Now, I found that when you have a language barrier, perhaps you don’t find out quite as much about some people as you would like to, but I certainly found that the people, the newspaper workers in the other countries that we spent the time with, were dedicated, they were eager, eager for advice that would somhow [sic] enable them to become more effective in their organizations and be able to find some way of improving the very, very difficult conditions they work under.

Now, I think I was probably as surprised and upset as a lot of people when the initial disclosures of possible CIA involvement were made. I was also pleased that the Board was able to meet fairly soon

thereafter and exhaustively look into the allegations as they were made and certainly consider the evidence that came in from every local.

Later on this spring there was an executive meeting of the Inter-American Federation officers, and at that time there was certainly a desire on my part and that of two of the other members of the Guild that are involved in the International Affairs program to try and ascertain the reaction of the people who were there from the various other sectors, and I was quite surprised to find that when you are down and when you have a very low standard of living, you don’t really mind where the money that helps you comes from, whether it comes from a private source or from a government source. As a matter of fact, as a Canadian I found that the Commonwealth members who attended were even highly critical of my country as a well developed nation who did very little to help the other members of the British Commonwealth that are in the North American Area.

I would urge–

Executive Vice President Farson: One minute, Bob.

Vice President Nordin: thank you. I personally have no objection to money, and this is including money that come from any government sources, when I know where it is coming from and I know what it is going to do. I have no hesitation in taking money from the government and using it for a good, sound trade union program, and for that reason I am going to urge you to reject the minority report. (Applause.)

Brother MacPhail: MacPhail, Victoria. Mr. Chairman, speaking in favor of the minority report, and in very simple language, I, as a Canadian citizen and as a member of the American Newspaper Guild, cannot condone in any way the use of funds supplied by any government or any government agency for the use of any efforts of the American Newspaper Guild. (Applause.)

Brother Teller: Oscar Teller, Philadelphia, speaking for the minority report.

I saw it is about time we got the show back on the road. This morning I was thrilled when I heard the report of the Organizing Committee and thought that we were getting back on the road. In this country there are seven provinces without a single Newspaper Guild. In the United States where are 22 states without a Newspaper Guild. This program that we are speaking about tonight has been an important program, yes. It has been an effective program, yes. But it has been a program that has been done south of the Mexican border, south of the board of the United Sates.

The big job is north of that border, just one mile north of that bridge, where we read in the Officers’ Report that a Guild has had its charter lifted i El Paso, Texas, has had its charter lifted because there are no more Guild members in El Paso.

In Lima, Ohio, another charter was lifted because there are no more Guild members left in Lima, Ohio. Yet we dissipate our energies in Lima, Peru, and many places in South America.

In this program, is this viable program, is this for export only, or can we move this program north of the order? Can we employ a peon with the acknowledged talents of a Johan Sloan as a director of organization, perhaps? We are looking for a director of organization, and apparently he is a very effective one. He has done a good job in South America. But our job as members of the American Newspaper Guild is first and foremost north of the border. We have a big jog to do, and I hope that this

body might accepts [sic] the minority report and put this show back on the road where it belongs. Thank you. (Applause.)

Brother Schick: 007 from Philadelphia. (Laughter.) The reason I am down at the mike far from my home is the other center is because of Joe Anderson, who is against the program and is for the minority report. He would have made an awfully bad agent, because when i took my place behind him at that mike, he very graciously informed me that if I wanted to speak, I had better get down to this mike because he was going to move to close debate. (Laughter.)

Like my fellow delegate form Philadelphia, Bess Eilber, I was a bit confused for awhile as to where I was, listening to the debate. It was hard not to think that I was in the United Nations listening to Federencain, the delegate from Serbia, and others of his ilk attacking the United Sates. I heard these terrible attacks on the state Department, upon being tools of our State Department, and I just couldn’t understand what was wrong with our State Department.

In going further along that line, I think of all the proponents of the minority resolution have overlooked one fact, and in this connection I can let rest my feeling that there was a contradiction between my previous statement earlier today about there being no press table in the labor movement, yet seeking support for our International program from AID. I still insist there is no press table in the labor movement; that whatever we want done we have to do ourselves.

Well, what money is it that is dispensed by the AID? It’s our money. It’s no gift from somebody or from another planet. It is money taken every week out of your pay envelope and out of my pay envelope, and I see no objection to using it to improve the conditions and lot and dignity of newspapermen in other countries outside the United states.

And, incidentally, let me say that I don’t know what this new fashion is about revulsion about our spies. When I went to school, I always thought it was revulsion about our enemy’s spies. But I gather form what has bene said here today that we will have to rewrite our history books and tear down the statues of Nathan Hale, wherever they may be standing today.

Incidentally, those of us who are concerned about the subtlety of the State Department and working for them, do give me pause. I happen to have as one of my hobbies record collecting. I am going back to Philadelphia and listen against to all the records of the Philadelphia Orchestra and Louis Armstrong and try to find out how their music has been subverted by the fact that they have toured European countries on State department funds. (Applause.)

Let me close with one remark. Let me chose with one remark about our international program being financed by the AID not being consonant with the history and traditions of the free trade labor movement. Let me recall to you the fact that the united public education system is the child of the American free trade labor movement. It is the outgrowth and effort of a fight waged by the early labor unions in Philadelphia and other parts of our early country, and yet I would also remind you that there isn’t a delegate here who is a father or mother who would scorn with such feelings as the proponents of the minority resolution federal aid to education. (Applause.)

Brother James Young (Vancouver-New Westminster): Young from Vancouver-New Westminster. I am speaking in favor of the minority report. I feel that a lot of the speakers ahead of me have made the points very well, indeed. However knowing the feeling in my own local, I feel I must sand and go on

record as being in favor of this minority report. I am opposed to accepting financial contributions from any government source; even though I am a Canadian, I would have opposed contributions form Canada. I would hope that our U.S. Guildsmen would think the same way. I would hope that a source of funds could be found for the ANG to continue this program and carry on the international program. But form some other agencies other than government sources.

I heartily recommend you support the minority recommendation. (Applause.)

Brother Anderson: Anderson of Washington-Baltimore. Brother Chairman, with apologies to the other speakers waiting and to keep Dave Schick an honest spy, I move the previous question.

(Seconded by several.)

Executive Vice President Farson: Previous question has been moved.

President Rosenstock: this is the magic twelve and five applied to shutting off debate. If you will take the microphones, and those who want to speak, if you wait for a moment and see where this goes, one way or the other.

We now want twelve delegates form five locals if they wish to sustain the motion to cut off debate.

(The motion was supported by Brothers Shea, Salem; Lewis, Rockford; McGill, Gary; Wagner, Chicago; Barnard, Cleveland; Feldman, Rochester; Bailey, Twin Cities; Wallington, Lansing; O’Connor, Washington-Baltimore; Ruper5t, Ottawa; Choate, San Jose; and Parker, Los Angeles.)

Secretary-Treasurer Perlik: That’s enough.

President Rosenstock: We have them.

Brother Sweet: Sweet, San Antonio.

President Rosenstock: those at the mikes can disappear momentarily.

Are you ready for the vote on shutting off debate? All in favor say ayel Contrary. The motion to shut off debate succeeds.


The motion before you now is the minority or substitution of their 3 for the 3 in the majority report.

Brother Kreisman: Brother Chairman, do we have the privilege of closing debate with the vote to shut it off? This is a question.

President Rosenstock: No. This is another question. All in favor say aye. Contrary. Brother [unidentified] what are we voting?
Brother Reistrup: It carried.
Brother Orrick: It carried, damn it.

President Rosenstock: I stated a moment ago there are two sequences on this. On the last one, after the motion to close debate had succeeded, I said, “Now the vote is to substitute 3 of the minority report for number 3 of the majority report,” these are my precise words, so I am going to take this vote again.

Brother Orrick: Point of order.

President Rosenstock: What is the point of order?

Brother Orrick: I believe we cannot move to reconsider what we have just voted on.

President Rosenstock: It is not to reconsider. I didn’t announce the vote, and the members here didn’t understand it.

If it is too hot in the kitchen, you shouldn’t enter it. That is the reverse of staying out.

Brother Crocker: Brother president, I request a roll call. Crocker of Wire Service.

President Rosenstock: Roll call vote. Very well. We need twelve and five again, so if you want a roll call–

(The motion was supported by Brothers Barnard, Cleveland; Wanek, Denver; McCormick, Twin Cities; Dobson, Toronto; Rostelet, North Jersey; Drouin, Manchester; Asher, Washington-Baltimore; MacPhail, Victoria; Thompson, Detroit; Lambert, Seattle-Tacoma; and Sister Wilber, Philadelphia.)

Secretary-Treasurer Perlik: That’s enough.

President Rosenstock: will the three fine tellers come out here again, Wagner, Fay, and Barnard.

Have any of you ever seen the sun come up in Ottawa?

May I have your attention, please. I can’t conduct this meeting for you unless you cooperate. It is your convention. I will read the minority language.

“No government funds will be accepted for the purpose of carrying on the international affairs program.”

Now, a vote yes on this is to substitute. The vote no means the motion goes down.

Secretary-Treasurer Perlik: Akron, 3 votes.
Brother Hawk: Akron does not know the feeling of its own local. On this basis Akron Passes.

Secretary-Treasurer Perlik
Votes Yes No

Bay city 2


5 3

5 3

Boston 10 Bridgeport 1 Brockton 2 Buffalo 6 Canadian Wire Service 4 Chattanooga 2 Chicago 7 Cincinnati 5 Cleveland 8 Columbus 4 _Coos Bay 1 Denver 7 Detroit 7 Erie 3 Eugene 1 Gary 3 Great Falls 2 Greensboro 1 Harrisburg 2 Hawaii 5 Hazelton 1 Hudson county 2 Indianapolis 3 Kenosha 2 Kingston 2 Knoxville 2 Lake Superior 3 Lansing 2 Lehigh Valley 3


4.5 1.5 4

2-1/3 4-2/3 5
5 3


7 7

3 3

5 1 2


2 2 3


Los Angeles 19 19 Lynn 2
Madison 2 2

Manchester 3
Massillon 1
Memphis 5 5 Montreal 4 Newburgh-Beacon 1
New York 79 79

North jersey 4
Ottawa 4 4 Pawtucket 2 2 Peoria 3 3

Philadelphia 12
Pittsburgh 3 3

Portland, Maine
Portland, Oregon 1
Providence 3
Pueblo 2
Puerto Rico 6
Rochester 3 3 Rockford 2 2 Sacramento 5 5

St. Louis 13
Salem 2 2 San Antonio 3 3

San Diego 8
San Jose 6 6

1 2

1 3

5 7
4 4

5-7/9 7-2/9

4 4 8.5 8.5

Scranton 3 3 Seattle-Tacoma 9 9 Sheboygan 2
Sioux city 2

Stockton 3 3 Terre Haute 3 3
Toledo 6 6

Toronto 21
Twin Cities 8
Utica 1 Vancouver-N.Westmns 8
Victoria 3 3 Washington-Baltimore 17 17

Wilkes-Barre 3
Wire Service 18 Woonsocket 2
York 1 Youngstown 3 3

I will call the role of those locals who did not respond.

Bay city 2 Bridgeport 1 Brockton 2 Chattanooga 2 Coos Bay 1 Eugene 1 Great Falls 2

17.5 3.5 5-1/3 2-2/3

6 2

1 2 4 14

Votes Yes No 3 Pass

Greensboro 1
Harrisburg 2
Kenosha 2
Lynn 2
Massillon 1
Montreal 4
Newburgh-Beacon 1
Portland, Oregon 1
Providence 3
Pueblo 3
Puerto Rico 6
Sheboygan 2
Sioux City 2
Utica 1
Woonsocket 2
York 2
Brother Chairman, that complete the calling of the roll.

Brother Fleming: Mr. Chairman, John Fleming, buffalo. I would like to correct the Buffalo vote to read 5 yes and 1 no.

President Rosenstock: The chair will give you one communication that is very plain. The Wire Service guide [sic] executive committee has voted $100 now and $25 a week for the Utica strike fund. Signed Bob Crocker (Applause.)

Thank you very much.

Here is the tally.

Secretary-Treasurer Perlik: Brother chairman, the results of the roll call 134-4/9 votes yes; 263- 5/9 votes not. (applause.)

President Rosenstock: which means the motion fails and the vote now recurs on the majority repor.t

Brother Murphy (New York) Brother Chairman, I had intended to move the previous question, but I understand my good friend from Washington had a brief motion he wanted to introduce, and I wouldn’t[‘t want to cut down debate; as long as he promised to be brief, I will bow to him.

President Rosenstock: He has to be five minutes brief.
Brother Reistrup: Very kind, Mr. Chairman.
I move to insert after point 3 of the motion as it now stands this paragraph:

The convention orders a full investigation and full report by a committee of Guild members, not including any elected ANG officers since 1960, into the relationship between the American Newspaper Guild and Central Intelligence Agency and any other government agency.

Brother [unidentified]: Second.

President Rosenstock The chairman hears a second.

Brother Murphy: Murphy: New York. Brother Chairman, on behalf of, I hope, the entire delegation who have just gone through a long debate, I would oppose that motion and call for the defeat immediately.

Brother Yarbrough: Mr. Chairman, we have been through this for three hours. If I am in order, I would like to move, since we have gone though this several time, to table.

(Seconded by several.)

President Rosenstock: Are you ready for the vote? All those in favor say aye. Contrary. I think they ayes have it. In fact, I state the ayes have it.


Brother Murphy (New York): Brother Chairman, I would move the previous question on the original resolution. (Seconded by several.)

President Rosenstock: Moved and seconded on the previous question, Twelve and five. The chair is not supposed to make observations, but hearing the last round of applause and such, I think we could have just moved but we have the previous question request. Will you take the twelve and five, take the microphones so that Brother Perlik can get the twelve delegates and the five locals.

(The motion was supported by Brother Manning, San Diego; jones, Bakersfield; Bain, Kingston; Feldman, Rochester; Middendorf, Columbus; McGuire, Toronto; Stein, new York; Golden, Lehigh Valley; McCarthy, Chicago; O’Connor, SFONG, and Robert, Cincinnati.)

President Rosenstock: Are you ready for the question? All those in favor of closing debate say aye. Opposed. It is carried.


And the motion recuse on this question. All those in favor of the motion, which is the second majority report of the Resolutions Committee, indicate by saying aye., Opposed. It is carried, and I wish you wouldn’t yell so loud. The floor is quivering under me.

Speaking Out

I’m glad the CIA is ‘immoral’
Thomas W. Braden, The Saturday Evening Post, 20 May 1967, page 10 – 14 By Thomas W. Braden

Former President of California’s Board of Education, trustee of California State Colleges and candidate for lieutenant governor, the author is editor and publisher of BLADE-TRIBUNE at Oceanside, Calif. During World War II, he served with both the British infantry and with the OSS as a parachutist.

On the desk in front of me as I write these lines is a creased and faded yellow paper. It bears the following inscription in pencil: “Received from Warren G. Haskins, $15,000. (signed) Norris A. Grambo.”

I went in search of this paper on the day the newspapers disclosed the “scandal” of the Central Intelligence Agency’s connections with American students and labor leaders. It was a wistful search, and when it ended, I found myself feeling sad.

For I was Warren G. Haskins. Norris A. Grambo was Irving Brown, of the American Federation of Labor. The $15,000 was from the vaults of the CIA, and the piece of yellow paper is the last memento I possess of a vast and secret operation whose death has been brought about by small-minded and resentful men.

It was my idea to give the $15,000 to Irving Brown. He needed it to pay off his strong-arm squads in Mediterranean ports, so that American supplies could be unloaded against the opposition of Communist dock workers. It was also my idea to give cash, along with advice, to other labor leaders, to students, professors and others who could help the United States in its battle with Communist fronts.

It was my idea. For 17 years I had thought it was a good idea. Yet here it was in the newspapers, buried under excoriation. Walter Lippmann, Joseph Kraft. Editorials. Outrage. Shock.

“What’s gone wrong?” I said to myself as I looked at the yellow paper. “Was there something wrong with me and the others back in 1950? Did we just think we were helping our country, when in fact we ought to have been hauled up before Walter Lippmann?

“And what’s wrong with me now? For I still think it was and is a good idea, an imperative idea. Am I out of my mind? Or is it the editor of The New York Times who is talking nonsense?”

And so I sat sadly amidst the dust of old papers, and after a time I decided something. I decided that if ever I knew a truth in my life, I knew the truth of the cold war, and I knew what the Central Intelligence Agency did in the cold war, and never have I read such a concatenation of inane, misinformed twaddle as I have now been reading about the CIA.

Were the undercover payments by the CIA “immoral”? Surely it cannot be “immoral” to make certain that your country’s supplies intended for delivery to friends are not burned, stolen or dumped into the sea.

Are CIA efforts to collect intelligence anywhere it can “disgraceful”? Surely it is not “disgraceful” to ask somebody whether he learned anything while he was abroad that might help his country.

People who make these charges must be naïve. Some of them must be worse. Some must be pretending to be naïve.

Take Victor Reuther, assistant to his brother Walter, president of the United Automobile Workers. According to Drew Pearson, Victor Reuther complained that the American Federation of Labor got money from the CIA and spent it with “undercover techniques.” Victor Reuther ought to be ashamed of himself. At his request, I went to Detroit one morning and gave Walter $50,000 in $50 bills. Victor spent the money, mostly in West Germany, to bolster labor unions there. He tried “undercover techniques” to keep me from finding out how he spent it. But I had my own “undercover techniques.” In my opinion and that of my peers in the CIA, he spent it with less than perfect wisdom, for the German unions he chose to help weren’t seriously short of money and were already anti-Communist. The CIA money Victor spent would have done much more good where unions were tying up ports at the order of Communist leaders.

As for the theory advanced by the editorial writers that there ought to have been a Government foundation devoted to helping good causes agreed upon by Congress-this may seem sound, but it wouldn’t work for a minute. Does anyone really think that congressmen would foster a foreign tour by an artist who has or has had left-wing connections? And imagine the scuffles that would break out as congressmen fought over money to subsidize the organizations in their home districts.

Back in the early 1950’s, when the cold war was really hot, the idea that Congress would have approved many of our projects was about as likely as the John Birch Society’s approving Medicare. I remember, for example, the time I tried to bring my old friend, Paul-Henri Spaak of Belgium, to the U.S. to help out in one of the CIA operations.

Paul-Henri Spaak was and is a very wise man. He had served his country as foreign minister and premier. CIA Director Allen Dulles mentioned Spaak’s projected journey to the then Senate Majority Leader William F. Knowland of California. I believe that Mr. Dulles thought the senator would like to meet Mr. Spaak. I am sure he was not prepared for Knowland’s reaction:

“Why,” the senator said, “the man’s a socialist.”

“Yes,” Mr. Dulles replied, “and the head of his party. But you don’t know Europe the way I do, Bill. In many European countries, a socialist is roughly equivalent to a Republican.” Knowland replied, “I don’t care. We aren’t going to bring any socialists over here.”

The fact, of course, is that in much of Europe in the 1950’s, socialists, people who called themselves “left”-the very people whom many Americans thought no better than Communists-were the only people who gave a damn about fighting Communism.

But let us begin at the beginning.

When I went to Washington in 1950 as assistant to Allen W. Dulles, then deputy director to CIA chief Walter Bedell Smith, the agency was three years old. It had been organized. like the State Department, along geographical lines, with a Far Eastern Division, a Western European Division, etc. It seemed to me that this organization was not capable of defending the United States against a new and extraordinarily successful weapon. The weapon was the international Communist front. There were seven of these fronts, all immensely powerful:

1. The International Association of Democratic Lawyers had found “documented proof” that U.S. forces in Korea were dropping canisters of poisoned mosquitoes on North Korean cities and were following a “systematic procedure of torturing civilians, individually and en masse.”

2. The World Peace Council had conducted a successful operation called the Stockholm Peace Appeal, a petition signed by more than two million Americans. Most of them, I hope, were in ignorance of the council’s program: “The peace movement. . . has set itself the aim to frustrate the aggressive plans of American and English imperialists. . . . The heroic Soviet army is the powerful sentinel of peace.”

3. The Women’s International Democratic Federation was preparing a Vienna conference of delegates from 40 countries who resolved: “Our children cannot be safe until American war-mongers are silenced.” The meeting cost the Russians six million dollars.

4. The International Union of Students had the active participation of nearly every student organization in the world. At an estimated cost of $50 million a year, it stressed the hopeless future of the young under any form of society except that dedicated to peace and freedom, as in Russia.

5. The World Federation of Democratic Youth appealed to the non- intellectual young. In 1951, 25,000 young people were brought to Berlin from all over the world, to be harangued (mostly about American atrocities). The estimated cost: $50 million.

6. The International Organization of Journalists was founded in Copenhagen in 1946 by a non- Communist majority. A year later the Communists took it over. By 1950 it was an active supporter of every Communist cause.

7. The World Federation of Trade Unions controlled the two most powerful labor unions in France and Italy and took its orders directly from Soviet Intelligence. Yet it was able to mask its Communist allegiance so successfully that the C.I.O. belonged to it for a time.

All in all, the CIA estimated, the Soviet Union was annually spending $250 million on its various fronts. They were worth every penny of it. Consider what they had accomplished.

First, they had stolen the great words. Years after I left the CIA, the late United Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson told me how he had been outraged when delegates from under- developed countries, young men who had come to maturity during the cold war, assumed that anyone who was for “Peace” and “Freedom” and “Justice” must also be for Communism.

Second, by constant repetition of the twin promises of the Russian revolution-the promises of a classless society and of a transformed mankind-the fronts had thrown a peculiar spell over some of the world’s intellectuals, artists, writers, scientists, many of whom behaved like disciplined party-liners.

Third, millions of people who would not consciously have supported the interests of the Soviet Union had joined organizations devoted ostensibly to good causes, but secretly owned and operated by and for the Kremlin.

How odd, I thought to myself as I watched these developments, that Communists, who are afraid to join anything but the Communist Party, should gain mass allies through organizational war while we Americans, who join everything, were sitting here tongue-tied.

And so it came about that I had a chat with Allen Dulles. It was late in the day and his secretary had gone. I told him I thought the CIA ought to take on the Russians by penetrating a battery of international fronts. I told him I thought it should be a worldwide operation with a single headquarters.

“You know,” he said, leaning back in his chair and lighting his pipe, “I think you may have something there. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re losing the cold war. Why don’t you take it up down below?”

It was nearly three months later that I came to his office again-this time to resign. On the morning of that day there had been a meeting for which my assistants and I had prepared ourselves carefully. We had been studying Russian front movements, and working out a counteroffensive. We knew that the men who ran CIA’s area divisions were jealous of their power. But we thought we had logic on our side. And surely logic would appeal to Frank Wisner.

Frank Wisner, in my view, was an authentic American hero. A war hero. A cold-war hero. He died by his own hand in 1965. But he had been crushed long before by the dangerous detail connected with cold- war operations. At this point in my story, however, he was still gay, almost boyishly charming, cool yet coiled, a low hurdler from Mississippi constrained by a vest.

He had one of those purposefully obscure CIA titles: Director of Policy Co-ordination. But everyone knew that he had run CIA since the death of the war-time OSS, run it through a succession of rabbit warrens hidden in the bureaucracy of the State Department, run it when nobody but Frank Wisner cared whether the country had an intelligence service. Now that it was clear that Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles were really going to take over, Frank Wisner still ran it while they tried to learn what it was they were supposed to run.

And so, as we prepared for the meeting, it was decided that I should pitch my argument to Wisner. He knew more than the others. He could overrule them.

The others sat in front of me in straight-backed chairs, wearing the troubled looks of responsibility. I began by assuring them that I proposed to do nothing in any area without the approval of the chief of that area. I thought, when I finished, that I had made a good case. Wisner gestured at the Chief, Western Europe. “Frank,” came the response, “this is just another one of those goddamned proposals for getting into everybody’s hair.”

One by one the others agreed. Only Richard G. Stilwell, the Chief, Far East, a hard-driving soldier in civilian clothes who now commands U.S. forces in Thailand, said he had no objection. We all waited to hear what Wisner would say.

Incredibly, he put his hands out, palms down. “Well,” he said, looking at me, “you heard the verdict.” Just as incredibly, he smiled.

Sadly I walked down the long hall, and sadly reported to my staff that the day was lost. Then I went to Mr. Dulles’s office and resigned. “Oh,” said Mr. Dulles, blandly, “Frank and I had talked about his decision. I overruled him.” He looked up at me from over his papers. “He asked me to.”

Thus was the International Organization Division of CIA born, and thus began the first centralized effort to combat Communist fronts.

Perhaps “combat” does not describe the relative strengths brought to battle. For we started with nothing but the truth. Yet within three years we had made solid accomplishments. Few of them would have been possible without undercover methods.

I remember the enormous joy I got when the Boston Symphony Orchestra won more acclaim for the U.S. in Paris than John Foster Dulles or Dwight D. Eisenhower could have bought with a hundred speeches. And then there was Encounter, the magazine published in England and dedicated to the proposition that cultural achievement and political freedom were interdependent. Money for both the orchestra’s tour and the magazine’s publication came from the CIA, and few outside the CIA knew about it. We had placed one agent in a Europe-based organization of intellectuals called the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Another agent became an editor of Encounter. The agents could not only propose anti-Communist programs to the official leaders of the organizations but they could also suggest ways and means to solve the inevitable budgetary problems. Why not see if the needed money could be obtained from “American foundations”? As the agents knew, the CIA-financed foundations were quite generous when it came to the national interest.

I remember with great pleasure the day an agent came in with the news that four national student organizations had broken away from the Communist International Union of Students and joined our student outfit instead. I remember how Eleanor Roosevelt, glad to help our new International Committee of Women, answered point for point the charges about germ warfare that the Communist women’s organization had put forward. I remember the organization of seamen’s unions in India and in the Baltic ports.

There were, of course, difficulties, sometimes unexpected. One was the World Assembly of Youth.

We were casting about for something to compete with the Soviet Union in its hold over young people when we discovered this organization based in Dakar. It was dwindling in membership, and apparently not doing much.

After a careful assessment, we decided to put an agent into the assembly. It took a minimum of six months and often a year just to get a man into an organization. Thereafter, except for what advice and help we could lend, he was on his own. But, in this case, – we couldn’t give any help whatsoever The agent couldn’t find anybody in the organization who wanted any.

The mystery was eventually solved by the man on the spot. WAY, as we had come to call it, was the creature of French intelligence-the Deuxième Bureau. Two French agents held key WAY posts. The French Communist Party seemed strong enough to win a general election. French intelligence was waiting to see what would happen.

We didn’t wait. Within a year our man brought about the defeat of his two fellow officers in an election. After that, WAY took a pro-Western stand. But our greatest difficulty was with labor. When I left the agency in 1954, we were still worrying about the problem. It was personified by Jay Lovestone, assistant to David Dubinsky in the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union.

Once chief of the Communist Party in the United States, Lovestone had an enormous grasp of foreign- intelligence operations. In 1947 the Communist Confèdèration Gènèrale du Travail led a strike in Paris which came very near to paralyzing the French economy. A takeover of the government was feared.

Into this crisis stepped Lovestone and his assistant, Irving Brown. With funds from Dubinsky’s union, they organized Force Ouvrière, a non-Communist union. When they ran out of money, they appealed to the CIA. Thus began the secret subsidy of free trade unions which soon spread to Italy. Without that subsidy, postwar history might have gone very differently.

But though Lovestone wanted our money, he didn’t want to tell us precisely how he spent it. We knew that non-Communist unions in France and Italy were holding their own. We knew that he was paying them nearly two million dollars annually. In his view, what more did we need to know?

We countered that the unions were not growing as rapidly as we wished and that many members were not paying dues. We wanted to be consulted as to how to correct these weaknesses.

I appealed to a high and responsible labor leader. He kept repeating, “Lovestone and his bunch do a good job.”

And so they did. After that meeting, so did we. We cut the subsidy down, and with the money saved we set up new networks in other international labor organizations. Within two years the free labor movement, still holding its own in France and Italy, was going even better elsewhere.

Looking back now, it seems to me that the argument was largely a waste of time. The only argument that mattered was the one with the Communists for the loyalty of millions of workers. That argument, with the help of Lovestone and Brown, was effectively made.

By 1953 we were operating or influencing international organizations in every field where Communist fronts had previously seized ground, and in some where they had not even begun to operate. The money we spent was very little by Soviet standards. But that was reflected in the first rule of our operational plan: “Limit the money to amounts private organizations can credibly spend.” The other rules were equally obvious: “Use legitimate, existing organizations; disguise the extent of American interest: protect the integrity of the organization by not requiring it to support every aspect of official American policy.”

Such was the status of the organizational weapon when I left the CIA. No doubt it grew stronger later on, as those who took charge gained experience. Was it a good thing to forge such a weapon? In my opinion then-and now-it was essential.

Was it “immoral,” “wrong,” “disgraceful”? Only in the sense that war itself is immoral, wrong and disgraceful.

For the cold war was and is a war, fought with ideas instead of bombs. And our country has had a clear- cut choice: Either we win the war or lose it. This war is still going on, and I do not mean to imply that we have won it. But we have not lost it either.

It is now 12 years since Winston Churchill accurately defined the world as “divided intellectually and to a large extent geographically between the creeds of Communist discipline and individual freedom.” I have heard it said that this definition is no longer accurate. I share the hope that John Kennedy’s appeal to the Russians “to help us make the world safe for diversity” reflects the spirit of a new age.

But I am not banking on it, and neither, in my opinion, was the late President. The choice between innocence and power involves the most difficult of decisions. But when an adversary attacks with his

weapons disguised as good works, to choose innocence is to choose defeat. So long as the Soviet Union attacks deviously we shall need weapons to fight back, and a government locked in a power struggle cannot acknowledge all the programs it must carry out to cope with its enemies. The weapons we need now cannot, alas, be the same ones that we first used in the 1950’s. But the new weapons should be capable of the same affirmative response as the ones we forged 17 years ago, when it seemed that the Communists, unchecked, would win the alliance of most of the world.

Clarion Notes
The above article was taken by Clarion directly from the printed magazine.

At the bottom of page 10 there is a footnote: “One measure of a democracy’s strength is the freedom of its citizens to speak out-to dissent from the popular view. Although the editors often disagree with the opinions expressed in Speaking Out, they dedicate the series to that freedom.”


“But of course if all Scaife was responsible for was publishing a silly Pennsylvania newspaper, he would hardly be of sufficient concern to merit discussion here. While many rumors have been attached to Scaife’s alleged efforts to purchase either CBS or the Washington Post for the conservative movement, as of 2002, he had attempted only one other foray as a publisher. It proved both short and ignominious. In 1973, he bought Kern House Enterprises. While registered in the United States, the company ran a London-based news agency called Forum World Features, which offered stories to newspapers and magazines worldwide, including approximately thirty in the United States. But Scaife was forced to close the business down two years later, just before press reports revealed it to be a CIA front. According to ex-CIA director, the late Richard Helms, Forum World provided ‘a significant means to counter Communist propaganda.'”

Alterman, Eric. What Liberal Media? The Truth About BIAS and the News. New York: Basic Books. 2003. Page 248

For AIFLD The American Newspaper Guild And The AFL-CIO International Affairs Program/AIFLD

by | Mar 1, 2024 | AFL-CIO Betrayals, CIA, Featured, Labor Imperialism, Organizations | 0 comments