Jump to content
The Education Forum

Albert E. Jenner

Recommended Posts

I thought it was about time we had a thread on Albert E. Jenner.

Jenner attended the University of Illinois. He was also circulation manager at the Daily Illini, the student newspaper. Jenner spent a year in law school before joining the legal firm of Poppenheusen, Johnston, Thompson and Cole. He became a partner of the firm in January 1939. During this period Jenner developed relationships with several prominent clients, most notably Henry Crown, the principal shareholder in General Dynamics. Jenner later was to become a director of General Dynamics

In 1947 he became the president of the Illinois State Bar Association. In 1951, President Harry S. Truman appointed Jenner to serve on the National United States Loyalty Review Board and four years later he became a name partner at the firm. (The firm eventually changed its name to Jenner & Block).

In 1963 J. Lee Rankin, chief counsel of the Warren Commission, appointed Jenner as a senior counsel that investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As Russ Baker, the author of Family of Secrets (2009), has pointed out: "Albert Jenner was truly a curious choice for the commission staff. He was fundamentally a creature of the anti-Kennedy milieu - a corporate lawyer whose principal work was defending large companies against government trust-busting... Jenner's most important client was Chicago financier Henry Crown, who was the principal shareholder in General Dynamics, then the nation's largest defense contractor and a major employer in the Fort Worth area."

It should be mentioned at this point that a few days before the assassination of JFK, Fred Korth had resigned as Secretary of the Navy. According to author Seth Kantor, Korth only got the job after strong lobbying from Lyndon Johnson. A few weeks after taking the post, Korth overruled top Navy officers who had proposed that the X-22 contract be given to Douglas Aircraft Corporation. Instead he insisted the contract be granted to the more expensive bid of the Bell Corporation. This was a subsidiary of Bell Aerospace Corporation of Forth Worth, Texas. This created some controversy as Korth was a former director of the company.

Korth also became very involved in discussions about the TFX contract. Korth, was the former president of the Continental Bank, which had loaned General Dynamics considerable sums of money during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Korth later told the John McClellan committee that investigated the granting of the TFX contract to General Dynamics “that because of his peculiar position he had deliberately refrained from taking a directing hand in this decision (within the Navy) until the last possible moment.”

As I. F. Stone pointed out, it was “the last possible moment” which counted. “Three times the Pentagon’s Source Selection Board found that Boeing’s bid was better and cheaper than that of General Dynamics and three times the bids were sent back for fresh submissions by the two bidders and fresh reviews. On the fourth round, the military still held that Boeing was better but found at last that the General Dynamics bid was also acceptable.” Stone goes on to argue: “The only document the McClellan committee investigators were able to find in the Pentagon in favour of that award, according to their testimony, was a five-page memorandum signed by McNamara, Korth, and Eugene Zuckert, then Secretary of the Air Force.”

The TFX program involved the building of 1,700 planes for the Navy and the Air Force. The contract was estimated to be worth over $6.5 billion, making it the largest contract for military planes in the nation’s history.

On 24th October, 1962, Seth Kantor reported in the Fort Worth Press that: “General Dynamics of Fort Worth will get the multibillion-dollar defence contract to build the supersonic TFX Air Force and Navy fighter plane, the Fort Worth Press learned today from top Government sources.”

This was confirmed the following month when the Pentagon announced that the TFX contract would be awarded to General Dynamics. Henry M. Jackson was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Government Operations Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He learned that: “Boeing’s bid was substantially lower than its competitor’s. Reports indicated Boeing’s bid was $100 million lower on an initial development contract and that the cost difference might run as high as $400 million on the total $6.5 billion procurement.”

At this time John McClellan, chairman of the Permanent Investigations Committee, was looking into the activities of Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker. During this investigation evidence emerged that LBJ was also involved in political corruption. This included the award of a $7 billion contract for a fighter plane, the TFX, to General Dynamics, a company based in Texas. It was also discovered that the Continental National Bank of Fort Worth, was the principal money source for the General Dynamics plant. As a result of this revelation Korth was forced to resign.

On 22nd November, 1963, a friend of Baker's, Don B. Reynolds told B. Everett Jordan and his Senate Rules Committee that he saw a suitcase full of money which Baker described as a "$100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing the Fort Worth TFX contract". The meeting came to an end when it was announced that JFK had been killed in Dallas.

Jenner headed the team that looked into the life of Lee Harvey Oswald. This included several interviews with George de Mohrenschildt. His chapter of the report was called: "Oswald's Background History, Acquaintances and Motives."

In 1973 the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee named Jenner as the Committee's Chief Minority Counsel. He therefore took part into the HSC investigations into the Watergate allegations against Richard M. Nixon. Jenner, who was a staunch Republican, was ultimately forced to resign as special counsel when he recommended the impeachment of Nixon.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Russ Baker has to say about Jenner in his book Family of Secrets (2009):

Commission assistant counsel Albert E. Jenner Jr. was the staffer who conducted the interrogations of George and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt, which lasted two and a half days. As he did with several other key witnesses, Jenner had private conversations with George de Mohrenschildt both inside and outside the hearing room. Perhaps to ensure that he would not be accused of something underhanded, he went out of his way to state the fact of those outside consultations for the record.' Aside from asking de Mohrenschildt, on the record, to verify that everything they had discussed privately was reiterated in the public session, Jenner never made clear what the subject matter of those private conversations was.

The transcript of the de Mohrenschildts' testimony runs 165 pages." It reveals George to be a remarkably interesting, dynamic character, whose life resembled that of a fictional adventurer. But numerous points of his testimony, especially relating to his background and connections, cried out for further scrutiny. Instead, Jenner consistently demonstrated that he was either incompetent or deliberately incurious when it came to learning anything useful about de Mohrenschildt.

To wit, here is an exchange between Jenner and de Mohrenschildt, in Washington, on April 22, 1964, with a historian, Dr. Alfred Goldberg, present. Jenner, who had already read extensive FBI reports on de Mohrenschildt, could be forceful when he wanted answers. But most of his moves were away from substance. He seemed determined to reach the commissions conclusion that de Mohrenschildt was a "highly individualistic person of varied interests," and nothing more. In fact, Jenner stonewalled so assiduously that even de Mohrenschildt registered amazement:

MR. JENNER: You are 6' 1", are you not?


MR. JENNER: And now you weigh, I would say, about 195?

MR. DE MOHRENSCHILDT: That is right.

MR. JENNER: Back in those days you weighed around 180.

MR. DE MOHRENSCHILDT: That is right.

MR. JENNER: You are athletically inclined?

MR. DE MOHRENSCHILDT: That is right.

MR. JENNER: And you have dark hair.

MR. DE MOHRENSCHILDT: No gray hairs yet.

MR. JENNER: And you have a tanned-you are quite tanned, are you not?


MR. JENNER: And you are an outdoors man?

MR. DE MOHRENSCHILDT: Yes. I have to tell you-I never expected you to ask me such questions.

Why was Jenner even on the commission staff? Chairman Warren offered an oblique justification for his hiring that perhaps was more revealing than the chief justice intended. He was a "lawyer's lawyer," Warren said, and a "businessman lawyer" who had gotten good marks from a couple of unnamed individuals. Commission member John McCloy timidly inquired whether they shouldn't hire people with deep experience in criminal investigations. "I have a feeling that maybe somebody who is dealing with government or federal criminal matters would be useful in this thing." Warren then implied that this was unnecessary because the attorney general (Robert Kennedy) and FBI director (J. Edgar Hoover) would be involved, totally ignoring the strong personal stakes of both officials in the outcome - and the strong animosity between them. Allen Dulles said little during this discussion of Jenner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
....Why was Jenner even on the commission staff? Chairman Warren offered an oblique justification for his hiring that perhaps was more revealing than the chief justice intended. He was a "lawyer's lawyer," Warren said, and a "businessman lawyer" who had gotten good marks from a couple of unnamed individuals. Commission member John McCloy timidly inquired whether they shouldn't hire people with deep experience in criminal investigations. "I have a feeling that maybe somebody who is dealing with government or federal criminal matters would be useful in this thing." Warren then implied that this was unnecessary because the attorney general (Robert Kennedy) and FBI director (J. Edgar Hoover) would be involved, totally ignoring the strong personal stakes of both officials in the outcome - and the strong animosity between them. Allen Dulles said little during this discussion of Jenner.[/color]

In reaction to Earl Warren's December 16, 1963, Albert E. Jenner Jr., "lead in", (second page, below....) I would love to know who "we" is.... I think it is fair to say, based on the sentiments displayed in the first image below, Henry Crown, largest shareholder and chairman of General Dynamics' executive committee, should have been, with the TFX contract award decision under investigation in 1963, considered a "person of interest", in any legitimate WC investigation of at least, the murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby.

I think Warren's daughter, Virginia Daly, is still alive. While the opportunity to talk to her still exists, (she was 32 years old in December, 1960, at the time of her marriage to ABC News executive, John C Daly), I think she should be asked if and when she met Albert Jenner, or first heard of him, and who brought up the name, or introduced her to Jenner. She should also be asked if she knows how her father first knew of Jenner, and any awareness she had of their relationship. Before her marriage, Virginia Warren Daly was frequently reported to be in the company of Conrad Hilton, close business associate of Albert Jenner's client, Henry Crown. Conrad Hilton has also been described as an "old friend" of Earl Warren. In 1957, at an Empire State Building reception, hosted by Henry and Renee Schine Crown and the other Empire State building directors and their wives,


The Empire State Building: The Making of a Landmark

Escorted by Colonel Crown and his wife, the couple (Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip) was introduced to the Empire ... and, quite inexplicably, to Miss Virginia Warren, daughter of Chief ...

Henry Crown's son, John J., joined Jenner's law firm in 1959, and was described as a partner in that firm by 1969.

Warren: "We have been thinking of a lawyer from Chicago, by the name of Albert Jenner".





On edit....I cannot read the entire article, but the highlights show Warren appointing Jenner to one of six study groups in 1960:


US PANELS NAMED ON COURTS' RULES; Warren Appoints 6 Groups to...

- New York Times - Apr 4, 1960

St. : Albert B. Jenner Jr.. Chicaeo: Prof. Charles W. Joiner, Unlversitv of Michigan Law School. v.Also David W. Louisell. University of California Law ...

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 6 months later...
Guest Tom Scully

Don't know how I missed this when I read the Obit snippets of John Crown, Henry Crown's son, Albert E. Jenner Jr.'s law partner, and now we find, law clerk for three years to the Supreme Court Justice who was one of the two named references Earl Warren provided to his fellow Warren commissioners in support of his appointment of Jenner as assistant WC counsel responsible for investigating if Oswald or Ruby were participants in larger conspiracy.

The only other Jenner reference that Warren named on the record was Dean Acheson's, one of fellow WC commisioner John McCloy's:



New York Times - Nov 2, 1986

THE WISE MEN Six Friends and the World They Made: Acheson, Bohlen, Harriman, Kennan, Lovett, McCloy. By Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas.


And We are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the John F. Kennedy ...‎ - Page 388

by George Michael Evica - 1978 - 465 pages

The Jenner-Henry Crown connection alone should have suggested conflict of interests to those responsible for selecting the Warren , Commission's counsel,...

Here is one of the many things that Evica didn't know in 1978.:


Ex-farmer, judge Crown remembered as 'wise, fair'

- Daily Herald - NewsBank - Mar 8, 1997

Crown clerked for US Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark from 1956 to 1959 and ... law at the Chicago firm of Jenner and Block, where he became a partner. ...

John J. Crown, judge, philanthropist

- Chicago Sun-Times - NewsBank - Mar 6, 1997

John J. Crown, 67, a former Cook County Circuit Court judge and youngest son of ... In 1959, he joined the law firm of Jenner & Block. ...



The Kennedy assassination cover-up‎ - Page 96

Donald Gibson - History - 2000 - 306 pages+


Doesn't the Warren appointment of Albert Jenner rise at least to the level of official impropriety as the CIA's designation of George Joannides as its liason to the HSCA investigation?

What else would be required to raise doubt to a level where the conflicts of interests in the appointment of Jenner would rise to a level sufficient to disqualify the WC's findings related to whether or not Oswald or Ruby were part of larger conspiracy?

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest Tom Scully

Oh,,,,they all had a hand in it...the cover up that was the WC investigation and "Report".:

Let the record show that Albert E. Jenner, Jr., was in truth, a "mob lawyer" who worked diligently to protect the Dorfmans from at least as far back as the 1953 hearings documented in thiis post, through his representation of Michael Frank Darling, into the 1970's when he represented Allen Dorfman directly. Jenner had to know, as a result of the 1953 hearing where Jimmy Hoffa and thte Teamster Central States Welfare Fund were directly intertwined with the efforts of Jenner's client, Darling, funneling money from the unions to the Dorfman's, at the direct expense of the union members and their employers, that it was a mistake in 1960 to.:


In The Matter of The Application for Playboy-Elsinore Associates

For a Casino License

Decided: April 7, 1982

.....Page 7

B. Areas of Concern Identified By The Division

....2. The 1963 Loan

On March 15,1960, another Hyatt financing proposal was sent to the PENSION FUND and was directed to the attention of it Executive

Page 7

Secretary, Francis J. Murtha. In this proposal, Hyatt offered to sell to the FUND subordinated debentures in the principal amount of $4,000,000 bearing interest at the rate of 6 1/4 percent per annum and maturing on March 31, 1979. This financing was to be used by Hyatt for the expansion of its hotel chaing and for the acquisition, development, and construction of real estate projects.

Stanford Clinton again withdrew as counsel for the (Teamsters) PENSION FUND and the firm of Thompson, Raymond, Mayer, Jenner and Bloomstein was retained in order to render legal advice to the Trustees of the Fund and to execute the appropriate legal documents. ....

....After difficult negotiations, and Trustees of the PENSION FUND approved a revised proposal....The loan was executed on June 24, 1960.

The Division in its summation noted some compliamentary language used by James R. Hoffa in referring to the Pritzker family at a Board of Trustees meeting of the PENSION FUND. This reference was to the fiscal responsibility of the Pritzkers....

...3. 1966-1970 Loans

No ethical attorney who was as familiar with the details of the testimony in, and of the investigation into the Dorfman's "business" dealings below, would permit his

firm, as Jenner did above, to act as temporary counsel for Hoffa's Teamsters Pension Fund, or to later represent Allen Dorfman in criminal proceedings, yet Jenner did both, while representing Henry Crown and his family, along with the Material Service Div. of General Dynamics. Jenner's appointment to a sensitive role on the Warren Commission, supported by Earl Warren, Tom Clark, and Deam Acheson, voids the integrity and reliabilty of the WC Report's findings.

Clark Clifford met with LBJ at the White House, late into the evening on the day after JFK was assassinated. By 1966. Clifford was the most proiminent sponsor of the advice to LBJ to cross party lines to appoint the hopelessly compromised Albert Jenner to the US Supreme Court. RFK, with his name displayed below during a later review of the 1953 hearings testimony, along with his vast experience investigation Hoffa, had to know that Jenner on the WC amounted to a mob infiltration of the WC investigation at the highest level, but he said nothing, at the time, or later.....


Investigation of welfare funds and racketeering ... Hearings ... on H.Res ...

By United States. Congress. House. Committee on education and labor 1953 - 502 pages

.....Mr. MCKENNA.Is it not true, Mr. Hoffa, that shortly before these dependency benefits were reduced the Union Insurance Agency of Illinois commission was increased by 50 percent ?

Mr. Hoffa. I beg your pardon ?

Mr. MCKENNA. Is it true, Mr. Hoffa, that shortly before this re-duction in employee benefits was put into effect the commission of the of the Union Insurance Agency of Illinois was increased by 50 percent?

Mr. HOFFA. I have no knowledge as to the amount of money it was or was not — the Union Casualty was or was not paying to the Illinois insurance agency. I do not know and cannot answer it.

Mr. MCKENNA. You have never been told that shortly before these reduced benefits were put into effect that the Dorf man commission had been increased by 50 percent?

Mr. HOFFA. Right to this day I do not have full knowledge of even what they are receiving.

Mr. MCKENNA. Willyou answer that question ? Were you then

Mr. HOFFA. Nobody told me. I will answer it direct.

Mr. MCKENNA. Were you aware at that time that had been recently increased by 50 percent?

Mr. HOFFA. I was not, and I am not to this day, sir.

Mr. McKENNA. You don't know now that the Dorfman commission was increased shortly before that reduction in benefits?

Mr. HOFFA. I do not. That would not reflect in any figures sent in to our office because we have nothing to do with the Illinois agency other than see that they pay the claims that are filed with them.

Mr. MCKENNA. Mr. Hoffa, had you known that would you have insisted that the Dorfman commission go go back to what it was before instead of these benefits being reduced ?

Mr. HOFFA. I would not have said anything one way or the other, because I am not doing business, insofar as premiums paid or retention fees considered, with the Illinois company, but, rather, with the Union Casualty of New York.

Mr. MCKENNA. But the commissions to the Dorfmans have to come out of your premium, don't they ?

Mr. HOFFA. It would not increase my premiums. The best evidence is that it did not.

Mr. MCKENNA. You got less benefits.

Mr. HOFFA. Based upon experience ratings — not based upon any premiums of the moneys that Union Casualty received— because at no time has the retention rate been changed that has been paid to Union Casualty Co.

Mr. McKENNA. Mr. Hoffa, would it not have been fairer to the members of your unon to leave the benefits where they were instead of increasing the Dorfman commissions?

Mr. HOFFA. I cannot answer as to what about the Dorfmans, but I can certainly answer for the benefits, and I will say to you that, based upon actual experience, not theoretical, not second-Monday-morning quarterbacking, it was an absolute necessity that, if we were going to have

a sound insurance policy, to do what we did in regards to reducing certain

female disorders insofar us our trust agreement was concerned and our policy was concerned.

Mr. HOFFMAN. You mean payments for certain female disorders?

Mr. HOFFA. That is correct, sir.

Mr. MCKENNA. Now, Mr. Hoffa, the money would have been the same whether it came from the Dorfmans and their commission or whether it came from your members and reduced the benefits, wouldn't it?

Mr. Hoffa. That is not true.

Mr. MCKENNA. The only source of funds for this whole insurance enterprise is the assessments that are put on by the Central States fund.

Mr. Hoffa. That is not true, either.

Mr. McKenna. What other source do you have ?

Mr. Hoffa. There is no assessment put on by the Central States fund. It is a provision in the contract stating that the employer shall pay in to a welfare fund $2 per week per employee.

Mr. McKenna. And that is the Central States fund

Mr. Hoffa. Let me, now. Out of the welfare fund as such the trustees buy insurance, and the balance of the moneys not expended for that purpose are kept into a trust fund looking forward to the day of when we will have pensions, which we are negotiating next year, and to take care of those people who will be entitled to that sort of pension fund.

Mr. McKenna. So all the money for this whole insurance enterprise comes from the Central States fund ? Is that correct ?

Mr. Hoffa. That is correct.

Mr. McKenna. And the money which the Dorfmans get in the way of commissions out of these premiums have to come out of your fund, too?

Mr. Hoffa. That is not correct.

Mr. McKenna. What other source is there for it ?

Mr. Hoffa. I have no knowledge as to how the Dorfman agency operates. I have no financial transactions with the Dorfman agency but I do business with Dr. Leo Perlman, William Smith of Union Casualty, and have no desire nor knowledge of what Perlman does with whatever retention he receives from us. As long as I get coverage, we buy it.

Mr. McKenna. Mr. Hoffa, any money that Union Casualty pays by way of commission on the premiums that Central States fund pays to it must come from the Central States fund payment, must it not ? There is no other source for it.

Mr. Hoffa. All of the moneys paid into Union Casualty certainly come from the Central States welfare fund.

Mr. McKenna. So, since the Dorfman commissions come from that, they come from the Central States fund ?

Mr. Hoffa. That is not true.

Mr. McKenna. There is no other source for it.

Mr. Hoffa. That is not true. The commissions paid to the Dorfman concern, I think it is Illinois Insurance, is it not? Is that the name of it?

Mr. McKenna. You probably know as well or better than I.

Mr. Hoffa. I don't know. Mr. Fitzgerald. Union Insurance Agency of Illinois. Mr. Hoffa. Union Insurance Agency of Illinois. That money that is paid to them does not come out of our premiums, but comes out of Leo Perlman and Union Casualty of New York, and has no bearing on Central States welfare fund if it is a cent or 20 percent that they receive.

Mr. McKenna. Mr. Hoffa, what is a retention ? What comes out of the retention


Mr. HOFFA. What comes out of it ?

Mr. McKenna. Do the expenses of the Union Casualty come out of that retention figure ?

Mr. Hoffa. I would have no knowledge of how they operate or what they do with moneys that are theirs.

Mr. McKenna. Mr. Hoffa, you know that the purpose of a retention figure is to

pay the expenses of the insurance company and to pay its profit. Isn't that correct ?

Mr. HOFFA. As a matter of fact, that has been such a mystery to me, I still don't know what it is, and I don't think anybody else knows.

Mr. McKenna. I think that is plain enough, Mr. Hoffa. Out of every dollar that you pay in Union Casualty takes out 17% percent ?

Mr. HOFFA. Provided that — that is not true. That is not a true statement.

Pardon me.

Mr. McKenna. We will get the qualifications later. With that 17% percent they have to pay all of their expenses, all of their operating expenses, they have to take their profit, and they have to pay all their commissions ; isn't that correct ?

Mr. HOFFA. I would say that out of whatever moneys Union Casualty Co. earns they certainly must use that as a basis for profit and operation of the business.

Mr. McKenna. And all of the commissions they pay?

Mr. Hoffa. Whatever their operations may be.

Mr. McKenna. So the commissions have to come out of that 17% percent ?

Mr. HOFFA. With this understanding, that they have they have not received 17% percent.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Do they get 17% percent, or don't they ?

Mr. Hoffa. They do not receive 17% percent.

Mr. McKenna. All the commissions have to come out of the retention figure, do they not ?

Mr. HOFFA. All of the retention comes out of the premium rate that is paid in to the insurance company after claim losses.

Mr. McKenna. And all of the expenses, including all commissions paid by Union Casualty, have to come out of the retention figure; isn't, that correct?

Mr. HOFFA. Whatever is left, yes.

Mr. MCKENNA. And in that retention figure would be the commissions paid to the Dorf mans ? Isn't that correct ?

Mr. HOFFA. I would have no knowledge of that. I don't care to answer for Union Casualty.

Mr. McKENNA. There is no other source of it.

Mr. HOFFA. I don't know how their business operates.

Mr. MCKENNA. It is perfectly logical that is the case.

Mr. Hoffa. I don't believe it, and I want to say this to you, that they have only received one time, to my knowledge, 17% percent, and that is the mystery that is the mystery about this whole thing. Since we have had the dependency coverage with the members Union Casualty has not received in any one year, to the best of my knowledge....


Investigation of improper activities in the labor or management field ...‎ - Page 15273

United States. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field - 1958

Mr. Uhlman. I have a letter dated March 8, 1950, written by Allen Dorfman to Dr. Perlman,

and he says, in part : Yon will note that they make reference — and he was referring,

if I may say here, to the bid invitation of the Central States Drivers

Council — they make reference to the average premium age of 43. He was

referring here to the life

insurance. I might say that the bid invitation made it very clear

there was to be no modification insofar as the bidding itself was concerned

with respect to any feature of the specifications in the invitation itself.

Notwithstanding that, the bid that came from Union

Casualty quoted a life rate of age 39 instead of 43. Mr. Dorfman continues :

In my conversation with Jimmy Hoffa,

he said that it would be all right to quote a lower rate for the life

insurance but, if you do quote a lower rate and they find that the average

rate and they find that the average rate is in the vicinity of 43 years, we

will have to go along on a basis of the average age we submitted in our bid.

Use your own Judgment along these lines but bear in mind to cut somewhere along

the life insurance rate instead of 43,

quote a figure as you have in the past and we will be in pretty good shape.

I might add this : In my conversation — again quoting from the letter — with Mr.

Hoffa, he said there will be a minimum of 30000 people to be covered, and in a very

short time it should be increased to well over 100000.

Senator IVES. Have you any of those documents of that same type to go in ?

Mr. UHLMANN. No, I do not

Senator IVES. That will be exhibit 205-A. (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 205-A"

for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.

Mr. KENNEDY. Do you have some other documents?

Mr. UHLMANN. Yes, I do have a document which has a bearing on the letter I just quoted from, to this effect.

Senator IVES. If you are going to have that, we had better make the last one 205-A and the one

you are about to read will be 205-B, if it relates to the other.

Mr. UHLMANN. On March 13, 1950, the actuary of the United States Life Insurance Co., which as

Professor Mayerson pointed out earlier had the

life portion of this total insurance, addressed a letter to Dr. Perlman.


Investigation of improper activities in the labor or ..., Volumes 43-45‎ - Page 15992

Political Science - 1960

Mr. UHLMANN. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, Mr. Darling who was head of the union then,

and he still is, was questioned about it by another committee some few years

ago. During the hearing he was questioned, I should say, about the events

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you may testify as to excerpts from them if you desire.

Mr. UHLMANN. On April 27, 1949, Dr. Perlman wrote to Frank Darling confirming that he would

insure the members of local 1031 effective May 1, 1949. On August 24, 1949,

Perlman sent his first check for commissions to Allen

Dorfman in the amount of $1000 in connection with this insurance.

On September 30, 1949, Dr. Perlman wrote to one of his officera who was then out

of the city, city, suggesting that he contact Paul Dorfman who

was then in St. Paul, Minn. and in so writing he described it this way:

"Paul Dorfman proved to be very influential in the AFL and many trades.

AFL and many trades. He was also instrumental in the materialization of the

Electrical Workers Brotherhood plan." On November 9, 1949, Dr. Perlman entered into an agreement

with Allen Dorfman in relation to the local 1031 insurance and as part of this agreement he

he enclosed a check for $700 which he said would cover his office rent since Allen Dorfman

had not yet apparently at that time had an office of his own. Dr. Perlman was sending

him this $700 in order that he could get started by way of paying his rent,

and advancing it, and also for office equipment, as Perlman described it.


Investigation of improper activities in the labor or ..., Volumes 43-45‎ - Page 15993

Political Science - 1960

On April 3, 1950, Allen Dorfman wrote to William Smith, one of the officers of

the Union Casualty Co., pointing out that he had talked with Mr. Darling

about getting some life insurance for a group •of members,

and that the life insurance at the time was carried with another company.

He mentioned that Mr. Darling would like to turn that business over to him, that

is, Mr. Dorfman, as — well, to quote it, he says : "As a favor to me.

He then suggested that the company try to bid on it with a view to having the

business transferred to them. OOn November 28, 1949, we find a letter written

by the company at Mount Vernon. This person that wrote the letter was assistant,

then, to Dr. Perlman, and he advises the United States Life Insurance Co.,

which then was underwriting the life portion of this insurance, to address

all communications to their representative who was handling •claims


Hearings‎ - Page 83

United States. Congress. House. Committee on Education - 1953

... 122 Darling, M. Frank, Chicago, 111., accompanied by counsel, AE Jenner and

... 111., accompanied by counsel, Stanford Clinton, Chicago, 111 71 Dorfman, ...




Mr. SMITH. I want to make it clear that you are the witness and that you have a right to

consult with your counsel before you answer any questions, but the lawyers,

your attorneys, are not going to make any answers.

Mr. JENNER. I never have.

Mr. McKENNA. Mr. Darling, what is your occupation ? Mr. DARLING. I am president and business

manager of local 1031 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Chicago.

Mr. McKENNA. Where is that located ?

Mr. DARLING. Chicago.

Mr. McKENNA. That is your home?

Mr. DARLING. Yes, sir.

Mr. McKENNA. Approximately how many members are there your union?

Mr. DARLING. I would say 35000 to 37000 right now.

Mr. MCKENNA. Do you have a health and welfare arrangement with the employers of your members?

Mr. DARLING. We have as a part of our union agreements that each employer is to supply each employee in the bargaining unit a certain amount of insurance, if that is what you mean, sir.

Mr. McKENNA. That is contained in the bargaining agreement.'

Mr. DARLING. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCKENNA. That is contained in your bargaining arrangements with your employers?

Mr. DARLING. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCKENNA. The identical contract is contained in every contract with employers?

Mr. DARLING. It is worded differently with different contracts different employers, but the amount of insurance is the same.

Mr. MCKENNA. How was the insurance purchased ?

Mr. DARLING. The employer purchases the insurance.

Mr. MCKENNA. Purchases it directly ?

Mr. DARLING. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCKENNA. Do you have any part in negotiation for it?

Mr. DARLING. I have recommended Union Casualty, and I think about half or a little more of our members are insured through Union Casualty.

Mr. McKENNA. Who is the policyholder?

Mr. DARLING. Local 1031.

Mr. MCKENNA. Local 1031 is the policyholder?

Mr. DARLING. In the case of Union Casualty insurance, yes, sir.

Mr. McKENNA. How about the other cases?

Mr. DARLING. The employer is the policyholder.

Mr. McKENNA. What is the reason for the distinction?

Mr. DARLING. What to our mind is a very big reason, and the only reason. Under — I was told, at least, under Illinois law covering insurance that an employee must be a member of the group to get group insurance. By placing the master policy in the name of the union an employee who is laid off, quits, or is discharged can continue to get that group insurance at the group rate as a member of local 1031. An employee, where it is placed directly and the policy is in the name of the employer, when they are laid off, at the end of the month that they are laid off, they are no longer covered by insurance. To continue to carry it themselves they would have to pay what they call — I can't think of the word, but it would depend on their age what the policy would cost.

Mr. MCKENNA. You give that as a reason for your union being the policyholder in the case of Union Casualty?

Mr. DARLING. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCKENNA. Why, then, isn't the union the policyholder in the other cases ?

Mr. DARLING. Principally because the other insurance companies did not want to do it that way.

Mr. MCKENNA. There was an objection of the insurance companes?

Mr. DARLING. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCKENNA. Tell us how the premiums are paid for this insurance?

Mr. DARLING. They are paid directly by the employer to the insurance company.

Mr. MCKENNA. Directly by the employer to the Union Casualty Co. in one instance, and in other instances to the other companies?

Mr. DARLING. To whatever insurance company is the carrier.

Mr. MCKENNA. What commissions are paid in connection with that insurance?

Mr. DARLING. I'm not clear just what you mean by the question, sir.

Mr. MCKENNA. What commissions are paid in connection with the insurance on the members of your union?

Mr. DARLING. During the first, approximately 2-1/2 years of the insurance with Union Casualty, Union Casualty Co. paid local 1031 2-1/2 percent of the premiums. I ask for it because we use — well, it started with 1 girl and we use now as high as 5 and 6 in processing the claims. And I thought that inasmuch as that work would normally be done by an insurance

company that the insurance company that was getting the premium ought to

reimburse us for it or pay us part of the expense. And then a year

ago, a year ago last May, I was informed that they couldn't do that anymore,

Were you ever associated with any of the Dorf- mans in insurance ?

Mr. DARLING. No, sir.

Mr. MCKENNA. Never ?


Mr. MCKENNA. Are you familiar with the original establishment of the Dorf man Agency ?


Mr. McKenna. Do you remember any discussion back in 1949 of the Dorf mans going into the insurance business?

Mr. Darling. In '49 we decided that — I believe it was '49 — that the insurance that the employees had had up to that time was not sufficient. It was a very small policy and

meant nothing much in the way of the rising costs of hospitalization, hospitals and so forth, so I requested several insurance companies — we figured out a package.

If I may be permitted the time I could go into elaborate on it a little bit.

Mr. MCKENNA. We are not interested in the details of the insurance at this time.

Mr. DARLING. I and other officers in the union figured out a package that we felt would be sufficient to keep our members who are family people, who live from day to day, out of the county hospital. That is where most of them were going when they were sick. We asked several insurance companies to give us a bid on how much it would cost for such a package. An attorney who has represented our union before even I was connected with it.

Mr. McKENNA. Who was the attorney?

Mr. Darling. Joe Jacobs — said that there was a comparatively new company in New York who he was sure could write a package that we would want, and that the premium would be lower than any other company. I told him I would be very much interested. He introduced me to the Dorf mans.

Mr. McKenna. When was that now ?

Mr. DARLING. Paul, I had already known for some time. I had seen him at federation meetings, Chicago Federation of Labor meetings, from time to time; Allen I had never met to that time. I believe it was in '49.

Mr. MCKENNA. Approximately when in 1949?

Mr. DARLING. That must have been in the early part of '49.

Mr. MCKENNA. The early part of '49?

Mr. DARLING. Yes, in the spring or before spring even.

Mr. MCKENNA. That was before, then, the Dorfmans were licensed as an insurance agency?

Mr. DARLING. I think it is. I'm trying to remember just how long we have had insurance. I think Zy2 years. Would that make it the early part of '49 ?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. DARLING. The first company covered by the Union Casualty was in May.

Mr. MCKENNA. May of 1949? (There was no response.)

Mr. MCKENNA. I believe if I can refresh your recollection at all your policy is renewable in May, isn't it ?

Mr. DARLING. That is correct.

Mr. McKENNA. And so it is for annual periods ?

Mr. DARLING. That is correct.

Mr. MCKENNA. So in all probability this was in May of 1949?

Mr. DARLING. I believe it was.

Mr. MCKENNA. Well, now, do you know whether or not at that time the Dorfmans were a licensed insurance agency in Illinois?

Mr. DARLING. I don't know.

Mr. McKiNNA. Tell us as much as you can recall of your conversation with Mr. Jacobs at that time.

Mr. DARLING. He just told me that he thought maybe they had what we were looking for. I was looking for the lowest cost insurance package

because I knew it would be that much — the lesser cost.

Mr. MCKENNA. What I want to know in great detail is anything you can recall of your conversation with Mr. Jacobs or Mr. Dorfman at that time.

Mr. DARLING. As much as I can recall, I remember he said he thought that perhaps these people had what we were looking for.

Mr. MCKENNA. Did you first talk with Dr. Perlman or with one of the Dorfmans ?

Mr. DARLING. To the best of my memory, I believe Dr. Perlman and a fellow named Kosner or Kosman or some such name, and one of the Dorfmans.

Mr. MCKENNA. Which of the Dorfmans?

Mr. DARLING. It might have been both.

Mr. MCKENNA. Both of them?

Mr. DARLING. It has been quite a while ago, I don't remember.

Mr. MCKENNA. By both of them you mean Paul?

Mr. DARLING. Paul and his son Allen.

Mr. MCKENNA. But not with Kose ?

Mr. DARLING. Oh, no.

Mr. MCKENNA. You never had any discussions with Rose about this?

Mr. DARLING. No. I believe they came up to my office, I gave them what I consider — we had made some studies or inquiries of what we consider to be the average age of the employees. I told them that approximately 60, 65 percent at least were female employees, and the kind of a policy we wanted. One thing I insisted on, that we be permitted to process the claim up to the point that we do. By that I mean that when a claim comes in from any member, chief steward or steward, or personnel director that will give any employee a claim, they send the claim to us. A girl in our office the same morning it appears, it comes in, takes the name, address, plant they work in, the nature of the illness, and puts it on a 5 by 7, I believe it is, size card, and then sends the claim on down to the insurance company. When the insurance company processes that and sends the check to the employe the carbon copy of that check or voucher is sent back to us. The girl then in our office puts the information on, how much they were paid, what it was for, and so forth. Our reason for that is that we wanted to, No. 1 — and the girl has instructions, any claim that isn't paid in 10 days to let me know so I can call up and

find out why, and we can answer the questions. Again if I am not straying too far afield our membership is mostly women. Some of them call up 2 or 3 times a day, sometimes, to find out when they are going to get their money, how much it will be, even to call up and tell us about their operations. They really do. Not all of them, of course, but many of them. And I felt that it was another service that local 1031 could give its members. And we have tough competition in Chicago to keep our members, very tough.

Mr. McKenna. Did you have any knowledge of whether or not Joo Jacobs was at that time financially interested in the Dorf man Agency ?

Mr. Darling. Not to my knowledgehe. he never has been.

Mr. MCKENNA. What was the retention rate at that time of the insurance?

Mr. DARLING. They didn't tell me any retention rate. I wanted the lowest possible rate that I could guarantee to an employer that would not go up for at least a year.

Mr. MCKENNA. The retention rate at that time was 100 percent. is that correct?

Mr. Jenner. Excuse me, I don't think the witness understands the question. Mr. Darling. I don't know what you mean by the question.

Mr. McKenna. See if we understand ourselves. When you purchase insurance, group insurance, you agree on a certain price for the insurance you are purchasing, is that right ?


Mr. MCKENNA. We can assume for the moment that it is a pric«, of say, $5 a month per head. We will just assume that.

Mr. Darling. Ours is $5.60.

Mr. McKenna. All right, we will take that then, yours is $5.60. At the end of a year 12 times $5.60 times the number of yovur «E- ployees may amount to a good deal more or may not amount to i good deal more than the total of the claims that have had to in connection with your insurance; is that correct?


Mr. McKENNA. Now, what happens to that difference?

Mr. DARLING. It wasn't even discussed. Frankly, I knew very little about insurance and it wasn't even discussed. I wanted the lowest possible rate that they could guarantee, and they gave me that.

Mr. MCKENNA. A retention rate would be the percentage of the difference that the insurance company is allowed to keep.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, percentage of the difference between the amount of claims paid and the amount of premium.

Mr. McKENNA. I should say the percentage of the whole.

Mr. JENNER. Premium.

Mr. MCKENNA. That is right ; not in excess of the difference.

Mr. DARLING. I was told that— —

Mr. MCKENNA. You entered into no such retention rate arrangement ?

Mr. DARLING. No. I was told, however, that, No. 1, the rate would not be increased regardless of experience for 1 year, but that if they had a good experience that at the end of the year additional insurance might be added, or coverage, rather, for them. I do recall that.

Mr. McKENNA. How do you explain then that in the Central States case a 17%-percent retention figure was granted by Union Casualty? Why did they discriminate against your union?

Mr. DARLING. Mr. McKenna, I couldn't answer that. I know nothing about the Central States.

Mr. MCKENNA. That is, why should they have a 100-percent retention rate in your case and 171/2 percent in Central States ?

Mr. DARIJNG. I couldn't answer that. I know nothing about Central States. I never talked to anybody from Central States.

Mr. MCKENNA. According to the witnesses today 17^2 percent was by far the highest bid in the Central States case, otner bids were around 8 percent. Mr. DARLING. I wouldn't be able to answer that question; I don't know.

Mr. MCKENNA. You can see why we want to get to the facts there. There is a 100-percent retention rate in your case and we are comparing that with what seems to be an extremely large one of 17^ percent in the Central States case against the customarily one of probably 7 percent. Can you explain that for us?

Mr. Darling. Frankly, I have never heard, never even thought about it. I could only hazard a guess, and I am sure you have already thought of that one.

Mr. MCKENNA. What is your guess?

Mr. DARLING. That the rate for the package would be higher.

Mr. McKENNA. Well, if there is a low percentage rate, of course, it doesn't make much difference what the rate for insurance is, does it ? Because the difference goes back to the insured.

Mr. JENNER. The amount of the premium would have an effect, wouldn't it?

Mr. DARLING. I am talking about an amount of the premium.

Mr. MCKENNA. It would initially have an effect, but it would go back at the end of the year. If the premium were high, it would mean you get back more at the end of the year.

Mr. Darling. Now perhaps I was very green about it.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...