100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

The University of Michigan Library provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. These materials may be under copyright. If you decide to use any of these materials, you are responsible for making your own legal assessment and securing any necessary permission. If you have questions about the collection, please contact the Bentley Historical Library at bentley.ref@umich.edu

January 15, 1989 - Image 8

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Citizen, 1989-01-15

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

HIGHLAND PARK FOCUS
I yo t:
unity
I
a
When h Emerson
d be paid for the rk he
did during J nu ry, Scott
declared, e money is in
bu et,"
Council members ked ho
he could be p . d ·th no con­
tr ct to set his salary or ho
of the time of the meeting.
th city treasurers office told


T-Y
Council Pre ident Porter
ed, and received pe:nDllSSi()D
from the rest of the council to
tain from voting. ling that
since the mayor had no right to
o the resolution, he could not
vote on whether to 0 rride it or
even on tabling' decisioD. to
eride,
Despite differences with the
council, both Scott and Porter
emphasized the ease of unity
between mayor and council.
Just before the meeting,
Scott id, "I th n the city
council and all e ected officiak
for pportingand rking·
me last year. There are times we
didn't agree. We got through
it"
Sco t g ve each of the coun­
cil members flower, to
h much I 10 e you."
On the other hand, Porter in­
dicated that council unamino -
ly voted to res ore Di rson (a
Scott appointee, char cterized
as Died to the mayo ) as the
council's official legal advisor,
was an ttempt to "wor
together" with the Scott's Ad­
ministration.
Both Scott and Porter stated -
the dispute on the director
"not bickering but a difference
of opinion.". .
However, Porter also indi­
cated that the reason council
refused to renew Emer on's
contract was an lleged refusal
by Emerson to respect council's
authority under the charter in
deciding on expenses.
Some members of the coun­
cil indicated that the mayor's at­
tempt to ignore council' power
to reject contracts, and seeking
loopbo es to keep Emerson on
fter council turned him down,
was also showing disrespect for
their es blished authority.
One observer in the audience
noted, "The mayor wants unity
with the council, but she also
wants her wn w y. I wonder if
these questions can be settled
without another suit" .
1-

Back to Top

© 2025 Regents of the University of Michigan