me ait an atun
Eighty-one years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.
News Phone: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1971
NIIrHT EDITOR: ROSE SUE BERSTEIN
Politics and the income tax
Hoi
By PAT PATTERSON
[ TNIVERSITY WOMEN - are
you:
a) an employe of the Univer-
sity;
b) employed in a job classifica-
lion including both men and
women;
c) paid considerably less than
the man next to you, but doing the
same work; or
d) all of the above?
If you answered (d), then you
are in the same predicament as
are 20 per cent of University fe-
male employes, who are paid at
least 10 per cent less than men
performingrthe same job.
But you have a way to do some-
thing about it, and you don't have
to quit or change your job classi-
fication. Instead, you can turn to
the Commissioin on Women's file
review.
THE REVIEW, currently exam-
ining the personnel files of women
in all job categories which include
both men and women, is aimed
at discovering all cases in which
the University is paying women
significantly less than men for
performing the same jobs.
And part of the file review is
a formal procedure, through which
women can press their demands
for higher salaries and back pay.
The file review procedure was
established this fall in response
to
challenge
'U',
sex
THE EXPLOSIVE performance by mem-
bers of City Council and Mayor Harris
Monday night not only moved the par-
tisan sniping that has gone on all year
into the spotlight of battle. It also led
to a compr~pmise move on the income
tax which is only a hair more construc-
tive than no move at all.
The 6-5 defeat of Harris' own tax pro-
posal at the hands of the Republicans
was avenged - but only barely - when
the Democrats came up with a comprom-
ise. They suggested that, since the six
Republicans on Council had eliminated
any chance of a Council-passed income
tax, the citizens should have a chance
on the February primary ballot to "ad-
vise" their administrators on how they
felt about the issue.
This is, as Harris says, "a darn cum-
bersome way to go about it," since it
would basically "prove" community ap-
proval or rejection of the tax on a city-
wide ballot in the same way adopting the
tax, then repealing it if the voters had
so indicated.
THE ADOPTION of such a tax by Coun-
cil and its appearance on a city-wide
ballot in February, would have followed
the operating procedure used in 1969,
when taxpayers rejected the referendum
and Council immediately repealed it. The
Republicans should not have quashed that
procedure.
The advisory vote logistics are
complex. First, if the citizens
that they would accept a one
tax, Council would then enact
far more
indicate
per cent
it.
Meanwhile, opponents of the tax could
be gathering signatures - only 2,600 are
needed to force a second referendum on
the issue. If the advisory vote passes in
February and a second referendum is
Editorial Staff
ROBERT KRAFTOWITZ
Editor
JIM BEATTIE DAVE CHUDWIN
Executive Editor Managing Editor
STEVE KOPPMAN .. Editorla, Page Editor
RICK PERLOFF .... Associate Editorial Page Editor
PAT MAHONEY .... Assistant Editorial Page Editor
LARRY LEMPERT. ...Associate Managing Editor
LYNN WEINER.Associate Managing Editor
ANITA CRONE........... ..... ........ Arts Editor
JIM IRWIN. ............Associate Arts Editor
ROBERT CONROW -............. ...Books Editor
JANET FREY .... .............. Personnel Director
JIM JUDKI9...........Photogral 'v Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Rose Sue Berstein, Lindsay Chaney,
Mark Dilen, Sara Fitzgerald, Tammy Jacobs, Alan
Lenhoff, Arthur Lerner, Hester Pulling, Carla
Rapoport, Robert Schreiner, W.E. Schrock, Geri
Sprung.
COPY EDITORS: Pat Bauer, Chris Parks, Gene Robin-
son.
DAY EDITORS: Linda Dreeben, John Mitchell, Han-
nah Morrison, Beth Oberfelder, Tony Schwartz,
Gloria Jane Smith, Ted Stein, Paul Travis, Marcia
Zoslaw.
ASSISTANT NIGHT EDITORS: Robert Barkin, Jan
Benedetti, Steve Brummel, Janet Gordon, Lynn
Sheehan, Charles Stein.
Sports Staff
MORT NOVECK, Sports Editor
JIM KEVRA, Executive Sports Editor
RICK CORNFELD .. ..... Associate Sports Editor
TERRI POUCHEY....... Contributing Sports Editor
BETSY MAHON ... ..... ...Senior Night Editor
TERRI FOUCHEY .. . Contributing Sports Editor
SPORTS NIGHT EDITORS: Bill , Alterman, Bob An-
drews, Sandi Genis, Joel Greer, Elliot Legow,
John Papanek, Randy Phillips, Al Shackelford.
Business Staff
JAMES STOREY, Business Manager
RICHARD RADCLIFFE......... Advertising Manager
SUZANNE BOSCHAN . A.Sales Manager
JOHN SOMMERS ......... .. Finance Manager
ANDY GOLDING.....Associate Advertising Manager
DEPARTMENT MANAGERS: Bill Abbott-Display Adv.:
Rebecca Van Dyke-Classified Adv.; Fran Hymei
-National Adv.; Harry Hirsch-Layout.
ASSOCIATE MANAGERS: Alan Klein, Donna Sills,
Judy Cassel.
ASSISTANT MANAGERS: Paul Wenzloff, Steve Evseef,
Ashish Sarkar, Dave Lawson.
forced, the tax could not possibly be fin-
alized until mid-June, or two weeks before
the entire fiscal 1972-73 budget must be
finalized.
The vacillation of Councilman Robert
Weaver (R-2nd ward), who cast the de-
ciding votes for rejection of the income
tax and passage of the advisory v o t e,
raises questions about his motives.
WEAVER GAVE two basic reasons f o r
his peculiar stance. First, he didn't
think now was the time to ask the voters
to adopt the income tax, so he could not
vote for the original proposal. Second,
he said it is valid to take a "straw vote"
among the citizens, and therefore, he
could support the "advisory" referendum.
This seems to be bending over back-
wards for semantic principles - espec-
ially since, while giving the voters a say
in the tax structure, the timing on the
advisory vote makes it highly improbable
that an income tax can be adopted this
year, even if the voters want it.
Another relevant point is that Weaver
comes from the predominately student
second ward, and if the tax is forced to
a second referendum in June, a large
block of voters will be absent. Weaver
should have considered this, if he really
intends to represent his new constituents.
While the motives behind Weaver's con-
tradictory votes on the tax proposal were
unclear, his action seemed typical of the
political games that all the Councilmen
were playing Monday.
4 FTER ABOUT half an hour of partisan
bickering, symbolizing months of
equivalent arguing on subjects of c i t y
spending, Harris blew up.
Accused by Councilman James Steph-
enson (R-Fourth Ward) of having a
"livid attachment" for his income tax
bill, which had been defeated by them,
Harris exploded.
"Yes, I have a livid attachment for that
issue. I'm boiling mad and I'm going to
say so." He continued the tirade, calling
the Republicans everything from "cheap"
and "penny-pinching" to "yellow."
Stephenson, in an apparently retalia-
tory move, later engineered the defeat
of what Harris called a "routine appoint-
ment" - that of Mark Levin, '73L, to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
"You've raised the level of discussion
to a new high," he told Harris, "I'm go-
ing to vote no for that appointment. It's
a rotten appointment."
QUESTIONS OF whether a personal in-
come tax would be more or less re-
gressive than the present property tax
system, and whether the city is really go-
ing to fall apart - as the administration
predicts - without that tax, have little
bearing on the ugliness of Monday's dis-
play of partisan politics.
They are important questions and bear
lengthy discussion. More important,
though, they should be placed before the
electorate with an assurance that its vote
will be meaningful.
And City Council's action, complete
with bi-partisan temper tantrums, effec-
tively blocks that possibility. No matter
how overwhelmingly citizens may vote for
that tax in February, there seems little
chance of seeing it enacted in the next
fiscal year because of the procedural
stumbling blocks created by the com-
promise advisory referendum.
-TAMMY JACOBS
to a compliance order from the
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare a year before. The
order directed the University to
eliminate any policies which dis-
criminated against women, spec-
ifically charging it with u n d e r-
taking an examination of employe
files to correct salary inequities.
Two agents, Gail Liddell of the
Personnel Department and Zena
Zumeta, Women's Representative
are conducting the review.
Under the procedure developed
by the Executive Officers and the
Commission on Women, an em-
ploye need not file a complaint
formally in order for her situation
to be reviewed. Instead, she may
simply place a request for review
by calling Zena Zumeta, t h e
University's Women's Representa-
tive (764-1474). Requests will be
accepted until April 15, 1972, and
will receive higher priority t h a n
those cases turned up through ex-
amination of personnel files.
All requests for review are con-
fidential and no one - not even
the employes immediate supervisor
- will know that she has initiated
Pat Patterson is a secretary of,
the Office of Student Services
and has been a member of the
University's Commission on
Women. since September.
a request for review. During the
early stages of the review, direct
employe involvement is kept to a
minimum in order to protect her
from pressure - or harassment -
from her supervisor.
THE PROCEDURE presently
being followed by the women's
commission consists of several
separate phases. First a computer
review selects job classifications
which contain both men and wo-
men and predicts salary levels of
men in those classifications. It
then picks out those women's sal-
aries within the classifications
which fall 10 per cent below the
predicted salary for men.
Identification of such inequities
is only the beginning of the pro-
cess, however. For each case the
computer kicks out, a careful
thorough investigation must bE
conducted by Zumeta and Liddell.
They examine such criteria as sal-
ary at the time of employment,
date of employment, salary before
employment, classification title
education, experience, work per-
formed, and supervisor recom-
mendations.
Should the two agents agree no
evidence of discrimination based
on sex exists, they prepare a state-
ment to that effect for filing.
Should they agree they n e e d
more information before reaching
a decision, they schedule an ap-
pointment, by letter, first w i t h
Kent State:* Mixing
0 10
justice and potics
By BILL GORDON
ALTHOUGH SEVERAL investigations were held following the Kent
State tragedy, none could determine why Ohio National Guards-
men fired into a crowd of Kent State students in May, 1970. The
evidence indicated that the shootings were totally unjustified, but the
Scranton Commission and the Justice Department could do no better
than to speculate why the Guardsmen pulled the triggers.
An Ohio grand jury, which has long been discredited, exonerated
the Guardsmen for the shootings last October. Although the grand
jury accepted the Guardsmen's testimony that they fired in self de-
fense, the Justice Department believed the self defense claims were
fabricated.
The falsification of evidence and serious questions raised about
the Guardsmen's intentions provided the Justice Department with am-
ple justification to convene a federal grand jury. Last November a
high ranking Justice Department' official said that a decision whether
to convene a federal grand jury would be made before the end of
1970.
The official's timing, however, was somewhat off. The Depart-
ment refused to say what it intended to do about the case for over
eight months, although they occasionally promised that a decision
would be made soon.
Attorney General John Mitchell finally announced last August
that there would be no federal grand jury, and the announcement
could not have been more timely. Public interest in the tragedy has
waned considerably in the 15 months since the shootings. "The ap-
propriate time," was also, according to the Christian Science Monitor,
"late on Friday to minimize news coverage and safely after Congress
had left town for summer recess."
WITH OR WITHOUT the Justice Department's officials, the state
grand jury was politically fraudulent. The grand jury's report, which
flatly contradicted the Justice Department's summary of FBI Investi-
gations and the Scranton Commission, was later ordered destroyed by
a federal judge.
After the state grand jury's report was released last October,
the Justice Department announced it was taking under consideration
the convening of a federal grand jury to investigate the tragedy. As
the months passed, they had little to say about Kent. It was reported
last March that the Department's civil rights division recommended
to Mitchell that he not convene a federal grand jury. The recom-
mendation, which needed only Mitchell's approval, was probably
finalized shortly afterwards but an announcement was withheld until
a time when it would have less political impact.
In announcing the decision in August, Mitchell said that he con-
curred with the Scranton Commission conclusions that the shootings
were unwarranted and inexcusible, but said further federal action in
the case was unwarranted.
In an apparent reversal of his statements the previous year,
Mitchell said that there was "no likelihood of successful prosecutions
of individual guardsmen." That decision may not necesarily have been
reached by a federal grand jury.
While the Justice Department remained silent about Kent for
months, a quiet campaign spearheaded by a United Methodist Church
group was being waged urging the convening of a federal grand jury.
A report by Peter Davies, a Manhattan insurance executive, suggested
that several guardsmen had conspired to shoot the students at Kent
State.
THE CONSPIRACY theory may sound far fetched at first blush,
but it does not take any stretching of the imagination to consider
$4
4
the supervisor involved, and then
with the employe.
AT THIS POINT, the employe
formally enters the review proced-
ure, but she does not become a
direct participant in the investi-
gation of her case. All investiga-
tion is carried on by the designat-
ed agents and the content of files
is not available to any of the par-
ties directly involved. No publicity
will be given the case at a n y
stage without the consent and the
knowledge of the employe.
After both the supervisor and
the employe have been interview-
ed, a summary of results is pre-
pared. Then:
-If thethree parties (women's
representative, personnel repre-
sentative and supervisor) agree no
discrimination based on sex exists
a written statement is prepared
for file;
-If all three agree on a higher
bias
level of continuing remuneration,
a recommendation is prepared for
review and action by tho Executive
Officers;
-If all three agree discrimina-
tion does exist, a finding to this
effect is filed with the Executive
Officers for review and action;
-If the three parties disagree,
each of the three parties prepares
a recommendation which is for-
warded to the Ad Hoc File Review
Board for review. Their recom-
mendation is then forwarded to
the Executive Officers for t h e i r
review and action.
Should an employe be dissatis-
fied with the progress of the re-
view at any point, she is also free
to file an independent complaint,
in which case all investigative ef-
forts would be her own. A formal
newly re-designed Complaint Ap-
peal Procedure is available for her
use in appealing her case.
I
-Daly-Denny Uainer
Reviewing the files
Ibetters to The Daily
Pun Plamondon
To The Daily:
AN ARTICLE in the Daily from
Wednesday, October 20, has just
come to our attention. It contains
some serious factual errors. The
article concerns the sentencing of
Pun Plamondon in Grand Rapids
for possesing false draft cards.
Pun was sentenced to 28 months,
15 of which he has already serv-
edi.
The article falsely states that
"Plamondon is awaiting appeals
on his conviction of bombing a
Central Intelligence Agency in Ann
Arbor."
Pun was never convicted of that
charge; in fact, the trial never got
beyond the pre-trial hearing, be-
cause Attorney General J o h n
Mitchell had tapped some of Pun's
conversations illegally. Federal
Judge Damon Keith ruled that
the Justice Department had vio-
lated Pun's rights, and ordered
that the government turn the logs
of the wiretap over to the defense
(us).
The government appealed t h e
decision to the U.S. Court of Ap-
peals in Cincinnatti, which upheld
Keith's ruling. They are now ap-
pealing the ruling to the U.S.
Supreme Court, which is expected
to hear the case next March. The
trial will not start until after the
government's right to wiretap
anyone they feel like branding a
"threat to national security" is
either upheld or denied by t h e
Supreme Court.
-David Fenton,
Rainbow People's Party
Nov. 6
Rehnquist nomination
To The Daily:
THE RECENT nomination of
Assistant Attorney General Rehn-
quist to the Supreme Court is
,inconsistent with Mr.CNixon's
statement that he wants to fill the
vacancies with a "strict construc-
tionist" of the constitution.
Last summer, in the wake of the
Pentagon papers, I had the bene-
fit of hearing Mr. Rehnquist tes-
tify - in place of his boss Mr.
Mitchell - before the House Sub-
committee on Government In-
formation and the Senate Sub-
comittee on the Separation of
Powers, chaired by Sam Ervin.
Understandably upset by the New
York Time's revelations of the
truth on Viet Nam, the members
of Congress requested Mr. Rehn-
quist to explain the current Pen-
tagon practices of over-classifica-
tion, of .refusal to inform Con-
gress, and of lying to the Amer-
ican people.
According to Mr. Rehnquist,
some information had been over-
classified. However, invoking the
nebulous doctrine of executive
privilege, he boldly asserted t h e
power of the president to with-
hold from Congress and the public
any information which he believed
should be kept secret "in thepub-
lic interest."
He claimed that Johnson h a d
been perfectly justified in refus-
ing outright to give the Pentagon
Papers to the Senate Foreign Re-
lations Committee, even on a sup-
ervised, classified basis. He even
defended Nixon's refusal to furn-
ish information on American
bombing of Laotian village to Sen.
Edward Kennedy's Sub-committee
on Refugees although, according to
Rep. McCloskey, massive popula-
tion dislocation results from this
bombing.
McCloskey asked Mr. Rehn-
quist how he expected the Con-
gress to be able to legislate pro-
perly on the basis of improper in-
formation. What of the constitu-
tional system of checks and bal-
ances? What of the separation of
powers if a recalcitrant executive
could reduce the Congress to a
secondary role by merely refusing
to disclose information collected
and under the control of executive
agencies?
WHAT WOULD the reaction of
Congress have been in 1964 had
the truth about Tonkin-Gulf in-
cident been made available? The
answer, Sam Ervin, hinted, lies
in the Bible: "Ye shall hear the
truth, and the truth shall make
you free." In effect, Mr. Rehn-
quist maintained that the chief
executive has the absolute discre-
tion, subject to no checks either
from Congress or the Judiciary,
to withhold information.
These views on the interpreta-
tion of the constitution are far
more radical and dangerous to the
continuation of constitutional gov-
ernment in America than anything
which has come out of the far
left. The gross abuse of govern-
A
r-
I
Th6
TI
E165T OF AblL O~L
4CjT12_
t V G 17,'t.-.
INC 8t5T 0F A&+PO$S (E(E-
Th ES65T 6CF ALL P05Y56L 6
ThQ 0U6{OF
At U55 [3bI&&
4 II "~('I,.. . 71
8 5~ETOF'ALL Pi3S51&,E
1, DQ 2 1
-ssc"te Pes
-MCh6 CF T~ALL
FROV .
Pc5SI F L4
that a few guardsmen may have decided to fire to teach the students
"a lesson." The evidence, indeed, raises suspicions about the Guards-
men's intentions.
I