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

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

June 10, 1976 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1976-06-10

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

Letters to The Daily

To The Daily:
We, as clericals at the University of
Michigan, were appalled at the careless
journalism evidenced in your editorial
txlay. It was anviously timed so that no
clericals would have a chance of reply-
What is the basis of the quotes "the
sentiment of the union membership
seems obvious," and "University cleri-
cals do not trust Unity Caucus"? Where
does the Daily get its information? Has
the Daily done a survey of university
clericals? On what facts is this editorial
Did the Daily know that the last mem-
bership meeting was attended by ap-
proximately 100 clericals (out of a mem-
bership of 2400)? Does the Daily know
that the biggest CDU margin was ten
votes and the smallest two at tha mem-
bership meeing? Does the Daily know
that at the May membership meeting,
Unity Caucus won by ten votes? Where
is this monolithic CDU support?
Does the Daily know that many mem-
bers are outraged at CDU because 1)
they have done nothing in their six
months of office for clericals 2) they
have spent the union money on sending
propaganda out in the mail touting their
own political line, and after an election
campaign based on the promise of com-
munication, there has been no communi-
cation 3) that CDU refuses to disclose
where they get their money for mail-
ings, whereas Unity Caucus has put out
a leaflet disclosing where they get
theirs? 4) that many, many clericals

are sickened by the lies circulated by
(DU, and the slander of good union
members, as evidenced by CDU Leaflet
No. 25 5) that many clericals are angry
because Weeks, the leader of CDU, has
refused to defend grievants at step three
grievance hearings?
Does the Daily know that it was not
the Bargaining Committee who ratified
the last contract, but the membership
by a 65 per cent margin? Does the Daily
know that Susan Susselman and Debbie
Moorehead voted against ratifying the
first contract on the grounds that it
didn't give clericals enough money? Has
the Daily even looked at the UAW con-
Marjorie Greenman-Anthropology
Maureen Deegan-Anthropology
Sandra Kay Fine-Political Science
Lili Kvisto--Political Science
Jane Marshall-Academic Actions
Joanne A. McDougall/LSA-Ofc of
Academic Actions
Isabel M. Reade--LSA Academic
P. S. We are not members of Unity
June 8

To The Daily:
Currently the UAW Local 2001 is
again in the midst of Executive Officer
elections, because the International UAW
bureaucracy has upheld a groundless
appeal by the "Unity" losers. Through-
out this election the UAW Region has
backed "Unity" and carried on a smear
campaign that has become a hallmark
of the UAW International bureaucracy.
Throughout this campaign "Unity"
has made accusations that we will re-
spond to. First, the election appeal. In
the twenty page report from Woodcock's
office two reasons were given in over-
turning the elections.
One was blatantly untrue: that CDU
used the union membership lists for its
telephone campaign.
There were no membership lists. The
books were in complete disarray. Hun-
dreds of dues checks from Sept. and
Oct. were left untouched by "Unity"
Treasurer Susan Susselman. Federal tax-
es hadn't been paid for a year and a
half. Since that time we have pulled
together every scrap of information re-

garding membership and dues status of
every clerical in this bargaining unit.
Since taking office, the local union
officers have been involved in state-
wide conferences with clerical workers
from all over Michigan.
We have been meeting for the last
four months with representatives from
all unions on this campus in order to
plan a strategy of confronting univer-
sity management in a coordinated fash-
ion so that management will no longer
be able to divide us against each other
as we come to the table to negotiate
our contracts.
Added to "Unity's" stall tactics of
holding up local union business at mem-
bership meetings is out of the classic
tactic of red-baiting. Unity terms CDU
material "propaganda" and condemns us
for using the union mailings as a vehi-
cle for furthering the interests of our
faction. All the while the Region is
writing their election "PR" of anti CDU
smears for them. There are no simple
answers to simple smears.
Only by consistently standing up to
the Region's interference and Unity'.
stall tactics has the membership got-
ten this far. Go to the polls and vote.
Carolyn Weeks,
Helen Kelly
June 9

Editor's note: We may have erred in if this had already been proven true.
yesterday's editorial by hastily suggest- The editorial has sparked considerable
ing that a majority of clericals support c.mment from the University commun-
the Clericals for a Democratic Union itv. We print here one letter criticizing
(CDU) in the ongoing election, since the editorial and a CDU response.
there would be no need for an election
" : {" "" t ""s- 0 ' ".{{:: ..w .'"'..'.' !:t ."::{:%:r:,"r"5'.'.":. 5:" :.:J

'Judge'-ing the marijuana laws

First of two parts
objects to the fragrant cig-
aretta you're smoking, be sure
to see what color his shirt it.
A citation by the blue-shirted
Ann Arbor police officer for a
marijuana violation can put
you in the hole to the tune of
$5. An arrest by a Washtenaw
County sheriff's deputy decked
in brown can put you in the hole
literally - for possession of
marijuana, to the tune of one
year, $1,000, or both.
Upset by this disparity, law
enforcement authorities are
now challenging local adoption
of marijuana mini-penalties in
the state Court of Appeals.
"The $5 fine is an imitation
of a penalty, calculated to bar
the real thing," argues Asst.
County Prosecutor John Hensel,
who is handling the challenge
for the county prosecutor's of-
fice. "It is a kiss thinly dis-
guised as a bite."
On the line, specifically, is
an ordnance adopted by Ypsi-
lanti voters in April, 1974. An
identical city charter amend-
ment was adopted by Ann Ar-
bor voters the same day.
The laws impose a $5 fine,
payable like a parking ticket,
upon anyone who possesses,
uses, gives away or sells mari-
juana or hashish. The laws
purport to preclude prosecution
under the harsher state law by
directing police officers to bring
marijuana complaints only to
the city attorneys for action
under city law.
But more is at stake than the
future of local $5 pot laws. The
prosecutor's challenge to Ynsi's
ordinance - and by implica-
tion Ann Arbor's c h a r t e r
amerdment - raise important
questions about the distribu-
tion of governmental power be-
tween the state and its mu-

long and winding road to
the state's second - highest
cour: a "procedural night-
mare." The case before the
court was brought by County
Prosecutor William Delhey
against Washtenaw County Cir-
cuit Court Judge Patrick Con-
lin. At the instance of defen-
dants whose marijuana cases
were being pursued under the
state law, Conlin, in October,
1974, had directed Judge Thom-
as Shea of the 14th District
Court in Ypsilanti to treat
Ypsi's ordinance as valid.
Shea, defended by the pro-
secutor's office, appealed that
order. In December, 1975, the
Court of Appeals upheld Con-
lin, and in January, 1976 de-
clined to rehear the matter.
Delhey, however, had also
initiated a separate action,
seekong an "order of superin-
tending control" over Conlin.
Ie asked the court to vindicate
Shea and to declare the Ypsi
law void.
Although the court had re-
jected the direct appeal, it
agreed in February to hear ar-
guments relating to Delhey's
complaint again Conlin. Oddly,
the court dismissed Conlin as a
party, leaving attorneys for the
marijuana defendants to inter-
vene and present arguments in
support of Conlin's position.
The first time around - on
the direct appeal - the court
ruled on procedural grounds.
Shea, the judges said, had no
real stake in the matter as re-
quired by court rules govern-
ing who can appeal. Further,
Conlin's order was not the final
decision of a controversy, they
said, and was therefore not ripe
for apoellate consideration.
Erwin Salisbury, an Ann Ar-
bor attorney representing one
of the defendants, is arguing in
essence "a rose by any other
nam- .i.." The case should be
dismissed, he has urged the

court, because Conlin's order
is no more ripe now than it was
when the court refused to re-
hear the direct appeal.
But Hensel, somewhat be-
mused by the procedural tan-
gle, thinks the court is ready to
look at the ordinance. He is
being careful, listing three dif-
ferent case names on his briefs
to the court. "I don't know
what the hell to call the damn
thing," says Hensel. "I'm in
the Court of Appeals on the
merits and that's all I'm wor-
ried about.
"With the passing
of tile Vietnam war,
drug law enforce-
ment, especially of
marijuana laws, is tie
prime source of irri-
tation between tile po-
lice and the student
community... -Wash-
enaw County Circuit
Court Judge Patrick
Hensel was hoping for a de-
cision by this summer, but the
court is now scheduled to hear
the matter in the fall. If the
court speaks to the substance
of the law, rather than deciding
on grounds of procedure, he
impact on local and state rela-
tions will go far beyond the
issue of marijuana legislation
- especially if the case reach-
es the state Supreme Court.

Michigan, a "home rule"
state, caters to the desire of
municipalities to play by rules
of their own making. The state
constitution and statutes au-
thorize city voters to frame,
adopt and amend a charter of
government. Under such a
charter, the constitution says,
the city can "adopt resolutions
and ordinances relating to its
municipal concerns, property
and government."
There are, of course, some
important "howevers." Be-
cause cities, in the eyes of the
law, are creatures of the state,
city residents often have to
play by state rules - even
though they prefer their own.
The constitution gives the city
the power to enact ordinances
"subjec to the constitution and
law (of the state)." And Michi-
gan's Home Rule Cities Act
states, "No provision of any
city charter shall conflict with
sr contravene the provisions of
any general law of the state."
When the state legislature
snakes a law in any area of
governmental concern, like a
team of ball players it "takes
the field." There may be room
on that field for city players, if
the city wants to enter the same
field of governmental activity.
Still, when a city sets its
regulatory foot on - territorial
already covered by state legis-
lation, there may be a problem:
the state clearly has the power
to pre-empt the field, and if it
has exercised this power, there
is no room for city law-making.
terms, that's problem num-
ber one for the Ann Arbor and
Ypsi marijuana laws.
Upon occasion - but far less
often than city officials and
judges would like - the state
legislature says what it means
with respect to pre-exemption.
The Liquor Control Act of 1933,
for example, created a state

commission with the "sole
right, power and duty to con-
trol the alcoholic beverage traf-
fic . . . within the state of
Michigan, including the manu-
facture, importation, posses-
sion, transportation and sale
Legislators seldom address
the same issue of pre-emp-
tion so directly, however, leav-
ing courts to seek by inference
the legislative intent. In many
ways "legislative intent" is a
mythical creation.
The court is really trying to
determine what the legislature
would have intended - if they
had thought about the problem.
Unlike the U. S. Congress,
state legislatures keep no re-
cord of debates and publish no
committee reports. The search
for legislative intent usually be-
gins then, with a close look
at the statute in question and
the field it occupies.
The state Controlled Sub-
stances Act, adopted by the
legislature in 1971, is a long
and detailed piece of legisla-
tion. It defines and classifiies
substances, including mariju-
ana, regulating legal uses of
drugs and establishing penal-
ties for abuses.
"Reading the act'asra
rhole, ' says Hensel, "it's very
comprehensive. I'm not worri-
ed that the court will say the
legislature wasn't trying to es-
tablish a uniform state policy."
issued a declaratory judg-
ment on the Ypsi ordinance in
August 1974, he said, "Size (of
legislation) alone does not
mean pre-emntion. In this case,
the court is convinced that
there is room for nonconflict-
Larry Lear pert, krwer Dail
Associate Managing Editor, is
Unit-ersity laft stndrnl.

Back to Top

© 2023 Regents of the University of Michigan