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- ing. 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 based? 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- tract? 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 Counselling P. S. We are not members of Unity Caucus 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 CDU 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 By LARRY LEMPERT First of two parts F AN OFFICER OF THE law 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- nicipalities. I:ENSEL HAS CALLED THE 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. r HE COURT MAY AGREE. 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 Conlin 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. IN RATHER SIMPLIFIED 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 thereof." 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." 1OWEVER, WHEN CONIN 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- See MARIJUANA, Page 7 Larry Lear pert, krwer Dail Associate Managing Editor, is Unit-ersity laft stndrnl.