City lawyer contends suit is unfounded

The city's chief legal advisor has agreed with the University's stance on the controversial Mayor's Scholarship program, saying the lawsuit challenging it is unfounded. And a cover letter attached to Acting City Solicitor Judith Harris's opinion written by Mayor Edward Rendell's chief of staff David Cohen states the city will not join the group suing the University. University administrators said last night they were pleased with the city's stance. "It is what we felt all along, [that] our position is the correct one," President Sheldon Hackney said last night. "I think this should resolve the doubts that anyone in the public or City Council had about our position." "We're very happy with the opinion," Associate General Counsel Debra Fickler added last night. "I believe it supports the University's position and we are pleased to have the City Solicitor's support." Harris examined the issue for the city at the request of City Council President John Street. Her opinion, dated February 5, refutes allegations that the University has not complied with a 1977 city ordinance requiring it to provide scholarships to needy Philadelphia high school students. The lawsuit alleges that the ordinance requires the University to give out 125 new four-year scholarships annually, for a total of 500 at any given time. The University has maintained it should provide 125 scholarships total at any one time. Harris agreed with the University's stance that the number of scholarships is based on a historical reading of a series of city agreements which date back to the 19th century. She also said testimony regarding the ordinance in 1977 City Council hearings and subsequent behavior by the University and the city do not support the lawsuit. "[T]he University has maintained Mayor's Scholarships in accordance with its understanding of the 1977 ordinance from the beginning," Harris's opinion states. "I believe the City's acquiescence to that interpretation from the inception of the 1977 ordinance is evidence that the parties never intended the 1977 ordinance to quadruple the University's obligations." Harris also drafted an amended copy of the ordinance which she said would eliminate uncertainty. It is unclear when this ordinance would be introduced at City Council. But lawyers from the Public Interest Law Center, who filed the class action suit in Common Pleas Court in October, said that the statement does not change their case. PILCOP attorney Michael Churchill said yesterday that a brief which he filed in court yesterday afternoon objecting to the University's motion to throw out the case provides evidence that their position is accurate. "I think our brief sufficiently answers the questions," Churchill said last night. "It is hard to know how to take [Harris'] opinion." Churchill said Harris's interpretation of the ordinance would only be valid if it did not contain the word "annual" in it. He added Harris's amended draft of the ordinance would do just that.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.