FOCUS: Beyond the Letter of the Law

and STEPHEN GLASS Executive Vice President Marna Whittington can hardly hide her frustration when she discusses the Mayor's Scholarships dispute and its potential toll on the University's public image. From her office late Wednesday after a Medical Center trustees meeting, Whittington described the center's commitment to an array of free community services, such as high blood pressure screening and children's healthcare. She talked about a day-long session at City Hall on Tuesday, where the University's budget experts lent the city's finance team technical assistance on getting Philadelphia out of the red. Glancing at her phone messages, she scanned the top memo on her daily stack. Someone had called about a University pilot program allowing parents and teachers at a local school free use of the University's voice-mail system. The program aims to foster better communication between teachers and parents. And that's just for starters, she said, adding that she could talk all day about the University's offerings to the community. But in recent months, the publicity surrounding a class-action lawsuit against the University over a scholarship program for Philadelphians has threatened to cast a shadow on the University's attempts to improve community relations. Administrators, including Whittington, have said that such a soiling of the University's image in the community would be an ironic and unfortunate turn after years of improved relations under President Sheldon Hackney. "I hope that the thinking public will not cancel more than ten years of hard work over four months of a frivolous lawsuit," Whittington said. But opponents of the University say its decade of hard work has not patched up rocky relations with its neighbors and that the lawsuit has increased these feelings of distrust. · The publicity nightmare for the University began with a simple phone call last spring. A public interest lawyer called Hackney's office to question the University's adherence to an obscure 1977 city ordinance requiring the University to award Philadelphia high school students so-called Mayor's Scholarships in exchange for land. In late October, a coalition of labor unions, student groups and individuals filed a class-action lawsuit demanding that the University quadruple the number of Mayor's Scholarships it offers, from a total of 125 to 500. The University maintains it is required to offer a total of 125 scholarships, or their equivalent, in any given year based on financial need. The University also gives each scholarship recipient an additional $500 grant, called a "sweetener." Since then, the lawsuit has travelled the legal route, beginning with a series of legal briefs and culminating with a judge's recent order to dismiss the suit but allow the plaintiffs to refile. Throughout, the two camps in the dispute have used public statements and press conferences to fight a bitter external battle -- one that has captured more media attention than the legal merits of the suit itself. Lawyers for both the University and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia -- which represents the plaintiffs -- provided the media with information that appeared to strengthen their case. Frequently, that information took the form of letters from top public officials. The Committee for the Penn Scholarships for Philadelphia School Children, as the coalition of plaintiffs calls itself, held a press conference last month to unveil standardized test scores of Philadelphia students. The coalition claimed that significantly more than 125 graduates of Philadelphia high schools each year had test scores qualifying them for admission to the University -- above 1000, even though the University's average hovers around 1300. Members said the data refuted Hackney's comments questioning whether Philadelphia schools graduated enough qualified students to fulfill PILCOP's demands. Hackney said he never made the alleged statements. Publicity of the case reached a peak when two City Council committees convened simulataneous hearings to examine the University's compliance with the 1977 ordinance. Many Council members had difficulty understanding the University's complex argument and the intricacies of financial aid. And a parade of witnesses blasted the University for its position in the dispute. When the dust settled, a bill introduced at the request of Mayor Edward Rendell -- who has been the University's principal political ally in the dispute -- appeared to lack sufficient support to pass a full City Council vote. Bill 66, based on City Solicitor Judith Harris's conclusion in February that the University's interpretation of the ordinance is correct, would clearly put the University's scholarship obligation at a total of 125. The bill is now in legislative limbo. · Although the University scored a courtroom victory with last week's dismissal, some community leaders suggest it lost the battle in the minds of many people from day one of the lawsuit in October. "If you win, you don't win. If you lose, you lose," State Representative James Roebuck (D-Phila.) said, referring to the University. "There is no positive result of this litigation for the University." Roebuck said the case has funneled much of the public's existing disenchantment with the University's treatment of the surrounding community into a single focal point. He disputed the University's view that this case alone will erode what is otherwise a solid relationship with the community. He added the University may have to contend with lingering public discontent for years to come -- regardless of the outcome of the suit. "If the University really had a strong community record, the suit would have been viewed differently," Roebuck said. "I think it is really a confirmation that the University has not been a good neighbor." Roebuck, along with 19 state representatives, jumped into the already well-publicized dispute earlier this year, siding against the University and raising the political stakes another notch. The members of the Philadelphia delegation wrote Hackney a letter in January in which they threatened not to help the University retain its state funding unless the University compromised by offering more scholarships and settling the suit. The scholarship dispute has complicated the University's battle for state funding. In February, Gov. Robert Casey proposed a budget for next year that would eliminate all state funding for the University. The University received more than $37 million from the state this year. Both Hackney and James Shada, the University's lobbyist in Harrisburg, said they are disappointed the issue has affected relations with generally-supportive lawmakers in Harrisburg. "It's never good when friends have to choose sides," Shada said. "You never want to have to fight with your friends." And Hackney has said he wished the issue would have never left the court chambers in City Hall. · Some of the most bitter criticism of the University's position has come out of City Council, where Council members Herbert DeBeary, Angel Ortiz and David Cohen have led the charge against the University on the dispute. All three acknowledge that the University deserves praise for its community programs, but they also insist that the University's commitment to such programs has no bearing on the scholarship obligation outlined in the 1977 ordinance. "The things that could impact on the future of the city is giviing an education to the kids," Ortiz said last week. "This is a commitment that is longstanding and [University officials] haven't met it. And it doesn't look very good at all." "I think people will remember [the scholarship dispute] for a long time," Ortiz added. "I think it's something [the University] could have settled very quickly and without big embarrassing problems." DeBeary echoed many people inside and outside the University last week in praising the job Hackney has done during his tenure at the University. But he said he would "never understand" why Hackney would jeopardize the gains in community relations by not compromising on the number of scholarships.