Plaintiffs doubt city-U. package

Plaintiffs in the Mayor's Scholarship lawsuit said they are skeptical about the city-University Mayor's Scholarship agreement announced Tuesday by Mayor Ed Rendell and University President Sheldon Hackney. Although both the city and the University denied any correlation between the agreement on a new Mayor's Scholarship package and the ongoing litigation against the University, the plaintiff's attorney and numerous plaintiffs said the timing of the initiative could not easily be dismissed as coincidence. "This cannot affect the questions in front of the court, however the University may try to do so," Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia attorney Thomas Gilhool said yesterday. "They are bound to face judgment at the upcoming trial." In October 1991, PILCOP filed suit against the University representing labor unions, student groups and several individuals, alleging that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to provide 125 new scholarships each year for a total of 500 at a time. The University maintains that it owes 125 awards total during each year. The case is set to go to trial in Common Pleas Court on November 23. While the agreement of the University and the city proposes enhancements in the current Mayor's Scholarship program -- including no student loan obligations, an aggressive new recruitment effort and additional financial assistance to Philadelphia students who are not Mayor's Scholars -- plaintiffs in the suit were not involved in the announced agreement. "Parents and school teachers didn't have anything to do with the agreement," Guardian Civic League member Leslie Seymour said after the press conference. "This is an agreement between the mayor and the University, and it's certainly not an agreement with any of the plaintiffs in the suit, none of whom were consulted," Gilhool said. Gilhool said that while all of City Council was invited to stand with Rendell and Hackney at the press conference, no members accepted the invitation except for City Council President John Street, who "stood mute" behind the Mayor. Gilhool also said that many plaintiffs have told him that they think the University and city made the agreement to try to stop the case from going to trial. "There's no reasonable ground for any such intention, expectation or prediction," Gilhool said. "The only way that it won't go to trial is if the terms of the ordinance are met." Dan McGinley of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, a plaintiff in the suit, said that the timing of the agreement left him with doubts as to the University's and the mayor's motives. "After 25 years of no action, on the eve of a court proceeding, we have an action that at least moves in the direction of what they should have been doing for the last 25 years," McGinley said. "It's a curious combination of circumstances if there's no connection between the two." McGinley also said that the agreement "frequently" refers to the ongoing litigation. Gilhool and several plaintiffs also said that there is nothing in the agreement which makes it binding. Gilhool said the agreement has no binding language, but uses words such as "hope," "expect" and "intend." "There's nothing legal or binding about it," Seymour said, adding that only Hackney and Rendell had signed the agreement. "It can be terminated at any time." "I don't think it's binding because the Mayor cannot bind the city to anything that is more than one year of duration," McGinley said. "And the absence of any action from City Council, I believe, certainly makes this stated agreement less than binding." University General Counsel Shelley Green, however, said that the wording of the agreement reflects the good intentions of the University. "The parts that say 'hope' and 'expect' mean that these are goals," Green said. "Until you make efforts, you don't know whether you'll achieve goals." (CUT LINE) Please see AGREEMENT, page 5 AGREEMENT, from page 1

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