Scholarship case to return to court

The Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia has filed another brief in its appeal of last February's Mayor's Scholarship ruling, as both sides in the case gear up for a new set of oral arguments scheduled for December. Last spring, PILCOP filed an appeal with Commonwealth Court, which has jurisdiction in cases involving city governments and certain city statutes. The Mayor's Scholarship suit and controversy center around a 110-year old agreement between the city and the University which gave the University rent-free land in exchange for a set number of scholarships. Last semester, following a three-day trial, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Nelson Diaz ruled in favor of the University. Diaz said in his ruling that none of the plaintiffs had proper standing to sue. He also said the University is required to provide 125 full-tuition scholarships at any given time, not 125 per year for a total of 500, as was maintained by PILCOP. But the ruling criticized the University for underfunding the 125 awards, calling the program "a sham in the name of a scholarship." Diaz also said only the mayor or a present or past Mayor's Scholar would have standing to sue the University to enforce the disputed 1977 city ordinance mandating the scholarships. The University tried to have PILCOP's appeal dismissed, but the court ruled it would hear the case. Oral arguments in the appeal have been scheduled for mid-December in Harrisburg, where the Commonwealth Court is currently sitting. Arthur Makadon, the University's chief outside counsel in the case, said yesterday the case is progressing normally and the Commonwealth Court's decision to hear the appeal did not come as a surprise or a disappointment. "All through the process Penn has been vindicated and I expect Penn will continue to be vindicated," Makadon said. In PILCOP's latest brief, which is a response to previously filed University brief, the center alleges Diaz erred in ruling that the 1977 city ordinance allows for only 125 scholarships at a given time, as the University contends. Instead, the brief claims, the language of the ordinance allows only one interpretation – that 125 scholarships must be awarded each year for a total of 500. The University's claim of 125 at a given time can only be made by changing the language of the ordinance, the brief states. But the University has always claimed the ordinance's language is "ambiguous" and that it can support the interpretation of 125 total awards. PILCOP also states in its brief that Diaz erred in ruling that the plaintiffs did not have standing. Philadelphia school children and their parents and organizations that "sue on behalf of their members who are Philadelphia school children or the families of Philadelphia school children" have a direct interest in the case since they would presumably receive more scholarships if the University were forced to award 500 total and should have standing to sue, PILCOP's brief states. But the University contends the plaintiffs are not directly affected by the city ordinance and are suing to achieve "broad-based social reforms," not to obtain specific relief or compensation caused by the University's interpretation of the ordinance.