At U. Council, critics blast Penn for poor consultation

Consultation was the word of the day Wednesday as University Council held its final meeting of the academic year. During the meeting -- held in the Quadrangle's McClelland HallE-- Council reviewed recent accomplishments and discussed future projects, such as recreational improvements and distributive learning initiatives. But the discussions were merely a prelude to a special session to summarize views on one of the year's most controversial issues -- the City Council vending ordinance backed by the Penn administration. The bill, which was voted into law yesterday, will ban food trucks and carts on many streets around campus and, a year after its enactment, prohibit electrical generators. Representatives from the administration, the student body, the Penn Consumers Alliance and the Spruce Hill Community Association each gave a five minute speech to Council discussing the quality of communication between the opposing sides of the vending controversy. Afterwards, Council debated the arguments in hopes of learning from the year-long conflict about how the administration should communicate with faculty, staff and students about future issues. A common realization was that vending is a "NIMBY" -- or "not in my backyard -- issue. Everyone seems to want vendors, provided that they are not near their homes or offices. PCA spokesperson Matthew Ruben pointed out Penn's tremendous reach in the community -- as indicated by City Council President John Street's comments at last week's ordinance hearings. Street and other Council members referred to Penn' s influence as Philadelphia's second-largest employer in explaining their votes. The English graduate student accused the University of not sufficiently using that power to promote a valid compromise based on a fair evaluation of quality-of-life issues. He added that he was more upset by Penn's handling of the consultation process than by the ordinance itself. "I am dissatisfied because I'm not convinced that life in the University will be changed as a result of what we learned in the process," Ruben said. But Carol Scheman, Penn's vice president for government, community and public affairs, stressed that the administration sufficiently consulted with interested parties about the ordinance through such methods as brochures and a World Wide Web site. Scheman also downplayed Penn's influence in city government. "If Penn could get whatever they wanted from City Council, [Director of Community and City Relations] Glenn Bryan would not be aging so quickly," she said. Scheman added that the ordinance's effects have been exaggerated, as food trucks will be located "less than a three minute walk" from anywhere on campus. But a third speaker, SHCA Secretary Maria Oyoska, referred to a lack of proper consultation by the administration. She pointed to the unprecedented success of the recent University City Saturday -- an event designed to encourage people to buy homes in University City --Eas an example of the potential for a true community partnership, rather than Penn acting "unilaterally as an 800-pound gorilla." Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson Bill Conway said that although the ordinance will have a positive impact on the University, communication between the two sides was not conducted well. "I don't think the consultation process was completely adequate," the College sophomore said. "I think students have been misled on how restrictive the ordinance will be." University President Judith Rodin concluded the discussions over the issue, stressing the need to take a lesson from the Supreme Court. "We need to get through contentious interactions without personal attacks? and continue to work together on the next case," she explained. Earlier in the meeting -- moderated by Political Science Professor Will Harris -- Council discussed one of those "next cases," a report completed by the ad hoc committee on consultation, chaired by Law Professor Howard Lesnick. The report was designed to set basic "norms, guidelines and implications" the administration should follow to guide itself on how to consult with interested parties on different controversial issues. Communications Professor Larry Gross came out against approving the report, asking for the addition of a substitute provision allowing for further analysis. But an unofficial vote by Council indicated that most members wanted to move forward with the report. Council could not take an official straw vote on the report because the meeting lacked the 40 percent attendance necessary for a quorum. During the meeting, Council also symbolically transferred power to new members, who discussed issues they feel the body needs to deal with next year. Some of the issues members suggested for the agenda included the recruitment and retention of minority faculty members and the need to restructure Penn's student advising.