Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(06/18/92 9:00am)
The University has narrowed the search for a permanent Judicial Inquiry Officer to a short list of three finalists, administrators said Tuesday. Larry Moneta, associate vice provost for student life, declined to name the finalists, citing the University's policy of keeping such information confidential. But he said all three are from outside the University and "seem to have super credentials. All have had experience in judicial affairs of one sort or another." Although Vice Provost for University Life Kim Morrisson said earlier this year that she hoped to have a new JIO by the end of the spring semester, Moneta said the position will probably be filled sometime next month. "We'll have interviews with all three of those people by the end of June and hope to make a job offer as early in July as the process permits," Moneta said. Moneta, who will make the final pick, said his staff has tried to "make sure there is very broad student particpation" in the interview process. Morrisson has said in the past that a variety of student groups, ranging from the Undergraduate Assembly to the Black Student Union, have provided their input on what sort of JIO they would like to see selected. But other sectors of the University are participating as well, especially as each finalist undergoes a final, day-long interview process before one of them is offered the job. Moneta said that during one such interview Tuesday, interviewers included Provost Michael Aiken, Morrisson, the JIO staff, representatives of Public Safety, representatives of University Life departments and some faculty. The nature of the JIO position has been the subject of considerable discussion in recent years. Many student leaders have complained that a single JIO suffers from conflicts of interest, trying to both prosecute cases and settle them at the same time. Some students have said this hinders the JIO's fairness. Jane Combrinck-Graham, associate director of risk management, is currently acting as interim JIO. She took a year off from her risk management position after former JIO Constance Goodman resigned last summer. Acting Associate VPUL Barbara Cassel headed the JIO search committee, which produced the three finalists. '[They] seem to have super credentials.' Larry Moneta Associate Vice Provost for Student Life
(06/11/92 9:00am)
A University student reported being robbed at gunpoint early Monday morning, University Police Lieutenant Susan Holmes said yesterday. the student was reportedly robbed at 1:20 that morning on teh 4400 block of Larchwood Road by two males brandishing a gun, Holmes said. The student, who was not hurt in the incident, told the University Police that the two males took about $20, credit cards and the student's University ID, she added. In an unrelated incident, a Drexel University student reported being robbed at gunpoint just after midnight Saturday, Holmes said. She said the student was robbed of his bookbag while on the 3200 block of Market Street. Holmes said the student was not injured. In another unrelated incident, Holmes said unknown persons burglarized the University's Admissions Office, in the lower level of College Hall, sometime between Saturday and early Monday morning, stealing a computer valued at $3800. Workers in the Admissions Office reported the burglary just after 8 a.m. Monday, after noticing that the computer was missing and a window had been broken. In another unrelated incident, Holmes said two males attempted to rob a woman of her purse Friday evening outside Eden Restaurant which is located in the 3700 block of Chesnut Street. According to Holmes, the woman resisted the male's effort to wrestle her purse from her just after 5 p.m., causing them to flee north towards 38th Street. She said the woman, who is not affiliated with the University, was not injured. In another unrelated incident, Holmes said a girl who had run away from home turned herself into University Police. She said the girl's parents traveled to Philadelphia from their home in Newark, Del. to pick up their daughter.
(06/11/92 9:00am)
At some of the nation's most elite universities, presidents seem to be turning over faster than the summertime help at a fast-food restaurant. Presidents at four top universities -- Stanford, Yale, Columbia and the University of Chicago -- are currently finishing their stints in the top slot after announcing in recent months that they will step down for one reason or another. Michael Sovern's announcement last week that he will retire as Columbia's president means that President Sheldon Hackney, with more than 11 years in College Hall, will soon become the second-longest serving Ivy League president still in office. Once Sovern leaves next June, only Cornell University's Frank Rhoads, who has spent 15 years at that school's helm, will be ahead of Hackney. And Rhoads would have retired last year if Cornell's trustees had not asked him to stay. There is no need to remind Hackney, 58, of his veteran status among fellow Ivy League presidents. Still, he maintained this week, "I don't feel like a graybeard or the elderly uncle who tells everyone, 'This is how we do things.' " But with the average tenure for college presidents hovering around seven years, the question is bound to arise: Will Hackney be next to leave? · "These jobs are quite wearing," Hackney conceded of his life as a college president. "They're not forever. One has to make way for new leadership at some time." When that time may come, however, Hackney is not saying. Keenly aware of the risk of becoming a sort of lame duck in University circles if he says too much, he won't discuss when he plans to step down or what sort of time frame, if any, he has set for his departure. In an interview Tuesday, about all Hackney would say came in the form of a joke. "There will be a flash of inspiration or someone will pour a bucket of something over my head," he said, facetiously describing how he will know when it is time to leave. But he said that he has no plans to relinquish the presidency in the near future. He explained that he still finds his job "quite satisfying," although the mounting problems facing higher education have made his work harder. "I think I have been able to make a contribution to Penn and I have really grown to love it," he said. "That's not to say that every day of my life at Penn I am feeling joyful, because there is a lot of stress and strain and worries now and then." "Universities are inherently difficult places to be," he added. "But it is getting a bit more wearing because the internal stresses and strains are still here and now external stresses are becoming greater." Chief among those "external stresses," he said, is a growing funding problem. Recently, Hackney has spent much of his time working to help the University retain its state funding, which Gov. Robert Casey proposed eliminating for next year. Despite the pressure, there are a number of objectives that Hackney said he intends to fulfill before giving up the presidency. He said he plans to remain in office at least through the end of the University's $1 billion capital campaign, which is scheduled to end in 1994. Two other priorities, he said, include guaranteeing progress on the new campus center and planning for the continued growth of the Medical Center. And as if to reinforce his belief that "the University is never complete," Hackney said he felt there was work yet to be done in "the general building of the intellectual and academic fiber of the University." Once he decides to leave College Hall, Hackney will have a number of options open to him. "I think fondly of teaching and writing, which I would like to do," he said. "But there may be other things. One of the reasons I'm still here is nothing has grabbed me and said,'Do this.' " Given the chance to plan his career over again -- even with the problems facing higher education -- Hackney said he would accept the University's presidency once more. "It is a worthy challenge leading a university because they are part of the solution for humankind's problems, and it gives you a sense of pride to be contributing to this solution," he said.
(06/09/92 9:00am)
Researchers at the University's Medical Center have reported the discovery of molecules that appear to play a key role in the start of pregnancy, raising the possibility of new ways to address both infertility and birth control. Researchers found that cell-adhesion molecules are produced in the lining of the uterus within a few days after ovulation. Just after conception, the cells apparently grab onto the new embryo and bind it to the womb, allowing the pregnancy to proceed. The molecules belong to a class of proteins called integrins, which are produced by the body's cells to monitor interactions between cells. They are the cell's "eyes and ears," said Bruce Lessey, a University reproductive endicronologist who headed the research. The results of the experiments, published in the July issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, may help doctors learn about forms of infertility that are not currently understood, and could eventually lead to new methods of treatment. "No one knows why the embryo sticks or doesn't stick to the [womb]," Lessey said. "But this cell-adhesion molecule is at the right place at the right time and meets the criteria for an embryo receptor. Its absence in some infertility patients now suggests a mechanism for their infertility." The experiments, conducted by researchers at the University and the Wistar Institute, found that for women with normal menstrual cycles, the integrins appear in the lining of the uterine wall when the womb is most receptive to implantation. The infertility that some women experience -- but which is not yet fully understood -- may be explained by the body's failure to produce the integrins until it is too late in the menstrual cycle to reel in the embryo. If future studies determine this to be true, Lessey said, hormone treatments could correct infertility in many women by better synchronizing ovulation and production of the integrins. At the other extreme, the information gathered by researchers may hold the key to a new form of contraception. Knowing how the embryo is bound to the womb, scientists could develop ways to prevent the integrin from ever grabbing the embryo. Without attaching to the lining of the uterus, the embryo would be unable to develop. "This integrin is turned on at the time pregnancy is established," Lessey said. "Certain molecules that block the attachment of embryonic cells specifically inhibit this receptor, suggesting the possibility for the development of new and better forms of birth control." Scientists could probably produce these molecules synthetically, according to researchers, and then apply them to the lining of the womb, possibly with an intrauterine device.
(06/09/92 9:00am)
Nearing the end of their two-week trial, lawyers for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology spent the past week defending MIT against Justice Department charges that the school broke antitrust laws. MIT announced it might complete its testimony today by calling its expert economist, Dennis Carlton of the University of Chicago, to testify that Overlap did not increase prices for students or revenues for Overlap members and therefore did not produce a price-fixing situation. This week, Thane Scott, lead lawyer for MIT, challenged the government's assertion that MIT broke the law by meeting with Ivy League school officials to determine financial aid awards and share data on students accepted to more than one school. The so-called Overlap process existed from the late 1950s until 1990, when the Ivy League schools agreed not to continue the meetings at the government's behest. MIT refused to follow suit and the Justice Department pursued the case to trial. The government's expert economist, Keith Leffler of the University of Washington, testified last week that Overlap was a form of price-fixing because Overlap schools on average offered less financial aid to families. During cross examination, the Justice Department appeared to damage the testimony of an MIT official who refuted Leffler, arguing that families were required to contribute less on average under the Overlap system. Stanley Hudson, MIT's financial aid director, said Tuesday that he had compiled a survey that showed MIT's required family contributions for blacks, Mexican Americans and American Indians tended to be lower than those computed by the College Scholarship Service. The CSS methodology was the basis for the Overlap methodology, but there were differences. For example, while CSS did not seek a contribution from a non-custodial parent in a divorced family, Overlap schools did. On cross-examination by Bruce Pearson, the government's lead lawyer, Hudson conceded that the average MIT family contribution for these groups actually would have been a bit higher than he said, because of the way he calculated the numbers. Pearson then questioned Hudson on an article in MIT's university-produced newspaper which quoted Hudson as saying that 1988 Overlap meetings "resulted in a net increase of financial aid offered by MIT." Pearson pointed out that the data actually appeared to reflect a decrease in grant aid by more than $52,000 because MIT generally raised the required family contributions during Overlap meetings that year. When asked Tuesday about the same data, Hudson said he could not tell whether family contributions went up or down. He said the information was "internally inconsistent" and that his earlier statement was based on "information other than this data." Finally Judge Louis Bechtle asked Hudson if his belief that was based on "any papers or documents" or on "just a feeling." Hudson affirmed it was based on a feeling. Much of MIT's defense focused on "social policy arguments" that Overlap helped society by allowing colleges to maintain need-blind admissions -- where students are admitted without regard to resources -- and thereby ensure greater socio-economic diversity. All along, MIT has maintained that what the government terms a restraint of free trade is really a way of restraining harmful competition for prized students. MIT's lawyers argued that the Overlap agreements kept schools from awarding more financial aid than a student needs because they all agreed not to offer merit scholarships and met to arrive at common methods for computing aid, using the federal system as a guide. Several witnesses testified that an end to Overlap would make it difficult for schools to avoid offering students merit aid -- something they portrayed negatively because of the possibility that such aid could deprive needy students of money necessary to attend the college. Another point stressed by MIT involved the differences between for-profit companies and non-profit organizations. Several MIT witnesses disparaged comparisons between companies -- which clearly could engage in price-fixing -- and universities. Robben Fleming, the past president of the University of Michigan who also sat on the board at Chrysler Corp., said: "In a for-profit company you must make a profit. In the university culture it is very different. No one thinks of a university as a business."
(06/09/92 9:00am)
When she leaves her Redbank, N.J. home each day for work as a Chevrolet service manager, Kay Girling always checks to make sure she's got her beeper. But every day, as if broken, it makes no sound from the time she gets to work until she returns home at around six o'clock in the evening. The silence is maddening. And yet, every day -- wherever she is -- Kay Girling tries to hold fast to all of the optimism she can muster. She says she is driven by her longing for the day when the beeper's squawking finally rips through the quiet. When that day comes, she will know that a new heart has been found for Bob Girling, her husband of almost 25 years, whose own heart is slowly dying. "You're walking around like you're on a powder keg," she said last week. "You think, 'Is it today?' It's constantly on your mind, no matter what you're doing." Bob Girling is a 61-year-old former car salesman. His life story rings of classic middle America: he spent his life working hard to support his family, earning just enough to do a little extra, like buying a boat for fishing in the Atlantic. But those days are gone for now. Girling has spent the past two months in the Coronary Intermediate Care Unit of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and he is in bad shape. He suffers from cardiomyopathy -- a debilitating disease of the heart muscle -- and has had two heart attacks in the past two years. Doctors first tried to stabilize him with medicine, but in his words, "I just kept going down and down and down." By April, it was clear that Girling needed a new heart in order to survive. Too ill to remain at home, he was brought to the CICU in April, where doctors put him on intravenous medication and began to monitor his condition closely. Since then, he has been a man in waiting. After a lifetime of doing "pretty much" what he wanted, the tables turned: Girling now must wait for a heart, powerless to do anything but keep his spirits up and hope for the best. He is not waiting alone. About 80 people in the area await heart transplants, according to the Delaware Valley Transplant Program, which coordinates organ transplants of hearts, kidneys, livers and other organs in the tri-state area. Potential donor recipients are ranked according to a variety of factors, including time spent on the waiting list and the condition of their heart. How soon they receive a transplant also depends on their blood type and physical traits such as weight. Girling says he is currently fourth in line in the area for patients with an O-type heart. But because people with other blood types, such as A or B, can use an O heart, he will not necessarily receive the fourth O heart that is donated. Last year, 31 people in the area died before a donor heart was found, according to DVTP. Those deaths occurred despite extraordinary efforts by DVTP to take care of all potential recipients. Besides coordinating the program with over 180 hospitals in the area, the program keeps in close contact with transplant agencies across the country. Becky Mull, a transplant coordinator at HUP, said HUP has travelled as far as Miami and the Mississippi River to retrieve a heart from donors, in some cases using a Lear Jet. In fact, she said, the limiting factor is not distance but time: a heart can remain out of a donor's body for only three to five hours prior to the transplant. Even the growing awareness of organ transplants in recent years has not reduced the wait. The number of patients needing a transplant has grown faster than additional organs have become available. Howard Eisen, a HUP transplant cardiologist who is caring for Girling, said that while about 170 heart transplants are performed nationwide each month, an additional 300 people are added to the list during that time. Bob Girling knows all too well how long the wait has grown. Once he receives a new heart, he says he would like to spend some time promoting awareness of transplant programs. But don't bother him with talk of the wait and the personal fears that often accompany the uncertainty. When asked if the proverbial ticking of the clock scared him, he waxed slightly philosophical. "No, no," he said slowly, shaking his head. "Hey look, I'm 61 years old. I've lived a full life, I've touched all the bases, done pretty much what I wanted to do. From here on in, it's a plus, a bonus." "The wait can get to you, but I dismiss it from my mind," he said with a wave of his hand. "I mean, you can't wrap yourself up in knots with the eternal wait. When it's going to be, it's going to be." He says he has lost 40 pounds recently, and he complains that his sleeping pattern is out of synch: wakeful nights, sleepy days. But he receives regular visits from family members and praises the hospital staff's treatment of him. Since the first successful heart transplant in 1967, more than 8,000 heart transplants have been performed in the United States. Last year surgeons performed 81 heart transplants in the Delaware Valley region alone. At HUP, which has done heart transplants for the past 5 years, surgeons performed 16 of the $140,000 operations in 1991, which are often paid for by private insurance. And on Tuesday, while Girling continued to wait, the hospital added two more to this year's list. Kay Girling, noting that both her father and her husband's father died from heart problems in their mid-40's, said her husband is fortunate that modern technology has given him an additional chance at survival. "You can't walk around like it's doom and gloom," she said. "At least this way if something happens -- if a heart doesn't come along in time -- at least we know we took every option we had." "But one will."
(06/04/92 9:00am)
The offices of President Sheldon Hackney and Provost Michael Aiken, which had been scheduled for relocation to the Mellon Bank Building this month, will remain in College Hall for at least another half year, administrators said this week. The delay stems from the University's decision to carry out a series of mechanical and architectural improvements at the Mellon site before relocating the two offices, according to Bill Wilkinson, a project manager at Physical Plant. In order to spruce up the space and create a more functional floor plan, he said workers would spend the fall rearranging partition walls, putting in a new ceiling and changing the lighting -- what he calls "fitting out" the new offices. He said the work should be finished in time for both offices to move in by the end of the calendar year. The Mellon building, located at the corner of 36th and Walnut streets, was selected in part because of its central location to campus. Following the move, the two offices will occupy the fourth and fifth floors of the building for approximately two to three years while College Hall renovations are completed. The postponement will slow progress on the College Hall renovation project, but Wilkinson said the alternative -- paying contractors "premium" rates to get the Mellon building work done by the end of the summer -- would have cost too much. "The extra cost [of delaying the move] is only what the rate of inflation is," he said. "There is no other loss. The cost of speed-up at the Mellon building far exceeded what that delay cost would be." Another reason for fixing up the Mellon site now, according to Wilkinson, is that the building is currently half empty. That allows contractors to do mechanical and electrical work that becomes "very expensive and difficult" when the building is occupied, he said. But he added that if work at the Mellon site takes much longer than expected, both the president and provost, along with their immediate staff, might first have to relocate within College Hall before later moving to the Mellon building. Their offices, now located in the northern end of College Hall facing College Green, lie directly beneath room 200. In order for workers to perform much needed repairs in the large lecture hall, the space beneath the room must be vacated. The key factor, according to Wilkinson, is how much preparation room 200 will require before the project begins. The longer the initial stages of the project take, he said, the less likely a relocation of administrators within College Hall becomes. Staff members from both offices said this week that they were aware of the move out delay. Several, however, expressed alarm at the prospect of having to move elsewhere within College Hall, only to be uprooted again in the winter. Wilkinson cautioned that the need for a multiple move, which he described as "a possibility," hinged on both the speed with which the Mellon building is readied and the feasability of preparing "interim space" in College Hall. He added that planners, taking into consideration the uncertainty of such an outcome, have not spent much time talking with representatives of the two offices about moving more than once. "We fully recognize that this is a very major disruption, so we don't even want to suggest moving them twice if it's not necessary," he said. "You don't put the people through the aggravation of even thinking about it unless it's really necessary." The University is currently waiting for contractors to submit bids for the Mellon building work, Arthur Gravina, vice president of facilities management, said this week. He said administrators will not have a clear idea how much the project costs until they decide which bid to accept, adding that he expects a firm to be selected sometime in August so that work can begin during the fall.
(06/04/92 9:00am)
Kept busy by the city budget and other top priorities, City Council members have had little time lately to discuss the dispute over Mayor's Scholarships. Council members may, however, prefer it that way. The scholarships controversy -- initiated by local residents who claim the University is legally required to provide more scholarships than it currently does -- has placed Council members in an awkward position, at risk of either outraging constituents or jeopardizing the University's relationship with the City. But with a Council hearing on the scholarships dispute tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, June 16, members may get another chance to discuss the issue before they break for the summer on June 26. The meeting is the second public forum on the issue, held so that Council members may hear from both sides in the dispute. At the previous public hearing in March, the University received harsh criticism -- not only from Council members, but also from a parade of hostile witnesses who denounced the University's position. No agenda has yet been set for this month's hearing because of the possibility that a tight schedule may force its postponement. And John Gould, President Sheldon Hackney's chief of staff, said this week that the University had not yet received word of the hearing. But one topic of discussion may be Bill 66, a proposal that would replace the 1977 city ordinance that caused the controversy with a new one settling the dispute in favor of the University. Despite support from the mayor's office, the proposed ordinance was a hotly contested topic in March. Apparently lacking enough support in Council at the time, Bill 66 was left in the rules committee and appeared to be in a state of limbo. Now, there has been some talk behind the scenes that the leverage of Council President John Street may be enough to get the bill passed, especially now that much of the public attention of the dispute has quieted. But those who oppose Bill 66 said that while such an outcome clearly could happen, they would continue their efforts to block its passage. "I would think the bill would have to have some serious amendments and changes before it would be acceptable to a majority of Council members," said Howard Rye, special assistant to Councilman-at-large Angel Ortiz. "At least judging from their reaction and the public reaction in the last hearing process." Councilman Herbert DeBeary concurred. "I'd be pretty surprised if the bill is passed," DeBeary said this week. "I just can't imagine Council members wanting Philadelphia children being denied the opportunity to attend the University of Pennsylvania on a full scholarship. It'd just blow my mind." In a class action suit pending in Common Pleas Court, a coalition of labor unions, student groups and individuals argue that the 1977 ordinance requires the University to award students from Philadelphia schools 125 new scholarships each year for a total of 500 in any one year. The ordinance reads: "The university shall agree to establish and forever maintain at least 125, four-year, full tuition scholarships, or their equivalent . . . to be awarded annually . . . to deserving students from all of the schools of the city." The University maintains it must provide a total of 125 awards, or their equivalent, in any one year. Bill 66 would clarify the agreement by adopting a new ordinance eliminating the word "annually." The agreement requires the University to award the scholarships in return for rent-free city land it received under 1882 and 1910 agreements.
(06/04/92 9:00am)
and MICHAEL SIROLLY A dispute between the University and a former Veterinary School professor who claims she suffered sexual discrimination at the University is about to be resolved, parties in the case said this week. The professor, veterinary cancer researcher Ann Jeglum, filed suit against the University in December, following an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling that her charges of sexual discrimination had merit. In the lawsuit, Jeglum -- once chief of onclology in the Vet School -- claims the the University discriminated against her both by denying her tenure in 1987 and 1989 and by paying "less qualified or equally qualified male employees" higher wages. There are now signs, though, that Jeglum and the University will settle out of court. Jeglum's lawyer, attorney Jeffrey Smith, hinted this week that the two parties are nearing an agreement. "There are ongoing settlement discussions," Smith said Tuesday. "We will know one way or another within the next week." Both parties have been negotiating since before the lawsuit was filed, and both sides may not have expected the suit to reach the courtroom stage. Under the EEOC's finding late last fall, Jeglum was forced to file suit within 90 days or else waive any claim against the University. Assistant General Counsel Elizabeth O'Brien, who is representing the University in the case, said this week that a settlement seemed near -- but she refused to offer any timetable. "We're continuing to negotiate," O'Brien said. "We believe we're extremely close to reaching an agreement." Regardless of whether the two parties can reach an agreement, Jeglum's case may soon need to move forward soon anyway. Judge James Giles, who is assigned to the case, last month ordered Jeglum to demonstrate by mid-June "why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute." According to Smith, however, settlement through negotiation was always Jeglum's goal. "At the time we filed, there were settlement discussions ongoing." Smith said. "It seemed the wiser course to proceed with negotiations rather than press forward with the litigation." "We've been talking and talking and hopefully those discussions are about to bear fruit," he added. Neither party would reveal any details of their proposed settlements, citing an agreement to keep the terms confidential. But Smith suggested that the negotiations have proceeded slowly because of their complexity. "The framework is a delicate one and there are several parts to it which are contingent on each other," he explained. In addition to the tenure and wage discrimination charges, the suit also alleges that Jeglum was a victim of sexual harassment throughout her employment at the University, claiming she was subjected to "offensive remarks, and unfounded allegations that she [refused] to be 'cooperative' with other members of the faculty." Jeglum left her office in the Clinical Studies division of the Veterinary Hospital nearly a year and a half ago and now works in a West Chester veterinary clinic and lab. The suit also names as defendants the Vet School and three current and past Vet School administrators. Vet School Dean Edwin Andrews, former Veterinary Medicine chairperson Kenneth Bovee and resigned Veterinary Medicine chairperson Darrell Biery are named individually, as well as in their positions at the Vet School. Jeglum seeks lost wages, benefits and expenses due to both her tenure denial and wage discrimination while at the University. She also seeks tenure retroactive from her tenure denial in 1989. While at the University, Jeglum worked in the Vet School's Small Animal Hospital and spent more than five year's researching treatments for certain forms of canine cancer.
(06/04/92 9:00am)
The University has denied any responsibility in connection with a September accident that sent blind Law student Gerald Jeandron plunging 25 feet into an uncovered subway ventilation shaft on 36th Street. The University joins SEPTA -- both co-defendents in the student's pending lawsuit -- in denying responsibility for Jeandron's accident. The University instead claims that, if anyone is to blame, it is SEPTA, and SEPTA maintains that only the University's actions should be under question. In a suit filed in Common Pleas Court in March, Jeandron accused both the University and SEPTA of negligence for failing to replace a missing metal sidewalk grate until after the accident sent him tumbling to the ground more than 25 feet below. Jeandron claimed in the suit that SEPTA and the University each owed him more than $20,000 a piece for his pain and suffering, medical expenses, probable loss of future earnings and added education costs if his graduation is delayed. The suit alleges that the only action taken before his fall -- the placement of a "partial barricade" around the shaft opening -- actually increased Jeandron's chances of falling by guiding him and his walking cane directly to the opening. In its answer to the suit, the University denied any blame for the fall, arguing that University personnel responding to a report of the missing grate "properly protected the public" by barricading the area and wrapping yelllow plastic caution tape "several times" around the barricades. In fact, the University maintains that SEPTA assumed sole responsibility for the open shaft once University personnel informed SEPTA officials of the missing grate about 30 hours prior to the accident. The University claims that it "was under the belief that SEPTA had properly taken control and responsibility so as to remedy the condition or warn others of its existence." One key point is which defendant -- the University or SEPTA -- is legally required to maintain the safety of sidewalk grates such as the one that was missing at the time Jeandron fell. Jeandron's suit argues that the University is liable because the University "retained control over the sidewalk and land" where the accident occurred, and "knew of conditions on its land presenting an unreasonable risk of harm" to all passersby, especially blind people like Jeandron. The University denies those accusations, but agrees with Jeandron's suit that SEPTA may be liable because of the transportation authority's responsibility "for the maintenance and operation of the subway system." Citing an agreement between the City of Philadelphia and SEPTA's predecessor, the Philadelphia Transportation Company, the University argues that if Jeandron's allegations are proven at the time of trial, only SEPTA should be held liable. Lawyers for SEPTA have also responded to Jeandron's suit, denying his claims of SEPTA's liability. As is common in such cases involving two defendants, SEPTA also tried to assess blame on the other defendant, in this case the University. Jeandron's accident occurred on the morning of September 16, after he left his Graduate Towers A apartment and began heading south on 36th Street towards Sansom Street. After bumping into a "partial barricade" bordering the open shaft, he said he changed course and stepped right into the shaft. As a result of the fall, Jeandron said he suffered numerous injuries, including lacerations to his head and face, fractures of his ankle and sacrum, and fractures of his left wrist and elbow that damaged the "fine motor function" in his left hand. According to the suit, Jeandron immediately realized he had fallen into some part of the SEPTA subway complex. Lying at the bottom of the shaft, he could hear approaching trolleys, but could not tell "whether or not he was on the track area."
(05/28/92 9:00am)
Six gunpoint robberies -- three of which involved University students -- took place on or near campus in the last 10 days, though without any injuries, University Police Sergeant Thomas Rambo, said yesterday. Rambo said University Police apprehended suspects in the four gunpoint robberies closest to campus. In the other two incidents -- on at 42nd and Pine streets and the other in the 4400 block of Spruce Street -- University Police made no arrests. And, according to Rambo, a worker at the Encore Books store on 38th Street received injuries to the head during a burglary there last Thursday. The injuries required treatment at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, he said. A male who had been in the store for about an hour struck the employee in teh head with a three-foot pipe before the theft, Rambo said. He added that a witness in the store was struck on the arm by the pipe. Rambo said that he did not know the exten to of the employee's injuries or the value of the stolen property. Darryl Wheeler, the manager at Encore Books, declined to comment yesterday on the incident. Rambo said no one had been arrested in connection with the crime. In the first gunpoint robbery, which occurred just after 2 p.m. last Thursday, four males wielding guns robbed the Foot Locker store in the Shops at Penn complex at 3429 Walnut Street. Rambo said the males stole two racks of clothing before fleeing in an automobile. Several University Police units responding to the call pursued the suspects west on Walnut Street, until the suspects jumped out of the car and fled on foot. After continuing their pursuit on foot, Rambo said, University Police officers apprehended three of the four suspects at 47th Street and Fairmont Avenue. No injuries were reported. In the early morning hours of Friday, Rambo said two additional -- and related -- gunpoint robberies involving University students occurred about 45 minutes apart. Following the second robbery, University Police apprehended two suspects and charged them in connection with both robberies, according to Rambo. The first robbery occurred just after 1 a.m. Friday when the two males robbed a University student at 4109 Walnut Street. Rambo said the suspects stole $15 in cash and a $300 watch before fleeing on foot. The second robbery happened a short time later at 1:50 a.m. near 3803 Locust Walk, Rambo said. He said that the two males, who were later apprehended, reportedly robbed two University students of cash and watches. After University Police made the arrests, Rambo said a revolver was recovered adn teh two suspects were also identified in connection with the first robbery. No one was injured in either robbery, Rambo said. In a fourth and unrelated gunpoint robbery, a male University student was robbed at gunpoint Friday just before 9 a.m. outside the Provident Bank location at 3911 Walnut Street. Rambo said two University Police officers in the area pursued a suspect immediately after the robbery, apprehending him a short time later. The student was not injured. On Sunday evening, two additional unrelated gunpoint robberies, took place about an hour apart from each other, Rambo said. Just past 10:30 p.m., a person not affiliated with the University reported a gunpoint robbery at 42nd and Pine streets. University Police made no arrests, Rambo said. Then, a little before midnight, a person not affiliated with the University reported being robbed at gunpoint in the 4400 block of Spruce Street. University Police made no arrests in that case, either, Rambo said. There were no injuries reported. In an unrelated incident, Rambo said University Police received a report of a simple assault at 2 a.m. Saturday at 3809 Locust Walk, the Sigma Chi fraternity house. Rambo said a male not affiliated with the University was taken to the hospital, while the alleged perpetrator fled to the Alpha Tau Omega fraternity house. University Police made no arrests but advised the victim to file a private complaint.
(05/28/92 9:00am)
With serious budget negotiations just around the corner in Harrisburg, the University is continuing an intense lobbying campaign aimed at persuading state lawmakers to restore the University's $37.6 million state appropriation. "I think [the lobbying effort] is receiving an increased shot in the arm," said Nicholas Constan, assistant to President Sheldon Hackney. "People are being asked to write letters. A lot of the effort is strong and it is highly important." University officials have been trying to rally supporters since February, when Gov. Robert Casey proposed a budget that would eliminate all funding for the University and other private colleges in the state. But crunch time is approaching. Once the legislature returns from this week's holiday, observers say, lawmakers will move quickly to pass a final budget and avoid last year's protracted struggle to reach a spending agreement. University officials have repeatedly urged the University's supporters to write letters to legislators emphasizing how much the University and the surrounding community could be hurt by drastic cuts in state aid. As evidence that such demonstrations of support can make a difference, the officials point to the University's success last year at helping convince the legislature to restore more than $18 million in proposed state cuts. James Shada, the University's chief lobbyist in Harrisburg, said this week that the letter-writing campaign has produced some results. He said "a number" of legislators told him they had received letters from University alumni, faculty and staff. But despite the campaign's high visibility, University officials realize that it will take more than letters to keep Harrisburg's pursestrings pried open. Two legislative proposals already released -- one by House Democrats and another by Senate Republicans -- show that the University clearly faces an uphill battle in its quest for a restoration of state funding. The plan sponsored by Senate Republicans would provide $33.8 million -- about 90 percent of last year's level -- to all areas now receiving state money, including the general instruction line item that helps fund financial aid. The House Democratic plan, which passed the House last week and now moves to the Senate, would eliminate all funding for the University -- except for about $12.6 million for "veterinary education, research and outreach." Shada said the House bill "troubles" University officials because, besides the cuts, it does not specifically state that the $12.6 million will go to the Vet School. That part of the bill does not even mention the Vet School or the University by name. "On the other hand, having the $12.6 million somewhere is better than having nothing anywhere," Shada said. "It is a major step forward and we are pleased to see that step. It's a good start." To heighten the intensity of the lobbying drive, Shada said, University administrators have joined forces with other higher education institutions that are also facing a reduction or elimination of their state funding. He said Executive Vice President Marna Whittington spent last Tuesday at a reception where she and representatives from other institutions tried to highlight for lawmakers the continuing need for state support. Besides Whittington, Shada and University lobbyist Paul Cribbens, several other University administrators are also spending a lot of time in Harrisburg these days. Vet School Dean Edwin Andrews makes a weekly trip down the capitol's corridors to drum up support for the school, Shada said. Of all the areas of the University, the Vet School -- which relies on state funding for 40 percent of its annual operating budget -- needs help from the state most. The key for the University is to convince lawmakers, many of whose constituencies live several hundred miles from West Philadelphia, that they should apportion scarce state resources to an institution widely perceived to be rolling in money. Shada said he tailors each of his attempts at persuasion to fit that legislator's profile. For example, with lawmakers from the five-county Philadelphia area, he said he might stress the University's impact on the region's economy in terms of jobs and services. But when speaking to a lawmaker representing Erie County in the state's northwestern corner, he said he might focus less on the direct economic impact of the University and more on research and education. Research done at the University on such maladies as the avian flu and salmonella can help demonstrate the far-reaching effects of work done on campus for the rest of the state, especially its large agricultural region, he said. He added that the Medical Center's advanced organ transplant capabilities provide training, in addition to care, for people from distant parts of the state. But, ironically, one of the University's hardest sells may include convincing lawmakers from its own backyard. Several state representatives from Philadelphia said the University's stance in dispute over the Mayor's Scholarships has made it difficult for them to lobby as actively for the University as they have in past years. The seven-month-old dispute centers around the number of scholarships the University is required to provide Philadelphians in return for almost 47 acres of rent-free city land the University received decades ago.
(05/21/92 9:00am)
While the University was teeming with the parents this weekend, in town to witness one of their proudest moments - their child's college graduation - Steven Pessagno's thoughts were elsewhere. Pessagno was not talking about all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the milestone he would achieve the next day. Nor was he talking about jobs, for that matter. He was talking about shame - the "Wall of Shame," to be exact, a 9-foot by 10-foot expanse of wall in his apartment, where the College student and his housemates plastered rejection letter after rejection letter from prospective employers. Pessagno's story is simple, and for many of this year's graduates, all too familiar: "I'm unemployed right now," he said. The proof was on the wall. Many seniors, reached just days from graduation, reported that they, too, were still looking for jobs. Several of them, especially those in the College, said that they had interviewed extensively and sent resumes all over, but had no job to show of it. With media reports of gloom and doom for seniors entering the job market - The New York Times called this year's market the worst in 20 years for new graduates - and the economy's snail-pace recovery, it might seem as if many University graduates might as wel give up now. But despite popular perception of the individual horror stories, times may not be so terribly tough for this years graduating class. A number of the new graduates, particularly those from Wharton, Engineering and Nursing schools, said they were already fully employed. Several said they even had the luxury of picking from several offers. Officials with the University's Career Planning and Placement Service conceded that the job market is tight. But they said early indications suggest that students in those schools are enjoying considerable success in their job searches. Beverly Hamilton-Chandler, the CPPS associate director who handles Wharton, said that despite a slower pace this year, a slightly higher than usual number of Wharton graduate reported hiring to CPPS. "Wharton students overall have fared quite well," she said. "Given the number of responses ehat we've already received they seem to be quite happy. They're really in quite good shape." Donna Kahn Patkin, who oversees the Engineering School for CPPS, said: "Given a tough year, we've been pleased to hear that students have been able to find appropriate employment and things don't sound any differnet to us in terms of the actual jobs - so far." Even for students from the College, such as Steve Pessagno, who feel qualified and confident in their abilities, but have found only frustration in the job search so far - the near future may be brighter than they realize. According to Peggy Churchack, the CPPS assistant director in charge of the College, many students from the College wait longer than students from the University's other schools. She said many employers who seek the type of student with a degree from the College often do not hire ahead of time or recruit on campus - factors which mean many graduate from the College are still in the job hunt when graduation rolls around. Churchack even agrees that some of the skepticism felt by this year's graduates - and the resulting increases in applications to graduate schools - may be partially the result of the bad press about the job market. "It seems at least worthy of conjecture that part of this change is in fact people thinking, 'This market is so lousy, I might as well go to grad school,'" she said, although the average College graduate may be no less successful than those from previous years. Despite the different success rates experienced by students from the different schools, CPPS officials said students at the University have done well overall. "I think Penn students are doing better than most college seniors today," CPPS director Patricia Rose said. "Because of the quality of our students, we find that they're very successful in applying for jobs and getting accepted at graduate and professional schools." But even quality students need to plot out a thoughtful job search strategy for optimal success, several experts in career planning agreed this week. Victor Lindquist, the director of Northwestern University's career planning department and the author of a study on the job market, said this year's graduates need to focus on medium-size and smaller companies. He said tha many of the larger Fortune 500 companies, such as IBM are looking to downsize because of the recession, and will likely have fewer openings for new college graduates. In his study, the Linquist-Endicott Report, Lindquist notes that more than half of the companies surveyed said they would recruit less on college campuses this year than in 1991. The problem, according to career planning experts, is how to find jobs with smaller companies, which are often less visible than those with large corporations. CPPS's Rose said that she was "hopeful that [CPPS] will continue to forge relationships with [small to medium] companies" to increase opportunities for University students. But she also noted that the University's "traditional clients," the large corporations, would remain a top priority despite the drop in on-campus recruiting. Some of them, most notably Proctor & Gamble, continued interviewing and hiring University students this year. Still, as Lindquist noted, the majority of jobs available are at medium-size companies, and most of those openings never make it to the newspaper's ads. Insted, he said, they are usually filled internally through promotions or personal connections. Lindquist said that he had heard about a woman who mentioned to her hairdresser one day that her husband was having trouble finding a job as a financial analyst. Later that day, when another customer said her husband was looking to hire such a person, the hairdresser put the two in touch. The husband received the job shortly afterwards, complete with a $150,000 salary. "You need to develop contacts with anyone and everyone because you never know where the hell a job is going to come from," Linquist said. Rose agreed that networking is important. "At a time when the job market is tighter, you certainly want ot use every resource you can and networking is probably the most important," Rose said. She added that in addition to personal contacts, using the CPPS networks offers advantages as well. Dan Richter, a College graduate who majored in psychology, said a strong recommendation from a professor helped get him a plum research position at the National Institute of Mental Health. "I did O.K., but its a whole lot of 'who you know' and not 'what you know,'" he said. Another factor which often plays a role in the job seeker's ultimate success is the individual's commitment to a particular career or field of graduate study. Rose said the focus of students in the Nursing, Engineering and Wharton schools helps them do well, as it does for students in the College majoring in certain areas, such as economics, with clear post-University professional pathways. Phillip Gardner, a research administrator fro the Collegiate Employment Research Institute at Michigan State University, said graduates looking for work should zero in on a "specific target" and be prepared to "do a lot of knocking on doors" before finding a position. That's a lesson that Steven Pessagno said he did not learn until recently. The most disappointing part, I think, is more that I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do until I got into this process," he said, adding that he is confident he will find a job after returning from a 30-day trip through Europe this summer. As for where to find the jobs, the universal advice seems to be: head west and south and - at least for now - avoid the New England market. For a large percentage of this year's graduates, all the job advice in the world is of no use at the moment, because they are headed to graduate school. Rose estimates that among the University's graduates this year, applications to graduate school were up by about 10 percent overall. Many of the applicants planned on attending graduate school regardless of the state of the job market. In fact, CPPS officials said most medical school applicants had been planning on that path for some time due to the extensive requirements for such necessary steps as taking the Medical College Admissions Test. But for students like Jennifer Gray - who came out of the Engineering School with a degree in materials science and engineering, only to have "the hardest time finding a job" - graduate school seemed like the best option. She said she hopes graduate school will both buy her some time while the economy improves, and make her more desirable candidate for employers once she completes her graduate studies. There is at least one person who has not yet taken such a cerebral approach to post-University life is Catherine Ramsingh. "I haven't even started looking for a job," she said casually. "I'm going to relax for the summer, then take my time and look. You can't stress about these things." Of course 2,000 other graduates might beg to differ.
(05/21/92 9:00am)
The University's quest to retain its $37.6 million state appropriation moved into the home stretch this week, as state legislators in Harrisburg began the annual task of hammering out the state's budget for the next fiscal year. University administrators will follow the progress with keen interest, hoping that lawmakers ignore Gov. Robert Casey's own proposal in February that the legislature eliminate all state funding for private institutions like the University. Despite strong lobbying by the University and its supporters, limited state revenues no new tax increases - combined with flack from the so-called Mayor's Scholarship dispute - has dimmed the University's chances of receiving the full $37.6 million, much less its requested $41.2 million, lawmakers said this week. Two legislative proposals already released - one by the House Democrats and the other by Senate Republicans - show that a repeat of last year's budget success for the University is less probable. "We've got a very tight budget year," said James Roebuck (D-Phila.). "The question is where our priorities lie and where the cuts have to be made. Whether [the University] gets its full funding is not clear yet, but it is doubtful." Under the plan most favorable for the University, Senate Republicans would provide more than $33 million - about $4 million short of last year's total - to all areas now receiving state aid, including the general instruction line item that helps fund financial aid. By contrast, House Democrats would cut more than $26 million from last year's package, eliminating general instruction aid altogether and funding ony the Veterinary School, though at levels slightly lower than last year's. But, according to Roebuck, even the Senate Republican plan would ultimately hurt the University because those dollars would come at the expense of funding for public education, welfare and transportation in cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. "That plan would make sure that kids from the public schools don't even get into Penn," he said. In a worst case scenario, however, it appears that the Vet School would receive at least some funding. Of all areas of the University, the Vet School - which accounts for 40 percent of its annual operating budget with state funds - needs help from Harrisburg the most. One added hurdle for the University this year has been winning the active support of Philadelphia area state representatives, many of whom have worked hard in the past for the University in a legislature known for its anti-Philadelphia bias. Several local representatives said the University's stance in the dispute over the Mayor's Scholarships has made it difficult for them to lobby as actively for the University's funding as they have in the past years. The dispute, which has dragged on since late October, centers around the number of scholarships the University is required to provide Philadelphians in return for almost 47 acres of rent-free city land the University received decades ago. The representatives support a class-action lawsuit against the University, now pending in Common Pleas Court, that claims the University's 125 annual scholarships fall well short of the number of awards that a 1977 city ordinance requires. In January, 20 members of the Philadelphia delegation - including House Appropriations Committee chairman Dwight Evans - sent President Sheldon Hackney a letter warning that it would be "very difficult" for them to support the state funding unless the University increased its scholarship commitment. Rep. Harold James (D-Phila.) who signed the letter, said last week that the letter was not an empty threat. He said he has spent less time this year than usual lobbying directly on behalf of the University through such means as letters to influential lawmakers, adding he currently does not support state funding for the University's general instruction. Stephen Golding, the University's budget director, said that the University administrators understand the representative's concerns about the scholarship issue. But Golding said administrators also want to educate the representatives - along with the entire legislature - on the value of the state aid to the community in the form of salaries and other economic benefits. Vincent Hughes (D-Phila.), who is also among the 20 to sign the letter, said the instruction is not needed. He said he is a "firm believer and advocate for investing in higher education" and already appreciates the value of the University's economic impact. But he said the scholarship issue - which he calls just another example of the general "lack of performance" of the state's entire higher education community towards blacks - has weakened his support for the University. Unlike last year, several legislators said they inten to avoid a protracted struggle to pass a budget and would work to reach a consensus with their peers by the June 30 deadline. Last year, the legislature restored the University's funding to the presvious year's level only after passing a budget in August that included huge tax increases. Casey had recommended cutting the University's state aid in half that year.
(04/24/92 9:00am)
A coalition suing the University over the number of Mayor's Scholarships it provides said yesterday it will file an amended version of the suit this morning, bringing the city into the suit. The additional parties named to the suit include the City of Philadelphia, Mayor Edward Rendell, the commissioner of public property and the Mayor's Scholarship Committee -- a six-person panel appointed by Rendell to oversee the scholarship program. It is not clear which side of the suit the new parties will ultimately join, although city officials, led by Rendell, have consistently backed the University's position for months. In the court papers, lawyers for the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia -- which is representing the plaintiffs -- suggest the city could end up as a plaintiff against its will. "Each [party] is joined, in the alternative, as involuntary plaintiff, or co-plaintiff or defendant, in the first instance as each party chooses and ultimately as the facts and operation of law require," according to a copy of the suit provided by PILCOP. The make-up of the scholarship committee may complicate matters. Of the six members, at least two -- Councilman-at-large Herbert DeBeary and State Senator Chaka Fattah -- have publicly spoken against the University on the scholarship debate. None of the committee members could be reached for comment last night. The plaintiffs, which include labor unions, student groups and individuals, argue that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to award students from Philadelphia schools 125 new scholarships each year for a total of 500 in any one year. The University maintains it must provide a total of 125 awards, or their equivalent, in any one year. The agreement requires the University to award the scholarships in exchange for rent-free city land it received in 1882 and 1910. Today's filing comes ten days after Common Pleas Court Judge Nelson Diaz dismissed an initial suit. Diaz ruled that the plaintiffs, who filed suit against the University last October, failed to include "necessary parties." Diaz noted in the dismissal order that the city belonged in the suit because the disputed ordinance -- which lies at the heart of the scholarship battle -- is a contract between the city and the University. Besides adding the new parties, the modified class-action suit largely restates the plaintiffs' original claim that the University is shortchanging Philadelphia schoolchildren on the scholarship deal. The 76-page suit, the third version filed by PILCOP to date, repeats and expands several allegations from the two earlier versions of the suit, including: · The total value of the University's scholarship awards falls short even of what the University claims its responsibility to be -- 125 scholarships total or the dollar equivalent. · The University has awarded numerous Mayor's Scholarships to students from schools outside Philadelphia, including Philips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire, despite a large number of qualified students from Philadelphia schools. · Many scholarship recipients come from families that are too well off financially to qualify for the awards, shutting out poorer students from the city who are equally qualified. · Since at least 1978, the University has underpublicized the scholarship program intentionally, causing the number of city students attending the University to decline while the overall student body increased. · The University does not live up to the ordinance's requirement that the University provide "full tuition" scholarships, because recipients receive just $500 on top of their standard financial aid packages -- which include loans and work-study grants. The suit also claims that the University could absorb the extra number of scholarships with no effect on its finances, either by "committing some portion of its endowment or other funds" to the scholarships or by offering non-Philadelphians fewer scholarships. Arthur Makadon, a lawyer for the University, declined to comment on the amended suit last night, adding that he does not speak publicly about court papers until they are filed. But Makadon criticized PILCOP for releasing the document to The Daily Pennsylvanian before filing it in court, where papers automatically become a matter of public record. "I think they should file with the courts before they file with the DP," he said. "I will look forward to reading this complaint when I finally get a copy," University General Counsel Shelley Green said last night. "And I will be most interested to see if they correct the deficiencies in their last complaint."
(04/20/92 9:00am)
A settlement has been reached in a former Holmesburg Prison inmate's $6-million lawsuit which charged that he developed leukemia as a result of Univerity workers injecting him with radioactive material during a 1967 prison experiment. Plaintiff Edward Farrington, who filed the handwritten suit in federal court in October 1990, was paid "an undisclosed sum in order to avoid the costs of litigation and to buy peace," Associate General Counsel Neil Hamburg said last week. Both Hamburg and Teri Himebaugh, who represented Farrington as his court-appointed counsel, refused to discuss details of the settlement. Lawyers for the city and Holmesburg Prison, which Farrington also named as defendants, could not be reached. Hamburg said the University continues to deny Farrington's allegations and made no admission of guilt in the settlement, which was reached early last month. In the suit, Farrington cited permanent scars and his bout with leukemia in demanding $1 million in compensation and $5 million in punitive damages. He could not be reached for comment. Farrington claimed that workers from the University "enticed" him into participating in the radiation study by assuring him there would be no lasting effects. He alleged that officials from the University and the prison lied about the risks. Farrington said seven permanent tatoos on his back and arms show where workers injected the radioactive material. He said workers used a geiger counter for a period of weeks to examine and measure the effects of the radiation. Farrington said in the suit that he could not recall what department of the University oversaw the alleged experiment, and could not produce any names of the workers, except "McBride." Lawyers for the University acknowledged in legal briefs that a person named McBride had worked for the University in 1967. But they firmly denied that any such individual was involved in the kind of experiments described in Farrington's suit. The Unversity's lawyers initially expressed frustration in trying to respond to the suit, complaining that they needed to know more about Farrington's accusations in order to frame an appropriate defense. After Farrington filed a slightly more detailed complaint, the University's lawyers replied that an investigation at the University had failed to verify Farrington's account of such University-conducted radiation experiments. From the filing of the suit until its settlement, the case took a number of bizarre twists that repeatedly delayed its resolution and almost led to the suit's dismissal. Farrington requested the court to appoint him a lawyer, but the first six lawyers appointed by the court asked to be taken off the case due to a conflict of interest. Himebaugh said many of them had to drop the case because of ties to the University. By the time Himebaugh became the seventh court-appointed lawyer in the case last fall, Farrington had a lawyer with no University connection. But when Himebaugh tried to get in touch with her new client, she learned he had violated his parole and could not be located by the authorities. The University's lawyers then petitioned the court to throw out the case, citing the plaintiff's failure to prosecute his own case as one of its reasons. Himebaugh said that just when the judge was about to rule on the University's request, she learned that Farrington had been at Episcopal Hospital the whole time, recovering from injuries he sustained after falling down some stairs. Himebaugh said he suffered "partial paralysis" after the fall and had lapsed into a coma. A spokesperson at Episcopal refused to confirm whether Farrington had been a patient there, citing the hospital's confidentiality policy. Once Farrington recovered, Himebaugh said, he expressed interest in pursuing his case and a settlement was soon reached.
(04/20/92 9:00am)
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.
(04/16/92 9:00am)
In an apparent victory for the University, a Common Pleas Court judge has dismissed a coalition's class-action lawsuit against the University over the number of Mayor's Scholarships required by a disputed city ordinance. Judge Nelson Diaz dismissed the suit yesterday because the plaintiffs failed to name the city and the mayor as co-defendants with the University. He noted that a 1977 ordinance at the heart of the dispute is a contract between the city and the University. But Diaz gave the plaintiffs 20 days to file an amended suit adding the city and mayor as defendants. The move indicates that the legal battle being waged against the University by several individuals and a dozen organizations is not yet over. Thomas Gilhool, a lawyer for the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia -- which is representing the plaintiffs -- said yesterday that the unions, student groups and individuals would "promptly" add the city and the mayor as defendants in an amended suit. Attempting to cast the dismissal in a bright light, Gilhool called the judge's order "a welcome development to get all the public officials into the scrutiny of the courtroom." University General Counsel Shelley Green would not call the dismissal a victory, but said that "it's certainly not a defeat for the University. We're pleased with the decision." Arthur Makadon, lawyer for the University, said that Diaz's ruling indicates that the "whole process will start all over again," adding that the University would wait to see the amended suit before deciding how to respond this time. "The ruling does not change the University's legal position, nor does it change the city's legal position," Makadon said. "We're going to make the argument again that this is a matter between the city and the University." The city, led by Mayor Edward Rendell, has come out publicly in support of the University in the dispute. Rendell's chief legal advisor, Judith Harris, concluded in February that the University's interpretation of the 1977 ordinance is correct. Based on Harris's opinion, Rendell announced the city would not join the plaintiffs in suing the University. Former Mayor Wilson Goode had been preparing to join the suit late last year, when Rendell asked him to hold off on the move. David Cohen, Rendell's chief of staff, said yesterday that the city still supports the University on the scholarship issue and predicted that the "borderline frivolous" suit would be thrown out permanently once the judge considers its merits. "The city will continue to take the position that [the city is] honoring the agreement," he said. "And given that both parties are in agreement, I think the court is going to have a lot of difficulty figuring out what it's adjudicating." Diaz's ruling came one day after lawyers in the case delivered oral arguments at an hour-long hearing on the University's preliminary motions to dismiss the suit. The hearing focused on the University's claim that the plaintiffs lack legal standing to sue the University over an agreement solely between the city and the University. But while Diaz wrote in his dismissal that he had "sustained" the University's preliminary objections, lawyers on both sides agreed that the judge did not appear to base his decision on the issue of standing. Gilhool said he believes the judge's decision to focus on the make-up of the defendants reflects the University's failure to prevail on "any of the many preliminary objections [Makadon] raised," including the plaintiffs' legal standing. But Makadon disputed Gilhool's assertion, saying that Diaz had no need to find an additional reason to dismiss the suit and that the issue of standing "will have to be addressed" at some future time. Plaintiffs in the suit argue that the ordinance requires the University to award Philadelphia high school students 125 new scholarships each year, or 500 at any one time. The University maintains the ordinance requires only 125 awards at a time. In a statement released yesterday, President Sheldon Hackney said, "We are pleased by the judge's ruling." But he added that University officials "have always seen this issue in a broader context." Hackney said that "our real challenge is not winning a lawsuit, but raising the community's awareness of the University's commitment to Philadelphia, including the . . . financial aid we have provided for more than 100 years to qualified Philadelphia students."
(04/03/92 10:00am)
and STEPHEN GLASS The University has fired a Center City law firm after a partner in the firm condemned a city official for endorsing the University's controversial stance on the Mayor's Scholarships dispute. The Legal Intelligencer, a daily trade publication for the Philadelphia legal community, is reporting today that the University dismissed the firm because a partner, William Ewing, wrote a letter to City Council President John Street criticizing City Solicitor Judith Harris's stance. The Legal reported that the firm is Hangley Connolly Epstein Chicco Foxman & Ewing and handled "relatively minor" legal issues for the University. "We expect the firms that represent us to meet their ethical obligations and to serve the University with loyalty," General Counsel Shelley Green said yesterday to the Legal. "Ewing insinuated himself into the public debate over the scholarship issue, and that seemed to me inconsiderate. We're not talking about thought control, we're talking about duty to client." PILCOP attorney Michael Churchill, who is representing the coalition of unions and University groups that filed the controversial lawsuit in October, said last night that Ewing was not directly connected with the Mayor's Scholarship litigation. "He is chairman of [the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia's] board," Churchill said. "[But,] the board does not conduct the litigation . . . and he was not chairman at the time PILCOP decided to undergo the litigation." In his letter, which he wrote on personal stationery, Ewing stressed that his opinion was "unaffected" by either his loyalty to the University -- where he attended law school -- or to PILCOP. Ewing's firm represented the University in unrelated matters, according to the Legal. The newspaper also reports that John Summers, not Ewing, represented the University. No one in the Hangley firm would comment to The Daily Pennsylvanian or to the Legal. Law School professors criticized the University last week for dismissing the firm, saying that there was no conflict of interest and that the decision might discourage other attorneys from performing public service. "In my opinion, if the University dismissed the law firm to punish the firm and its lawyers for expressing their views on a legal or political matter, I would find that highly offensive," Senior Law Fellow David Rudovsky said. "If, on the other hand, the University . . . had reason to believe that there was a conflict of interest which would make it difficult for the University to work with the law firm -- that might present a different situation," Rudovsky added. "I would add that from everything I've seen so far, it appears this was an act of retribution and something that I think was not worthy of this University." "It is the highest form of hypocrisy to mandate students to do public service work as a condition of graduation and then condone economic punishment for that very work," Associate Law Professor Ralph Smith said. Smith is a member of the University's African-American Association, one of the plaintiffs in the suit against the University. An ethics expert at Yale University said yesterday that Rule 6.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility permits a lawyer to sit on a public interest law firm's board and not be subject to the same conflict-of-interest principles as someone at a private firm. But Geoffrey Hazard of Yale Law School told the Legal that the protection is limited and does not include public criticism of a client's legal stance. The Legal has also reported that by dismissing the Hangley firm, the University may hurt itself economically. All of the founding partners graduated from the University's Law School in 1965 and many have donated large sums in the past.
(04/03/92 10:00am)
City Council President John Street cancelled today's scheduled round of Council hearings on the Mayor's Scholarships dispute, possibly signaling the end for a bill that would restate the University's scholarship commitment in its favor. And in an unrelated development, a common pleas judge has set a date for oral arguments in a class-action lawsuit against the University about how many scholarships it must award, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said yesterday. Street called off the hearings after many Council members requested that the University provide more data on the scholarship program between 1977 and the present, according to Edna Irving, Street's chief of staff. Irving said the joint hearing of Council's Rules and Education committees could resume about a week after members receive the information, which University officials said they are in the process of gathering. But several Council members said they believe the University prompted Street to cancel the hearings altogether. They suggested that University officials feared the bill would not pass and that another hearing would only cause its image further public damage. "I think it's a realization by [University officials] that they were wrong," Councilman-at-large Angel Ortiz said. "They saw that the opposition was so broad that they were not going to have a chance to get their way." Councilman-at-large David Cohen, who has been joined by Ortiz in criticizing the University's position, agreed. "It's quite clear that their efforts to get City Council to accept their interpretation of the situation has pretty much run aground," Cohen said. John Gould, executive director of the president's office, acknowledged yesterday that University officials did not relish further hearings, but insisted that they had not made any requests to cancel the hearings. Street could not be reached for comment yesterday and his chief of staff declined to explain the rationale behind the cancellation. Last Friday, several hostile witnesses and Council members challenged the University's position on a disputed 1977 city ordinance that requires the University to award qualified Philadelphia high school graduates with scholarships in return for city land. The Rules Committee heard testimony on a bill that would replace the existing ordinance with one reflecting the University's belief that it must provide only a total of 125 awards in any one year. Plaintiffs in the suit, represented by the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelpia, allege the University owes 125 new scholarships each year for a total of 500 at any one time. In order for the bill to be passed on to the full Council body, the Rules Committee must meet again at least to hold a vote. If the hearings do not resume, Bill 66 will stay in committee and will not be implemented. PILCOP lawyer Michael Churchill said yesterday that Judge Nelson Diaz slated April 14 to hear oral arguments on the University's motion to dismiss the suit. Lawyers for the plaintiffs will argue their case before the judge, and University lawyers will then attempt to justify their preliminary objections to the suit. Based on the oral arguments, Diaz will decide whether to grant the University's motion and dismiss the case. If he rejects the motion, the case will move one step closer to a trial.