Search Results
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
(04/02/92 10:00am)
In a move criticized by one opponent as a "diversionary tactic," the University has hired a local public relations firm to help plot strategy for the increasingly politicized Mayor's Scholarships dispute. University officials hired the Crawley, Haskins and Rodgers firm about two months ago primarily to raise public awareness of the scholarship program, according to John Gould, the executive director of the president's office. Gould said the University hired the firm as a response to attempts by some University critics to politicize the debate over how many scholarships a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to provide Philadelphia high school graduates. He blamed the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia for turning a legal debate into a political dogfight. PILCOP is representing a coalition of local organizations and individuals in a class-action lawsuit against the University. "We were pursuing this issue in the courts and PILCOP chose to pursue it in almost every other venue than the courts," Gould said. "We had to get some help to begin to get our message and our side of the story out to the public." Plaintiffs in the suit claim that the 1977 ordinance mandates the University to provide 125 new scholarships each year. University officials maintain the law calls for only a total of 125 awards, or their dollar equivalent, in any one year. PILCOP officials could not be reached for comment on the hiring or Gould's explanation. But one person actively involved in the suit strongly criticized the move, calling it a "diversionary tactic" designed to "gloss over" the scholarship issue. Dan McGinley, the president of the Philadelphia Association of School Administrators -- a plaintiff in the suit -- acknowledged that publicizing the scholarship program is necessary, noting that none of his six children had ever heard of a Mayor's Scholarship despite graduating from Philadelphia schools. But McGinley said he doubts the truth of the University's stated motivation for the hiring. He alleged that the University is "trying to gloss over the actual facts rather than responding to the issue at hand." McGinley also called the University's decision to hire the public relations firm "a diversion of money that should go towards funding a scholarship opportunity." But Gould said in response that "a great deal of the University's money" could have gone towards scholarships and "other educational priorities" if PILCOP and its clients had not filed suit in the first place. In chiding the performance of University officials at City Council hearings last Friday, McGinley also half-jokingly praised the firm for bolstering the position of his suit. "If the PR firm was in any way responsible for the presentation [University officials] made on Friday, [the firm] should be fired," McGinley said. "Because people who may have been uncertain before were convinced by the kinds of protests and positions that University officials took." Despite favorable testimony by City Solicitor Judith Harris -- who earlier concluded in favor of the University's position -- the 10 hours of testimony saw a parade of witnesses and hostile Council members blast the University's position. Many people who attended the hearings said that University officials did not make a convincing presentation. At one point, President Sheldon Hackney and Executive Vice President Marna Whittington simultaneously answered the same question with opposite answers. Since October, when the suit was filed, PILCOP officials have reportedly used their influence to rally public support for the suit. The officials have consistently denied responsibility for a variety of developments which others have attributed to their political connections. The most recent public show of support for the suit against the University came on March 23, when the Committee for the Penn Scholarships for Philadelphia School Children called a press conference. At the conference, committee members -- mostly representatives of plaintiff groups in the suit -- released standardized test scores for Philadelphia students to prove that hundreds of students are qualified to attend the University under the committee's interpretation of the ordinance. The committee had accused University officials, including Hackney, of doubting whether Philadelphia schools graduated enough qualified students. Hackney denied ever making a comment to that effect.
(03/27/92 10:00am)
and STEPHEN GLASS Two Philadelphia City Council committees will hold a joint hearing today on the Mayor's Scholarships dispute, providing the first public forum for the University, its critics and city officials to explain their positions. The Rules and Education committees are scheduled to hear testimony from dozens of witnesses representing both sides of the scholarship debate. The University and the Committee for the Penn Scholarships for the Philadelphia School Children disagree on how many scholarships a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to provide to Philadelphia high school students. The committee of unions and student groups maintains that the University must provide 125 four-year scholarships each year, for a total of 500 at any given time. The University has maintained that it must only provide 125 scholarships total each year. Scheduled witnesses include President Sheldon Hackney and Executive Vice President Marna Whittington for the University. City Solicitor Judith Harris, who has endorsed the University's position, will testify for the mayor's office. Several union leaders, Black Student League President Martin Dias and representatives from the University's African American Association are among those representing the coalition, which filed suit against the University in October. Although the two committees are conducting a joint session, each has a separate agenda and hopes to use the same testimony to achieve different aims. Of the two, only Rules will debate legislation on the matter, while Education will conduct a fact-finding investigation. The Rules Committee, headed by Council President John Street, will consider a bill that would replace the disputed 1977 ordinance with one that eliminates the controversial phrase "to be awarded annually." Initially proposed by the mayor's office, Bill 66 would clearly support the University's interpretation of its legal responsibility by setting the scholarship commitment at a total of 125 awards each year. If the pace of the testimony allows, Council members said the committee may vote later today to send the bill out of committee and open it to a full Council debate. One Council aide, who described the committee as "pretty Penn-friendly," said he expects the bill will easily receive the committee's approval. But he added that Bill 66 may face stronger opposition once it moves on to the Council floor. The Penn Scholarships Committee, which filed suit with the advice of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, has said it opposes Bill 66 because it believes the bill changes the intent of the 1977 ordinance. Passage of the bill by Council reduces the Penn Scholarships Committee's potential gain because, in court, plaintiffs would be able to contest only scholarships awarded between 1977 and the bill's passage. Currently, the number of future scholarships is also in dispute. Harris drafted Bill 66 last month after Street requested a legal assessment of the Penn Scholarships Committee's allegations. Several Council members, including Councilman-at-large Angel Ortiz, have criticized Harris' opinion for ignoring the spirit of the ordinance. The Education Committee, meanwhile, will inquire into whether the University is complying with the 1977 ordinance. The inquiry stems from a resolution which Ortiz sponsored last month and Council subsequently approved. Unlike the Rules Committee, the Education Committee will not vote on any binding legislation and will probably do nothing more than prepare a report containing its findings, several committee members said yesterday. Three of the seven committee members -- David Cohen, Herbert DeBeary and Augusta Clark -- have said publicly in the past that they believe the University is not complying with the ordinance.
(03/27/92 10:00am)
City Solicitor Judith Harris responded this week to a city councilman's complaint about her legal opinion on the side of the University in the Mayor's Scholarships dispute. In a point-by-point rebuttal letter dated March 24, Harris refutes the assertions made by Councilman-at-large Angel Ortiz that her conclusion in favor of the University's position misread a disputed 1977 city ordinance and ignored important factors. Harris first challenges Ortiz over the relative importance of the phrase, "to be awarded annually." The phrase appears in many parts of the ordinance and is stressed by University critics as proof that the University must offer 125 new scholarships per year rather than 125 overall per year, as the University claims. In a letter earlier this month, Ortiz criticized the city solicitor for overemphasizing the general intent of the ordinance as a whole -- along with its historical context -- rather than making a literal interpretation of what Ortiz called the "clear language" of the ordinance and the phrase in question. But Harris wrote back that the use of the phrase, "to be awarded annually," is ambiguous, adding that the absence of the phrase in the document's preamble only increases the confusion. She noted that the phrase could be interpreted as meaning "that a total of 125 four year scholarships be maintained at any one time, with the Mayor annually awarding scholarships as necessary to maintain the total at 125." This argument is similar to one that University lawyers have used in court documents since a coalition of unions and student groups filed suit against the University in October. Harris also addresses the suggestion by Ortiz that she did not properly consider a passage in the 1977 ordinance, in which the University agreed to "increase" the value of its scholarship commitment in return for the city's permission to mortgage land. In her defense, Harris repeats parts of her original opinion, where she noted that the increase referred to eliminating outdated dollar caps from an 1882 ordinance and changing the name of 75 "free" scholarships to "full tuition" scholarships. She also mentions in her letter that there is no historical evidence to support the claim that the 1977 ordinance would quadruple the University's commitment. Like University lawyers, she makes reference to City Council testimony from 1977, which does not mention such quadrupling. Harris also echoes University lawyers in rejecting an argument, made by Ortiz and other University critics, that a quadrupled University commitment makes sense because the University's student body and the land value had quadrupled since the ordinance was last amended in 1910. "In short, all the relevant history supports the University's position," she concludes.
(03/06/92 10:00am)
J & J to retain patent rights The University announced a compromise Wednesday with Johnson & Johnson in a two-year court battle over rights to sell the popular acne drug Retin-A as an anti-wrinkle cream. Under the terms of the settlement, Johnson & Johnson retains exclusive ownership of the patent rights to the drug, a position which the University and University Patents, Inc. challenged in two lawsuits against the drug company. And, according to The Wall Street Journal, the pharmaceutical giant will not have to pay the University $10 million in back royalties which the newspaper reported the University sought in damages. But Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay the University and University Patents future royalties if the Food and Drug Administration approves a Retin-A compound as a treatment for sun-damaged skin. The contested compound, which Johnson & Johnson plans to market under the tradename Renova, is currently under review by the FDA. Renova contains the same active ingredient as Retin-A, but has a different formulation. As a result of the settlement, the University's 1990 lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and emeritus professor and Retin-A discoverer Albert Kligman was dismissed by mutual consent in U.S. District Court on Tuesday. University Patents' 1989 suit was also dismissed Tuesday. In a statement released Wednesday, the University did not address the terms of the settlement, but emphasized instead "the opportunity to repair its relationship with Dr. Kligman." "It was not the University's purpose in the lawsuit to question Dr. Kligman's character, integrity and generosity," the statement reads. "We regret any inference that the lawsuit may have brought Dr. Kligman's character, integrity and generosity into question." The statement praised Kligman's donation of $15 million in royalties from the Retin-A acne invention to the University's dermatology department and his commitment to donate "substantial royalties" from potential sales of Renova. Kligman could not be reached yesterday, but his secretary said he had no comment on the settlement. Officials at both the University and Johnson & Johnson declined to comment on the details of the agreement, including how much money the University stands to gain. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation, the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary which makes the drug, has sold approximately $300 million worth of Retin-A since 1989, according to David Saks, a senior investment analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities in New York. Sales of Retin-A skyrocketed in the late 1980s following widespread publicity of the drug's effectiveness at smoothing wrinkles and sun-damaged skin. Although the FDA has approved Retin-A only as an anti-acne treatment, the drug has been used by many people since then as an anti-aging treatment. Ortho spokesperson Rich Salem said earlier this semester that he is confident that Renova will gain FDA approval. "The fact that it is before FDA now is a strong indication of our belief in the effectiveness and promise of Renova as a product for photodamage," he said. "We are very hopeful that the FDA will move forward." Wednesday's settlement ends the long-running dispute which has its roots in 1981. At that time, Kligman, a researcher in the dermatology department, filed a patent in his own name for Retin-A's anti-wrinkle uses, claiming he discovered it on his own time. The University claimed that the patent and the right to license the patent belonged to the University because at least part of Kligman's research was performed at University facilities and involved University time. The University claimed in its suit that Kligman violated the University's patent policy when he filed independently for the patent, and then broke the University's conflict-of-interest guidelines when he sold Johnson & Johnson exclusive rights to the patent in 1984. Kligman denied the allegations throughout the dispute.
(03/04/92 10:00am)
Claims age discrimination A former long-time director of the Wistar Institute filed suit against the institute in federal court last week, charging Wistar officials with age discrimination in their decision to oust him as director last April. Plaintiff Hilary Koprowski argues in the suit that the institute forced him to step down because of his age -- 74 at the time -- even though a peer review board gave him high performance ratings as recently as 1989. The suit also cites Wistar's 1986 retirement policy which provides that "any termination of employment will be on the basis of . . . [performance evaluations] . . . and not on the basis of the employee's age." The Wistar Institute is a leading biomedical research facility located on campus, but separate from the University. The institute works closely with the University through adjunct faculty and research projects. The University Trustees approve the Wistar board members. The 18-page complaint portrays Koprowski as a scientist who brought prestige and success to Wistar over the years, only to be dumped unceremoniously after what Koprowski claims was "a discriminatory course of conduct designed to force [his] removal from the directorship because of his age . . . ." Koprowski further alleges that Wistar officials have carried out a campaign of "harassment and retaliation" against him since September when he filed complaints with state and federal agencies to protest his removal. The suit claims that in response to Koprowski's complaints, Wistar officials have engineered his removal as primary investigator for a cancer research grant, removed him as director of Wistar's Cancer Center, which he headed for 20 years, and deprived him of staff and responsibilities. Koprowski, a microbiologist who directed the institute from 1957 until last April, is demanding that Wistar reinstate him as director and end the alleged unfair treatment. Thomas Sprague, Koprowski's attorney, declined to comment on the details of the case yesterday. None of the three defendants -- Wistar, Wistar President Robert Fox and current Wistar Director Giovanni Rovera -- could be reached for comment yesterday. The institute is being represented by a lawyer in an outside Philadelphia law firm, Pepper, Hamilton and Scheetz. The lawyer could not be reached for comment yesterday. But Sprague said the defendants have about one week to file a response. Koprowski claims in the suit that he first learned Wistar intended to replace him in November, 1990, when Fox, who is a University Trustee, told Koprowski that a search committee would be appointed to locate a successor. When Koprowski protested and demanded an explanation, the suit contends, Fox told him the decision had nothing to do with Koprowski's job performance, which a peer board had rated highly in a report issued the year before. One month after Koprowski's conversation with Fox, Ira Brind, Wistar's treasurer and a member of the institute's board of managers, told Koprowski that age had been "a factor" in the decision to appoint the search committee, the suit said. That same month, a Wistar executive committee called on the board of managers to begin a selection process for a new director that would likely last "two to three years" and involve "an intensive review" of Wistar. But Koprowski argues in the suit that Fox, "not being satisfied with the prospect of a lengthy process . . . , initiated a campaign to convince" the board of managers that Koprowski "ought to be immediately replaced" because of his age. Last April 5, the board appointed Rovera as the new director, leaving Koprowski with the "titular role" of "president."
(02/28/92 10:00am)
Resolution passes 14 to 3 City Council members passed a resolution yesterday calling for a Council investigation to determine whether the University has violated a 1977 city ordinance in computing the number of Mayor's Scholarships it awards to Philadelphia high school students. The resolution calls for a series of hearings to decide whether the ambiguous ordinance calls for a total of 125 scholarships in any given year, as the University claims, or 125 new awards each year for a total of 500 in any given year, as many of the University's critics maintain. The resolution, sponsored by Councilman Angel Ortiz and signed by 14 of the 17 Council members, also stipulates that Council will determine what steps it should take "to secure the University's compliance" if the inquiry finds that the University has failed to meet its scholarship obligations. Only Council members Thacher Longstreth, Joan Specter and Joan Krajewski did not sign the resolution, Ortiz said. With the decision, City Council becomes the latest public entity to join the debate over the scholarships since the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia filed suit against the University on behalf of several plaintiffs last fall. But Council members said while the investigation was spurred by a local law center's class-action suit against the University over the number of scholarships, any conclusions City Council reaches will have no effect on the suit's status. Several members who voted for the resolution, including Ortiz, said yesterday that they think an investigation will affirm their belief that the University is not living up to its obligations. Other supporters of the resolution said they are still undecided and just hope an inquiry will uncover the facts. Councilwoman Happy Fernandez said she was "not going to jump to some conclusion" in the case and stressed that she considers the University to be "a very important and positive influence" in the city. She added that she hoped the hearings lead to a compromise between PILCOP and the University, and ultimately draw more attention to the "broad issue" of how the city gives students opportunities to develop "a skilled and competent workforce." Councilman Herbert DeBeary did not hesitate to blast the University's stance, saying that he sees "no ambiguity" in the language of the ordinance. "I strongly believe the University of Pennsylvania should honor the 125 new scholarships annually, which means that at any given time, there should be 500 [scholarship recipients] at Penn," he said. Councilman David Cohen concurred, adding that he felt the University had forgotten Philadelphia students during its quest in recent years to become a more prominent and prestigious national university. Cohen also criticized the city by suggesting that City Solicitor Judith Harris' finding last week that the University was in compliance with the ordinance was "somehow influenced" by the University's "close relationship" with the city. He suggested that the University's participation in a loan to the city last year and its prepayment of taxes to a strapped city treasury in October 1990 contributed to Harris' ruling and the city's subsequent decision not to join PILCOP's suit. "My experience is whenever a private corporation renders services to the city, there is almost always an element of payback at some future time," he said. David Cohen, Mayor Edward Rendell's chief of staff, could not be reached for comment yesterday, but he has vigorously denied Councilman Cohen's assertion in the past. Councilman Longstreth also could not be reached for comment yesterday, but his Chief of Staff Jon Weinstein said the councilman considers the planned investigation "ridiculous." "He agrees totally with Penn's position, the position of the city solicitor, and the position of the mayor," Weinstein said. "This is something we feel strongly about." After Harris agreed with the University's interpretation of the ordinance last week, Chief of Staff Cohen stated that the city would not be joining PILCOP's suit against the University. And last month, a group of 20 state representatives sent President Sheldon Hackney a letter in which they threatened not to help the University retain state funding this year due to its alleged failure to provide the proper number of scholarships.
(02/27/92 10:00am)
An arbitration panel yesterday ruled against a Wharton student who claimed in a lawsuit that the University denied him a fair hearing after an investigation found he had cheated on an exam. The three-attorney panel, which deliberated the case for less than five minutes after the day-long hearing came to a close, voted unanimously against Wharton junior Mark Wallace, panel chairperson Anthony DeLuca said last night. Wallace said he did not know if he would appeal the ruling to the U.S. District Court, adding he would consult with his attorney. He has 30 days to file an appeal. Wallace claimed that the wrong University judicial board heard the case and that he could not prepare for his hearing because the University did not make certain documents available to him. Wallace sought over $50,000 in punitive and compensatory damages, including "out-of-pocket" losses such as rent and loss of financial aid for a total of $10,870. He also claimed his judicial record has hampered his abilities to gain admission to law school. Associate General Counsel Neil Hamburg, who argued the case for the University, stressed throughout the hearing that the case was important as a test of the University's internal judicial system. "I'm delighted by the decision," he said last night. "It is a vindication of the University's right to discipline cheaters through its own processes." But Weldon Williams, the student's attorney in the case, said the ruling was a blow to student rights. "Students at the University better get serious about finding out what their rights are and what the procedures are," he said last night after hearing of the decision. "You're not going to get a fair hearing. Students have to know that the University is taking their rights away." Associate Legal Studies Professor Kenneth Shropshire, who served as Wallace's advisor during the hearing, ridiculed the University's judicial procedure as a "kangaroo court" which failed to uphold appropriate judicial standards. Williams argued during the hearing that the University had violated the University Policies and Procedures, dated September 1989, by trying the case in the University Hearing Board rather than the student-dominated Honor Court. But Hamburg pointed to an amendment in the September 5, 1989 issue of Almanac which abolished the Honor Court and directed cases previously heard by the Honor Court to the Hearing Board, thus superceding the policies manual. Williams conceded that the amendment existed, but maintained that it was not legally effective. He claimed that the September date of the policies manual implied that its guidelines were valid throughout the month, ending October 1. Based on this interpretation, he concluded that the amendment was in conflict with the policies manual and that the Honor Court was the proper venue. Hamburg dismissed Williams' argument as "hypertechnical" and irrelevant, noting that past court cases have maintained the University's system provides a fair hearing. Williams also said Wallace did not receive enough time to prepare for his hearing because University officials did not make a witness list and other documents available to him beforehand, as the University Policies and Procedures stipulates. Former Judicial Inquiry Officer Constance Goodman testified that it was the student's responsibility to pick up the documents from her office. But she said she did more than required when she had her secretary call to remind Wallace to pick them up several days beforehand. "I never had a student not pick up the list of witnesses and evidence," Goodman said. She added that she was "100 percent certain" the Board would have postponed the hearing if Wallace had requested extra time to prepare. Although Wallace's complaint dealt only with the fairness of the hearing, much of the testimony actually focused on whether he had cheated. Wallace and College senior Donald Hatter were found guilty of cheating on a Statistics 101 exam in 1989 after a classmate reported seeing them share information during the test. Wallace ultimately received a one-semester suspension while Hatter received a two-year probation. Both received notations on their transcripts which were to be removed after the end of the students' junior year. Statistics Professor Edward Lusk, who referred the cheating allegations to the JIO, used a chalkboard at yesterday's hearing to illustrate numerous identical errors in the two students' exams which he said demonstrated cheating had occurred. Wallace denied the cheating, claiming the similarities in their answers were only a result of studying together for the exam and using each others notes, which was permitted. But Lusk noted that when coupled with an eyewitness report, many of the errors -- including unusual phrasing which he had never seen before and weird use of mathematical notation -- convinced him that a "transfer of information" had occurred. "[One similarity] is unlikely, twice rare and three -- no way," Lusk said. After Lusk reviewed the exams, he brought them to Statistics Department chairperson David Hildebrand, who independently evaluated the similarities and also concluded cheating had occurred. Lusk also compared the blue-books of Wallace and Hatter to a random sample of ten other exams and determined that no one else had similar responses. There were approximately 100 students in the class, Lusk said. But Williams questioned the sample, since the exams were not necessarily chosen from students who had studied together, making it less likely the professor would find similarities to vindicate Wallace and Hatter. Goodman, who was questioned at the hearing for several hours, said she was pleased with the decision. "It was a clean case," Goodman said. "The student received due process. All phases of the investigation and hearing were handled fairly."
(02/25/92 10:00am)
Requested that Goode wait The City of Philadelphia was preparing early last month to join a local law center's class-action lawsuit against the University, when incoming Mayor Edward Rendell requested that then-Mayor Wilson Goode hold off on the move. In a letter dated January 6, Goode assured Rendell that he would let the new mayor decide whether to add the city as a plaintiff in the suit, which claims the University provides needy Philadelphia high school students with only one-quarter of the Mayor's Scholarships that a city ordinance requires. "If I had not received your request I would have filed the Motion [to intervene]," Goode wrote to Rendell. "Accordingly, I do urge you to file the [motion] once your City Solicitor has had a chance to review this matter." Last week, Judith Harris, Rendell's acting city solicitor, agreed with the University's stance on the controversial scholarship program, concluding that the lawsuit challenging the University is unfounded. And David Cohen, Rendell's chief of staff, wrote in a cover letter attached to Harris' opinion that, based on the solicitor's finding, the city would not join the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia in its suit against the University. Neither Harris nor Cohen could be reached for comment yesterday. Thomas Wamser, a former deputy city solicitor who drafted Goode's motion to intervene, suggested yesterday that the Goode and Rendell administrations reached opposite decisions on whether to join the suit because the "roles were different" for Wamser and Rendell's Harris. He said he simply decided at Goode's request that the city could intervene in the suit and defend its position reasonably well. Harris, by contrast, did not receive "directions from above" and based her opinion solely on whether the city should intervene for legal reasons, Wamser said. Although the city's intervention clearly would have bolstered PILCOP's case, Goode said yesterday that he had not taken sides in the case and wanted the city to intervene only "to get to the facts in the case." "My interest is to find out precisely what the truth is," Goode said. "I'm not reaching any conclusions as to what the facts are, but I think it's very, very important that the city be a participant in the overall process -- not to take sides but to let the facts come out." Goode added that his decision was not politically motivated, saying, "No one pressured me at all and no one called me at all." But Wamser said that Goode did take PILCOP's side and told him last fall he would like the city to join the suit "if at all possible." "The mayor's concern was that local high school students get everything they are entitled to under the law," Wamser said. "Having the city in the suit as plaintiff would help PILCOP because then the court would have both sides of the agreement there and we would be on PILCOP's side." The city's participation also probably would have damaged the University's argument that the plaintiffs' suit lacks standing because there was never any intent to give third parties the right to enforce the agreement between the city and the University. "As none of the plaintiffs to this action are parties to the contract between the City and the University, the interests of the City are not adequately protected by the current parties," Goode's unfiled motion reads. But Wamser said he had "some reservations" about recommending that the city join the suit because previous city administrations and Handsel Minyard, a former solicitor under Goode, had determined in the past that the University was in compliance with the ordinance. Minyard did not return a phone call placed at his home last night. The suit alleges that a 1977 city ordinance requires the University to provide 125 new four-year scholarships each year, for a total of 500 at any one time. The University maintains that the ordinance calls for a total of 125 scholarships at any one time.
(02/19/92 10:00am)
and ROXANNE PATEL MANCHESTER, N.H. -- The crowd cheered. They toasted to the continuing campaign and to immediate victory. They swarmed to the two television sets airing election results, and they roared when Paul Tsongas appeared in the newscast. This was a crowd geared for victory in New Hampshire yesterday, and it was not disappointed. Former Massachusetts Sen. Tsongas beat his opponents in a not-so-surprising outcome yesterday, garnering 34 percent of New Hampshire's votes. Tsongas' nearest competitor was former frontrunner Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton with 26 percent of the state's votes. And hundreds of Tsongas' supporters, outnumbered by the enamored media, filled the Razberrys Club here last night to celebrate overcoming one obstacle on the long road to the White House. "This means our next president is either going to be George Bush or Paul Tsongas," Tsongas' National Campaign Manager Dennis Kannin said. "And it's not going to be George Bush," he added to uproarious cheers from the crowd. Overall, the event seemed more like a media circus than a tense waiting room, perhaps because many political experts had already predicted Tsongas' sure victory days in advance. Reams of reporters and photographers squeezed into the crowded club, equipped with tape recorders and notepads, flashes and batteries and at least 15 television crews. As the evening progressed, the crowd grew thicker, with the supporting mob nearest the stage shouting and cheering, and the press near the rear watching and recording. By 10 p.m. when Tsongas was scheduled to speak, it was impossible to move. "New Hampshire, you did it again," Tsongas told his voters. "You gave them Hell." He told the crowd that it is time to "tell the economic truth," repeating his opposition to a middle-class tax cut. "Washington wake up!" he added. Before and during his speech, the crowd chanted various slogans, including a dig at President Bush, "Read my lips. Paul is number one." Paul LeBlanc, a self-employed Manchester resident, said during the celebration that after a lifetime of voting in elections, Tsongas is the first candidate he has ever really supported. "This is the first time in my life I really got behind a candidate," he said. "I just got ticked off." LeBlanc added that he voted for Bush in 1988 but said he had made a "huge mistake." When Kannin took the stage at 9:30 p.m., he mentioned that since 1952, every president has won the New Hampshire primary the year he was elected. The Associated Press contributed to this story.
(02/19/92 10:00am)
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- While downtown's Elm Street hummed yesterday with election day activity, the sounds of 10,000 Maniacs came floating in over the usual din of late afternoon traffic. Hidden from sight at first, the source of the tunes soon rolled around the corner and drove into view as curious onlookers watched in amusement. It was Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's "Heartland Express" Winnebago van, and it was blaring rock-n-roll as it cruised around the city in an effort to drum up last minute support for Harkin. Harkin, who was tied with Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey for third place in the polls last week, was trying to avoid his eventual fourth-place finish in the election primary. The van's chief destinations included all of the polling centers around Manchester, where an army of campaign supporters followed voters after wooing them from street corners all weekend. As the van rolled along, volunteer coordinator Bill Batson shouted through a megaphone, rattling off one Harkin slogan after another. "Come ride the Heartland Express," he said. "Next stop, the White House. Help hard-workin' Tom Harkin give George Herbert Hoover Bush a pink slip." Inside the van, a handful of confident Harkin volunteers, including several high-school and college students, discussed their candidate as they made sandwiches for dozens of Harkin volunteers manning the polling stations. Denise Larochelle, a sophomore at Notre Dame College in Manchester who came along for the ride, had no trouble explaining her support for Harkin as she glopped her mayonnaise on a piece of bread. "I like him mainly because of his views on education and his support for early childhood programs and women's issues," she said. "And his record shows he does things rather than just talk." Harkin supports increased funding for the Head Start program to improve early childhood instruction, and he is a firm supporter of abortion rights, like the other Democratic candidates. His plan for higher education, which would create a sort of non-military version of the Reserve Officers Training Corps, would enable students to pay back government student loans by teaching for a couple of years or providing a similar service to the community. The other students riding in the van -- as well as many students working for the other candidates in New Hampshire this week -- could not articulate the reasons for their support. Keri Boehne, a high school senior from Boston, Massachusetts, said she "did a little research" on Harkin over the summer which convinced her that the senator "really works for the people." But when asked to elaborate on what she meant, she could only muster the same fallback that dozens of students here have used to explain their own support: "He seems like a real presidential candidate who can beat [President] Bush." At separate rallies held on Monday for Kerrey, former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, several students listed "electability" as the number one reason for their support. Yet most of these students did not say what they hope their candidate would do after the election if he were, in fact, able to beat his Republican opponent. During a quick stop at a polling center, Larochelle said many of her friends at school picked a candidate "just because they're anti-Bush, not because they like what a candidate stands for." "People too often decide who they like by looking at the polls," she continued. "But just picking the front-runner is not good enough." Kate Kilroy, a freshman at Boston University, said she supports Harkin because he "seems like a guy who's really got the vision." What that vision might be, however, she could not say. But she said she feels Harkin is not "full of shit" like the other Democrats in the race and is the biggest advocate for blue collar workers among them. And, like the others, Kilroy added that Harkin was the only candidate capable of defeating Bush in the fall.
(02/19/92 10:00am)
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Until recently, President Bush campaign volunteer Bill Turner firmly believed that yesterday's Republican primary election would be a cakewalk for the President. But as the somber, almost funereal mood at Bush campaign headquarters suggested yesterday, Patrick Buchanan's meteoric rise in the polls was about to change all that. "It's a bit of a shock for us," Turner admitted yesterday afternoon, adding that a year ago Bush seemed unbeatable in the wake of the success of the Persian Gulf War. But Turner, like many political pundits and even most Buchanan backers, quickly insisted that the conservative columnist's performance here would have no bearing on Bush's quest for reelection. "There is no question in my mind that President Bush will easily gain renomination and beat whoever the Democratic candidate is in the fall," he said. "The Buchanan vote here is just a protest vote. The people here are just disappointed with the economy right now." Ken Schmidt, a Buchanan supporter who spent yesterday afternoon wildly waving a Buchanan placard on Elm Street, agreed that most of the Buchanan voters were simply unhappy because of the recession and would pull for Bush in November. Many other Buchanan supporters readily admitted that they do not expect their candidate to wrestle the Republican nomination from Bush in the end. But they added that, in this case, winning is not everything. If the Buchanan challenge manages to force Bush a little to the right politically, they said, then Buchanan's goal would have been largely achieved. Charles Cipollini stood on the corner of Elm and Bridge streets yesterday afternoon, shaking a Buchanan banner up and down as passing motorists honked their approval. "I thought it was a protest vote in the beginning," Cipollini said. "But this is just to put our country first." He accused Bush of failing to tackle domestic problems and reneging on his promise not to raise taxes. "I supported Bush in '88," he said. "It was the biggest mistake of my life. We're heading for a depression here and he is running around the world acting like he is the president of the world."
(02/18/92 10:00am)
DURHAM, N.H. -- Like many residents of New Hampshire these days, Jennifer Kirchmyer has grown accustomed to hearing the Democratic presidential hopefuls inundate listeners with their campaign rhetoric. Kirchmyer, a freshman at the University of New Hampshire, said yesterday she has attended speeches by almost every Democratic candidate vying for victory in today's primary election. Like many of this state's voters, she feels she has not witnessed anything from any of the five remaining candidates to convince her which way to vote. So after Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey delivered a non-descript stump speech during a quick stop on this rustic campus yesterday afternoon, Kirchmyer was as undecided as ever. "I'm leaning more towards . . . I don't know," she said afterwards with a laugh of frustration. Introduced to the crowd of about 300 students and area residents with the Jesus Jones song, "Right Here Right Now" pulsing from the sound system, Kerrey trotted on stage a little after noon to deliver a wide-ranging speech that was short on details. Kerrey, who is battling Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin for a distant 3rd place in the polls, focused in general terms on such issues as national health insurance, the environment and abortion rights. But except for the fact that he was speaking to a group of college students on a college campus, Kerrey gave no inidication of having any interest in the problems facing higher education. While rattling off a long list of broad plans he said he would support as president, Kerrey's only mention of higher education was to assure the audience that he would fight to give everyone a chance to attend college -- without saying how he would do this. He devoted much of his speech to criticizing President Bush on several counts, including his failure to develop a plan for national health insurance and his support of restricting abortion. Kerrey also stressed the need to recycle and increase energy efficiency, warning that "our desire for material goods can blind us of the need to care of the earth." Matthew Baldi, a senior at New Hampshire, said he was "sort of leaning toward Kerrey," but could not say exactly why. He quickly added that he was actually "pretty undecided." Like several students interviewed before and after the speech, Baldi said he turned out for the event both "for the excitement" and to find out more about Kerrey. "Part of it is the excitement of it all," he acknowledged. "But a lot of it is the issues. I think most students here realize there is a lot at stake in this election." Chan Cousins and Dale Pariseau, both New Hampshire seniors, said they were impressed with Kerrey's concern with the environment and added that they felt he was the only Democratic candidate capable of beating Bush in November. Kerrey landed a double-blow on Bush for the troubles of the middle class and the President's stance in favor of restricting abortion rights. "George Bush is a guy who is trying to get into our bedrooms before he even lets us own a home," he said. Kerrey also lashed out at Vice President Dan Quayle, modifying the joke that Bush was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple. "Quayle was born on third base and thought he hit a field goal," he said.
(02/18/92 10:00am)
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- New Hampshire primaries seem odd to many Americans, even those who have spent their lives watching them happen every four years. But for Gavin Hart, a college student from Edinburgh, Scotland who has campaigned here for Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton since Saturday, experiencing the election year phenomenon has been "positively bizarre." "I still find it weird," he said last night at a Clinton rally. "Such a little state way up north, but it's so important to the process." Hart, a junior studying politics at Georgetown University, was joined this weekend by six busloads of college students from Washington, D.C. area universities. The Clinton rally, held in a local school's gymnasium, attracted throngs of supporters who wildly cheered the Arkansas governor throughout his fiery speech. Before last night, Hart had only heard Clinton speak on two previous occasions, but he said he supports the candidate because "he looks the most presidential" of the hopefuls and can "galvanize an audience." "He does sound sincere and I think people believe in him," Hart added. "I think he has the potential to beat Bush." But some college students who had made the trek to New Hampshire from Arkansas said their support for Clinton's presidential nomination dates back several years. Mike Malone, a Hendrix College senior, said he has supported Clinton throughout his tenure as governor. The student from Conway, Arkansas said in a slow southern drawl that he believes the governor's chances have not been diminished by recent high-profile allegations of marital infidelity and avoiding the draft. Brandy Baxter, a senior at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, agreed with Malone, noting that Clinton has narrowed the gap in recent polls that separate himself former Massachussetts Sen. Paul Tsongas. Hart said that he believes that Tsongas, who he called "just another Dukakis," would not pose a serious threat to Clinton. He added that a recent second-wind would lead to a close second place finish that would not derail the campaign. Hart also said that Clinton is protected by "a southern fire wall" which he believes will prevent northern liberal Tsongas from encroaching on Clinton's home turf.
(02/18/92 10:00am)
CONCORD, N.H. -- Paul Tsongas, the former Massachusets senator whose name most people learned to pronounce only recently, delivered an early victory speech here yesterday afternoon at a festive and raucus campaign rally. Tsongas, who holds a strong lead over Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas in most polls, warmly thanked the boisterous crowd of banner-waving supporters for helping his campaign surge to the lead in New Hampshire in recent weeks. He joked several times about his much-reported lack of charisma and appeared a little uncomfortable under the spotlight, but he clearly enjoyed being on the verge of winning tomorrow's Decoratic primary. "Feel it. Enjoy it. Savor it," he shouted to the crowd. "And let's go get 'em tomorrow." But Tsongas did not waste more than a minute to address the notion held by many people that he is a "regional candidate" who will not fare well once he is out of the Northeast. The candidate's campaign team made a rather obvious attempt to kill the theory by having Bob Krueger, the Texas railroad commissioner, introduce Tsongas as a candidate with a plan for the entire nation -- not just New England. Tsongas pointed to his second-place finish in the Iowa caucus as a success. Although none of the candidates contested Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, Tsongas received more votes than Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, whose state lies next door to Iowa. He also cited polls that showed him in second-place both in Maryland and Colorado, even though he has not campaigned heavily in either state. "I am a regional candidate," he said with a smirk. "North, South, East and West." The crowd, which waited in the stifling heat of the Ramada Inn Ballroom until Tsongas finally arrived 45 minutes later than scheduled, consisted mainly of older adults. Interspersed among them, however, were several college students who had traveled to Concord to show their support for Tsongas and liked what they saw. Paul Winter, a senior at Northeastern University and the chairperson of the College Democrats there, criticized those that harp on Tsongas for his style. "A lot of people cut on him for not being a polished speaker," he said. "He's just more human." Ashley Burkart, a sophomore at Tufts University who is in town with her American Elections classmates, nearly gushed praise for Tsongas after his speech. "He's so much more charismatic in person," she said. "He's down to earth, so honest. I think that's what we need right now." Jeff Eherenkranz, another Tufts sophomore traveling with the class, added that Tsongas convinced him that the former senator's appeal does in fact stretch beyond the Northeast. "He's more than just regional," he said. "I think right now he's definitely the best candidate." During the speech, Tsongas proclaimed the beginning of "a new Democratic Party," and he said he planned to be its leader. He said the party would continue to advocate social issues, environment and abortion rights, while at the same time take a more pro-business approach towards improving the economy and helping the middle class. And the political marriage of old and new is exactly what Winter finds appealing about Tsongas' ideas. "He is more pro-business, but he doesn't forget the liberal causes like the environemnt and the right to choose," he said. "It's a breath of fresh air." He said he is confident that as the campaign wears on, Tsongas will be able to endear himself to voters, "if the people just listen to the message." One person who disagreed with that prediction is Tufts sophomore Stephen Arbuthnot, who believes New York Governor Mario Cuomo will wind up with the nomination after voters pick him as a write-in candidate. Currently, polls show that about 3 percent of New Hampshire Democrats support Cuomo as a write-in. Arbuthnot said all five Democratic candiadtes in the field are "second rate." He said Cuomo is the "big gun" and should not be blamed for staying out of the race until to now to deal with budget problems in New York.
(02/17/92 10:00am)
Earlier this month, College sophomore Scott Sher got a firsthand look at the recession's toll on New Hampshire's economy. Campaigning door-to-door in the town of Derry for Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, Sher said wherever he went, "people are either unemployed, their spouses are unemployed, or their houses are foreclosed." It is fittingly symbolic of the hard times, he said, that the Harkin field office where he slept his first night in Derry was a former video rental store that had been driven out of business by the recession. "The people are disgusted," he said. "They're looking for a change." Sher said he hopes that desire for change will translate into votes for Harkin in tomorrow's Democratic presidential primary election, propelling Harkin to the Democratic nomination this summer and, ideally, to a win over President Bush in November. Sher said he knows this will not be easy, especially now that polls show Harkin is only vying for third place with Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey in an election which every Democratic nominee since the 1950s has won. But like other University students working for the campaigns of Harkin, Kerrey or Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, Sher is doing what he can to put his candidate on the road to the White House. In recent months, several students have taken active roles in promoting the candidate of their choice, both by pounding the pavement in New Hampshire and by helping to organize on campus. The Clinton, Kerrey and Harkin campaigns all have organized committees at the University, each headed by two students. College Democrats has been working with them to help coordinate their work so that they will all support the eventual nominee. This past weekend, between 30 and 40 students trekked to New Hampshire to work for the various campaigns, according to Michael Berman, president of College Democrats. He said nearly 70 students went the weekend before. Berman said there are no campaign groups on campus for former California Gov. Jerry Brown or former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas, who is currently considered to be the frontrunner after catching Clinton in the polls last week. Conservative columnist Patrick Buchanan, who has attacked Bush on several points, including his decision to agree to higher taxes, is the only Republican candidate challenging the President for the Republican nomination. College senior Phil Crosby, who heads the Clinton group on campus along with College senior Martin Lind, said Thursday that about a dozen students would be heading to New Hampshire for the weekend to "lock down" Clinton supporters and convince the many undecided voters to support Clinton. He acknowledged that his team has its work cut out for it now that journalists have scrutinized Clinton over questions of marital infidelity and draft evasion, which Crosby accuses the media of "completely distorting." Wharton Freshman George Callas, another Clinton supporter, said he is satisfied that Clinton was not "a draft dodger" after hearing the candidate defend himself on ABC's Nightline last week. Callas said that because the press reports about the allegation have made him "really angry," he plans to go to New Hampshire over the weekend to try to convince voters not to abandon Clinton. He said he supports Clinton's proposal to replace the student loan system, which currently costs the government billions of dollars every year in defaults, with a new system that would make loans available to anyone who wants to attend college. Under the Clinton plan, a student would repay such a loan either through community service for a certain period of time, or by allowing the government to deduct a small portion of his or her salary over a period of years -- measures that would prevent a student from defaulting. College senior Frank Green, who is running Kerrey's campus group with College freshman Jill Family, said that despite limited support for Kerrey among University students so far, the candidate's ties to Philadelphia could help him later in the campaign and might result in a campus appearance by Kerrey. Kerrey underwent rehabilitation at the Philadelphia Naval Hospital after losing part of his leg during a tour of duty in Vietnam that earned him the highest possible commendation, the Medal of Honor. Green added that the recent focus on reports that Clinton avoided the draft in 1969 should help Kerrey, who has used his war record, along with a call for national health care, as a basis for his campaign. College senior Harry Sandick, who is working for the campus Harkin group headed by College sophomore Samantha Halem and College senior Fred Nemeth, said he supports Harkin's candidacy because of the senator's programs that emphasize "grass-roots liberalism" and rebuilding the national infrastructure. But he said he has "no deep-seated problem" with any of the candidates, adding he will campaign during the fall for the Democratic nominee, whoever that may ultimately be. "Eight months ago, it didn't seem like anyone could beat Bush," he said. "Now, there's definitely a chance to beat Bush. Although the odds are very long, the right candidate with the right message can beat him."
(02/06/92 10:00am)
Gov. Robert Casey's proposed elimination of all state funding for the University would devastate the Veterinary School if approved by the state legislature and could ultimately force its closing, University adminstrators said yesterday. They said the governor's proposal casts new doubts on the Vet School's chances for long-term survival because the school depends on state money for 40 percent of its annual budget and cannot further streamline its operations. "You can't yank 40 percent of your entire operating budget and be expected to absorb it," Vet School Dean Edwin Andrews said yesterday. "It just doesn't work. We are at rock-bottom in terms of cutting personnel. There is no fat to trim off." Under the proposal announced yesterday, the Vet School -- the only one in Pennsylvania -- would be cut out of the government loop permanently along with three programs related to the Vet School, which together are receiving more than $15 million from the state this year. The University asked for almost $17 million for Vet programs, known collectively as the combined Vet appropriation, in its funding request filed last fall. Andrews said yesterday the University will have to consider closing the school within several years as one of several "worst-case scenario options" unless new revenue sources are found to offset the proposed cuts. But Andrews said he would work with other University administrators to develop alternative funding plans to avoid such an extreme move. He also stressed that the University would seek the support of the Vet School's "friends and constituencies" to help lobby lawmakers in Harrisburg to reverse what he called Casey's "egregious error." Stephen Golding, the executive director of planning and budget, said the need for the Vet School's continued existence will be "a significant part of the message" the University will take to the legislature in its lobbying campaign. "I would hope and think that when it comes time to make the decision, the Commonwealth will understand it is in its best interests to have [the Vet School]," Golding said. But Education Secretary Donald Carroll downplayed the Vet School's impact on Pennsylvania during a press conference yesterday, suggesting that the state could get veterinarians from "Cornell and other places" if the Vet School were to close. Andrews sharply criticized Carroll's portrayal of the Vet School for failing to appreciate that the school's economic impact on the area accounts for more than 2000 area jobs and pumps more than $94 million into the state's economy every year. The Vet School has long justified the state's support of its programs by emphasizing that the school is vital to the general welfare of the state and its many farmers. The school has graduated 1200 veterinarians who live in Pennsylvania and currently provides services, such as veterinary care for rare animal diseases, that administrators say no other facility in the state offers. Last year, legislators said the prospect of the school's closing alarmed them and a few added they considered funding the Vet School a higher priority than providing money for the rest of the University. Microbiology Professor Robert Davies called Casey's proposed cuts "extremely short-sighted and foolish," although he added that the news did not surprise him. Pointing to past battles with the governor over the University's appropriation, which the University ultimately won, Davies said he hoped the state legislature would restore the funding to prior levels in the final budget. But he, too, sounded a note of alarm. "It's bad that we're put in this situation once again," he said. "Unless the Vet School gets this funding, its chance of surviving are remote." Last year, the combined Vet appropriation received more than $15 million from the state after the legislature ignored Casey's proposal to cut Vet School funding by $6.9 million. Before the legislature restored the funding last summer, Andrews and other University officials said the cut would cripple the school's already-stretched abilities to teach and perform research. "The only thing I can say is that if last year cut was going to cripple the school, this would kill us," Andrews said.
(02/03/92 10:00am)
If the University wins its court battle over ownership of the patent rights to the anti-wrinkle Retin-A invention, the University could earn sizable amounts of money in damages and future royalties. The lawyers on both sides have refused to discuss possible dollar figures, most likely to leave themselves greater freedom in negotiating a possible settlement out of court. But despite the lawyer's secretiveness and a variety of other factors that make an exact determination difficult, a court victory would almost surely be a multi-million dollar windfall for the University. The award money would probably go to fund research, but because the money would then free up part of the University's general funds now earmarked for research, the University as a whole would benefit. The University currently generates less than $4 million per year in royalties on patented inventions, trademarks and copyrights, according to Stephen Sammut, the director of the University's Center for Technology Transfer. He said that unlike Stanford, which earns more than $8 million a year on a gene-splicing patent it co-owns with the University of California, the University does not own rights to any products that generate that level of income. Winning patent rights to the anti-wrinkle Retin-A invention could put the University's annual royalty income on that scale. One of the University's demands is that Johnson & Johnson, the parent company of Retin-A's drug maker, hand over to the University the company's profits made over the past few years on sales of Retin-A as a wrinkle cream. J & J has sold approximately $300 million worth of Retin-A since 1989, according to David Saks, a senior investment analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities. Any judgement for the University would depend on how those sales break down in terms of prescriptions written for people seeking to rid their acne and those interested in the drug as a wrinkle remover. Another of the University's requests -- for licensing rights for the patent -- will also probably yield monetary benefits, but several factors make the amount gained somewhat uncertain. First, the Retin-A anti-acne patent has lapsed because over 17 years have passed, meaning that under federal law other companies may reproduce Retin-A and market it as an acne treatment under a different name. The rights to the anti-wrinkle patent, if approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration, would grant the owner exlusive rights to license the drug to a pharmaceutical company such as J & J as an anti-wrinkle treatment. Exclusive FDA approval, however, would not stop doctors from prescribing competitor Retin-A formulas as wrinkle cream -- as they now do for Retin-A itself -- and cutting into the profits of the anti-wrinkle patent owner and manufacturer. Second, much of the hype surrounding Retin-A as a supposed fountain of youth has died down recently, meaning sales may drop slightly in the years ahead, according to several financial analysts. And third, some of the potential effects of retinoic acid -- both good and bad -- may not be known with any certainty for some time.
(02/03/92 10:00am)
It seemed as if the never-ending quest for a fountain of youth had finally found its treasure -- in a tube of Retin-A acne cream. Word spread slowly from medical circles in the mid-1980s that the drug could smooth away those wrinkles that years of sun damage had engrained on millions of faces. Spurred by votes of confidence from doctors across the country, all the major television networks and a host of large-circulation magazines touted Retin-A as a so-called "miracle drug" by late 1988. Every piece of press coverage hailed Albert Kligman -- the famous University dermatologist who invented the acne drug in 1967 -- as a savior for a growing number of people who were reluctant to let their fleeting youth pass without a fight. And in the mad rush that accompanied all the hype, the drug's maker, Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation -- a subsidiary of $9 billion Johnson & Johnson -- experienced skyrocketing sales of Retin-A: from approximately $13 million in 1985 to more than $100 million in 1989. It was a pharmaceutical company's dream come true -- or so it seemed. The drug is still regarded as an effective means to counter wrinkles from sun damage, although many doctors say they only recently have been able to convince the general public that it is, in fact, anything but a fountain of youth. Ortho's Retin-A sales have remained steadily in the range of $100 million a year, according to David Saks, a senior investment analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities in New York. But the question of who owns the rights to the patent covering Retin-A's potentially lucrative anti-wrinkle uses has emerged as the crux of a nasty lawsuit involving J & J and Kligman on one side and the University on the other. Depending on the outcome of the two-year-old case, which may reach the trial stage this semester barring an out-of-court settlement, Ortho -- and therefore J & J -- could find itself rudely awakened from its dream of Retin-A riches. The University, along with its former licensing agent, University Patents, Inc., is suing both J & J and Kligman in U.S. District Court. Both parties claim the University owns licensing rights to the anti-wrinkle patent and therefore should be entitled to past and future royalties on sales of the anti-wrinkle invention. And the lawsuit contends the University has discovered in recent years that Kligman's dealings with the University have been clouded in deception and dishonesty from the first patenting of the drug in the late 1960s. · Since 1967, the University has had a licensing agreement with J & J that covers only sales of Retin-A as an anti-acne treatment. In the suit, the University is demanding all profits J & J has made on the anti-wrinkle invention to date, as well as the rights to license the invention in the future to a third party of its choice. It is not at all clear exactly how much money the University could stand to gain from winning the suit. Lawyers from both sides have refused to discuss such details of the case. But by all accounts, a verdict against J & J could mean millions and millions of dollars for the University now and in the future, something the University clearly could use in these times of growing financial uncertainty. The University claims that Kligman knowingly violated the University's patent policy when he filed a patent for the anti-wrinkle invention in his own name in 1981. The suit also contends that he then broke the conflict-of-interest guidelines when he sold J & J the exclusive rights to the patent in 1984 and that he consistently misled the University about the commercial prospects for the invention. Pointing to a large follow-up study for the invention conducted in the aging skin clinic at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University lawyers claim Kligman at least partially developed the invention on University time and at University expense. According to the patent policy, " . . . [A]ny invention or discovery which may result from work carried out on University time or at University expense by special grants or otherwise is the property of the University." Moreover, the University argues that J & J knew Kligman was breaking the rules but helped him nevertheless to develop the invention and continue his active deception of University officials. Attorneys for J & J and Kligman, who is now an emeritus professor in the Dermatology Department, firmly deny the University's allegations. They note that Kligman never signed a patent policy -- Kligman said in a deposition that he never recalled even receiving a copy of such a policy -- and argue that adherence to the policy was never a condition of his employment. Beyond that, they say the University's patent policy does not apply in the case of the anti-wrinkle invention because most of the research and development performed prior to the patent was not done on University time and did not involve University funding. · For the past two years, lawyers from both sides have been busy filing various motions, claims and responses in the hope that blind justice will have no trouble seeing their side of the story come decision time. Over the past two years, the lawsuit's file, which is stored at the federal courthouse in Center City, has ballooned to thousands of pages of documents and comes in three thick folders, each about the size of a cinder block. Many of the documents deal with whether Kligman violated the patent policy, failed to adhere to the conflict-of-interest guidelines and whether or not those two policies applied to Kligman during the time in question. But the documents address another key issue: if Kligman did break any rules, did he do so intentionally? Or is he an innocent pawn who thought he was doing the right thing only to find himself trapped in this high-stakes wrangling? Perusing those documents, either of those answers soon becomes readily apparent -- depending on which side's documents one reads. A look at the defense shows Kligman to be a generous man who brought international fame and recognition to the Dermatology Department. The documents point out that he voluntarily channeled his personal Retin-A royalties to the University for many years to supplement his fund-raising work for the department. His attorneys argue that when he filed his patent on the use of Retin-A as a wrinkle cream on his own and then negotiated directly with J & J on the licensing agreement, he was merely following the practice of the time. The defendants' unsuccessful February, 1990 motion to dismiss the suit says that "like many of his colleagues during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Kligman received only a nominal salary and was expected to earn a living through outside activities." The motion says Kligman did just that by consulting for drug and cosmetic companies, conducting much of his research through Ivy Laboratories and the Simon Greenberg Foundation, two independent organizations which Kligman "founded and funded." So, when he discovered Retin-A's effectiveness at smoothing wrinkles during independent research at the Riverview Home for the Aged in 1971, the court papers say, Kligman felt it was acceptable to begin developing the invention with J & J, without notifying the University. Further, the defense rejects the University's claim that Kligman and J & J attempted to conceal the anti-wrinkle invention. They cite the considerable exposure the invention received in the press beginning in the early 1980s, the public nature of the patent application and the University's own knowledge that the anti-wrinkle invention existed. "A less well-concealed invention can scarcely be imagined," the motion concludes. The University's court papers praise Kligman's brilliance in dermatological research and scholarship. Yet they raise doubts about his highly-praised generosity with royalties as well as his honesty in disclosing inventions to the University. They allege, for example, that Kligman and J & J broke a 1967 agreement with the University that allowed the company to market Retin-A as an acne treatment as long as the University received all royalties. Although Kligman agreed he would not receive money personally from sales, the University learned he was in fact receiving royalties when a misdirected $6000 check from J & J to Kligman was delivered to the office of a University administrator in 1976, the documents argue. Kligman denied the money was a royalty, but Anthony Merritt, currently the director of the Office of Research Administration at the University, said in an affidavit last February he had learned Kligman had received over $190,000 for Retin-A in so-called "consulting payments" from J & J. "Dr. Kligman's selflessness -- with which he persuaded the University to give up its right to control the royalties to which it was entitled -- was somewhat overstated," the University's court papers say. To be fair, University lawyers admit Kligman informed them in several cases that he had discovered Retin-A's use as an effective wrinkle cream. But they emphasize that he never suggested the discovery would be a patentable invention, leaving the University to believe it would receive benefits in the form of higher royalties covered by the 1967 agreement. Moreover, the University argues that by the time Kligman formally disclosed the discovery to University administrators in late 1985, Kligman had already entered into the secret 1984 agreement with J & J and was close to receiving assurances from the patent examiner that his patent for the discovery would be approved by the government in 1986. The University also points to a letter Kligman wrote in 1971 to James Bodine, then J & J's marketing director, which shows "that Dr. Kligman from the start appreciated the commercial potential of the new invention" and therefore should have informed the University. The letter reads in part: "Jim, something noteworthy and sensational is coming about . . . I have plans for a crash attack on the rejuvenation of the fading broads of the world. I am damned serious. We are sitting on a golden egg!"
(01/29/92 10:00am)
City Council testimony from 1977 indicates that the controversial Mayor's Scholarships agreement calls for 125 awards, not the 500 that a local law center is demanding, court documents filed by the University this month show. The University quoted the testimony in a brief filed in common pleas court, detailing its request that the class action suit against the University over the scholarship agreement be thrown out of court. The brief quotes Harold Manley, then the University's treasurer, as testifying before City Council that the University's total commitment for the 1978 scholarships would be "slightly in excess of a half million dollars." That figure is roughly equal to the University's 1977-78 tuition multiplied by 125, and about $1.5 million less than the cost of tuition times 500, which the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia's reading of the ordinance suggests the figure should have been. The brief argues that PILCOP's lawsuit, filed in October, should be dismissed in light of Manley's testimony, as well as because it ignores the historical context of the scholarship agreement and does not make financial sense. Michael Churchill, PILCOP's chief counsel, did not return phone calls placed at his office yesterday. PILCOP's suit alleges that the University does not provide enough needy Philadelphia high school students with Mayor's Scholarships, which were established by a series of agreements with the city in exchange for nearly 47 acres of land. The suit demands that the University adhere to the 1977 ordinance, which consolidated two earlier agreements and calls on the University "to establish and forever maintain at least 125 four-year full tuition scholarships or their equivalent . . . to be awarded annually." At issue is whether the 1977 ordinance requires the University to provide a total of 125 scholarships in any one year, as the University maintains, or 125 new scholarships each year for a total of 500 in any one year, as PILCOP claims. Prior to 1977, two separate ordinances required the University to offer a total of 125 scholarships. The University's brief admits that the wording of the agreement itself is vague, but points to the ordinance's preamble, which requires the University only to provide "a total of 125 full tuition scholarships." The brief adds that PILCOP's argument that the ordinance requires the University to quadruple the number of Mayor's Scholarships it provides each year does not match the history of the agreements. It also says it would have been "economic folly" for the University knowingly to quadruple the number or value of the scholarships. General Counsel Shelley Green said last semester that the purpose of the 1977 ordinance was to lift certain deed restrictions on land that the University wanted to mortgage -- not to increase the number of scholarships from 125 to 500. If the University agreed to spend an extra $1.5 million a year in 1977 in order to obtain $12 million of financing, the brief says, it "would have effectively added an extra 12.5 percent to the interest of 9.25 percent it was already paying." The University also argues that many of the parties named as plaintiffs in the suit, including labor unions and nonprofit corporations, have failed to show how they have been injured by the University's actions. These plaintiffs filed the suit "on behalf of Philadelphia school children." The University asks the court to dismiss the case because the scholarship agreement is between the University and the city, and other parties do not have the right "to enforce the Ordinance." As a result, they argue, the plaintiffs have no right to sue. Finally, the brief objects to the lawsuit for criticizing the University's nationwide recruiting effort, for pointing out that the University's operating budget and endowment are substantial and for suggesting how high the University's rent would be on the 47 acres if it were not for the scholarship agreement. The University claims these points are "impertinent and irrelevant." PILCOP has until the middle of February to respond to the University's brief.
(01/27/92 10:00am)
University Egyptologist David O'Connor thought he might be on to something in 1988 when he noticed a "curious mudbrick feature" protruding from the desert sand in southern Egypt. What O'Connor did not know then was that three years later he would make one of his greatest discoveries -- a dozen ancient boats sitting side-by-side in the ground to guide a dead pharaoh in the afterlife. After finally returning to the site at Abydos last fall, O'Connor and his team of archaeologists discovered the wooden boats -- each upwards of 40 feet long and up to 5000 years old -- lying under the sand in individual mudbrick "boat graves." O'Connor, curator of the University Museum's Egyptian section, said the discovery marked the first time so many large boats from early dynastic Egypt had been found together, and indicated that a pharaoh intended on riding them to the next world. He said that although archaeologists have discovered boat graves in the past, most of the previous finds yielded just one small boat that was probably used by a nobleman. But despite the unprecedented nature of his discovery, O'Connor, who is also an Oriental Studies professor at the University, said the boat graves are historically significant because they form a part of the history of the ancient Egyptian pyramids. He said the boat graves lie just outside a series of walled funerary cult enclosure built for the worship of dead pharaohs. He said this strengthens the theory that the boats were meant to guide a pharoah and explains why they are sitting about eight miles from the Nile River. Inside one of these walled enclosures, archaeologists have excavated "traces of a mound-like proto-pyramid" that O'Connor said might be a precursor to later pyramids, including the classic step pyramid in the northern region of Saqqara. He said the boat graves themselves might be prototypes of similar boat graves found near the famous pyramids of Giza, which were built beginning around 2600 B.C., providing another link between the Abydos site and the pyramids. O'Connor, who has been co-director of the expedition with William Kelly Simpson of Yale University, for several years, said his team will need another season of excavations to fully remove one or two of the boats from the sand. He said his team will also further excavate the surrounding area to check for other boat graves and to see whether any other funerary cults are located nearby. The expeditions are being carried out under a permit from the Egyptian government, O'Connor said, adding that the artifacts will remain in Egypt.
