Front Page

In This Issue

Compass Features

Job Opps


Between Issues


December AT PENN

Almanac Homepage

Compass Homepage

Staff Box

COUNCIL 1996-97 Year End Reports

With the publication of these committee reports (pages 5 through 8), the University Council has completed the publication of the Year-End Reports for 1996. Three of those below are scheduled for discussion at the December 3 meeting: Recreation & Intercollegiate Athletics, Safety & Security, and Student Affairs.

Year-End Reports, 1996-97

Admissions & Financial Aid
Community Relations
Disability Board
International Programs
Open Expression
Personnel Benefits
Recreation & Intercollegiate Athletics
Safety & Security
Student Affairs

The December meeting features Dr. Stanley Chodorow's State of the University Report and an Update by Executive Vice President John Fry. The meeting is held from 4 to 6 p.m. in McClelland Hall, the Quad, and is open to observers, who are to call the Office of the Secretary, 898-7005, to register their interest in attending.

Disability Board

1. The Disability Board met once as a Committee on 8/8/96 to review the purpose of the Committee. The broad charge to the committee as printed in the University Council Bylaws reads:

The Disability Board continually evaluates the disability plan for adequacy, equity and consistency with the broad University objectives, monitors the financial and administrative operations of the plan; oversees the processing of any applications for disability benefits and periodic reviews of existing disability cases; and hears appeals from decisions of the Medical Subcommittee of the Disability Board.

There was no special charge for this academic year.

2. Here are some statistics (available from differing time periods):

University, 7/1/96-3/3/97: There were 114 employees on LTD (3 faculty, 15 A-1s, and 93 A-3s); 22 claims were filed and 14 were approved.

HUP, 7/1/95-6/30/96: There were 48 employees on LTD; claims were filed and 9 were approved.

3. Recommendations:

A. The roster for the Committee should also include: Iris Gross from HUP and Dr. Robert Mayock (who reviews claims with the medical subcommittee). Staff for the committee include: Al Johnson and Hilary Lopez from benefits.

B. There are no representatives from the A-1 or A-3 group on the Committee, so it is recommended that they be since the vast majority of individuals on LTD are from these groups.

--Janet A. Deatrick, Chair

Disability Board, 1996-97
Chair: Janet Deatrick (nursing) Faculty: P.J. Brennan (medicine), Ira Katz (psychiatry), Scott Manaker (medicine), Olivia Mitchell (insurance), Erwin Schmidt (orthopedic surgery), Ralph Schumacher (medicine) Ex officio: David Hackney (chair, University Council Personnel Benefits Committee).

Open Expression

The committee held four meetings during the 1996-97 academic year. The only complaint before the committee was that of Mr. Paul Lukasiak regarding the A-3 Assembly election process in the Fall of 1996. The committee considered Mr. Lukasiak's complaint and both met with him and called as a witness Ms. Karen Wheeler, the Chair of the A-3 Assembly. After thorough consideration the committee concluded:

"The Committee on Open Expression found that Mr. Lukasiak's complaint raised serious questions about the fairness of the administration of the nominations and election procedures under the A-3 Assembly Constitution last Fall. This complaint raised questions about the adequacy of the provisions of the A-3 Assembly Constitution relating to nominations and elections. However, the Committee on Open Expression has concluded that it does not have jurisdiction over this matter and is referring it to the University Steering Committee for determination of proper jurisdiction."

During July, 1997 Mr. Lukasiak contacted Dr. Steiner via email concerning another alleged infringement of his freedom of expression. At that time Dr. Steiner had completed his term as Chair and directed Mr. Lukasiak to refer his complaint to the new Committee.

--Peter Steiner, Chair

Open Expression Committee, 1996-97
Chair: Peter Steiner (slav lang); Faculty: C. Edwin Baker (law), John Keene (city & reg planning),Herman Pfefferkorn (geology); Administration: Jennifer Conway (LDI), Rosemary Byrd Meecham (law); A-3: Nicholas Sohier (telecommunications); Students: Marc Edelman (W'99), Hayley Lattman (C'97), Alexander Lloyd (W'98), Dan Orr (C'98)


Personnel Benefits

The Personnel Benefits Committee had an unusual year. Since the Benefits Redesign Process pre-empted the usual activities of the PBC for most of the year, the only actions of the PBC during the year were our review of the Benefits Redesign proposals issued in February, and our evaluation of the proposals and the process. Below, we present our analysis of the proposals produced by the Benefits Redesign process. We include suggestions for further changes in the benefits offered at the University, as well as suggestions for improvements in the redesign process. The substance of the report was published in Almanac, Volume 43 Number 25, March 11, 1997.

The PBC prepared a set of propositions covering the possible responses to the propositions and, after as extensive discussion as time permitted, we voted on each proposition. We were unable to arrive at unanimous opinions on any issue. Therefore, we report below the votes on each proposition.

Personnel Benefits:
A Summary of Committee Views on Benefits Redesign

Life Insurance
A. Yes 56%No 44% to the question:
The PBC endorses the proposal to eliminate Flexdollars, provide current employees with a one-time increase in base salary to replace the lost Flexdollars, and provide University-funded life insurance in the amount of 1 x salary. The PBC suggests that further savings to employees and the University may be possible through additional adjustments to the life insurance program. However, adequate analysis of such further options cannot be completed in the time available before 1997 Open Enrollment. Therefore, the PBC proposes that the structure of the life insurance program remain on the PBC agenda, after Open Enrollment, for consideration for possible further changes in later plan years.

B. Yes 88%No 12% to the question:
The PBC endorses the proposal to eliminate Flexdollars and to provide current employees with a one-time increase in base salary to replace the lost Flexdollars. The PBC proposes to modify the recommendations of the Benefits Advisory Committee (BAC) as follows. Instead of receiving University-funded life insurance in the amount of 1 x salary, each employee aged 65 or younger will receive University-funded life insurance in the amount of $50,000. Employees will be permitted to purchase additional life insurance, with after tax dollars, as described in the BAC report. For employees over the age of 65, the University will calculate the cost of providing $50,000 of life insurance to a 65 year-old individual, and purchase for each employee the amount of insurance that can be obtained for that cost. This will have the effect of reducing the death-benefit amounts of life insurance funded by the University for older employees.

C. Yes 38%No 63% to the question:
The issues to be considered are complex, life insurance benefits are major and critical portions of the total benefits package, and the time available to review the proposals has been quite limited. For these reasons, the PBC recommends deferral of any decision on the BAC life insurance recommendations for the upcoming plan year, in order permit an in-depth review of the proposals and alternatives.

Health Insurance
D. Yes 75%No 25% to the question:
The PBC endorses the proposed changes in the health insurance program. Elimination of "zero-premium" options conforms to current practices in plan design, under which employees and employers share the cost of health insurance. For the HMO options, the employee premiums are similar to, or lower than, those charged over long periods of time prior to 7/1/94. The new Point of Service option represents an attractive option for those who desire an indemnity plan at a lower cost than PENNCare. The increase in the price of PENNCare is reasonable given the costs and value of this plan.

E. Yes 33%No 67% to the question:
The PBC endorses the concept of employee cost sharing for health insurance premiums and recognizes that the proposed prices of coverage compare favorably to competitive norms. However, the price increases are too large for employees to absorb in a single year. Further, the proposed pricing structure will place indemnity insurance out of reach for many lower-income employees. For these reasons, the PBC recommends creating a pricing structure which will continue the availability of the PENNCare PPO to lower-income employees at a very low cost. If necessary, this should be achieved by providing a greater cost subsidy to such employees, with progressively smaller subsidies to those at higher salaries. All employees would receive some substantial level of University contribution to health insurance costs, but higher-income employees would find their subsidies reduced well below those proposed by the BAC.

F. Yes 38%No 63% to the question:
The current design of the health insurance program enjoys a high level of employee support and satisfaction. Although the level of University contributions are also relatively high, the need to provide comprehensive insurance to all employees at prices they can afford must be considered the most important goal of the health insurance program. For these reasons, the PBC recommends that the current pricing and provisions of the PENNCare PPO be retained in their current form.

Considering the Recent Benefits Redesign Process
G. Yes 67%No 33% to the question:
The PBC should have been a full partner in discussions of, and development of proposals for, benefits redesign.

H. Yes 75%No 25% to the question:
Given that the PBC was denied its traditional role as the designated body for recommending changes in the benefits program, the PBC also was not permitted to have input into the redesign proposals while the discussions were in progress.

I. Yes 88%No 12% to the question:
Given that the PBC was denied its traditional role as the designated body for recommending changes in the benefits program, the PBC was not afforded sufficient time to analyze the suggestions brought forward by the benefits redesign process, and to develop and present alternatives, where appropriate.

Considering Future Annual Benefits Reviews and Future Comprehensive Benefits Redesign Efforts
J. Yes 89%No 11% to the question:
The PBC should be a full partner in discussions of, and development of proposals for, future changes in the benefits program.

Part Time Benefits
K. Yes 14%No 86% to the question:
The proposal for adding participation in the health care pretax expense account represents an appropriate, and adequate change in the benefits program for part time employees. No further changes in the part-time benefits programs should be considered at this time.

L. Yes 57%No 43% to the question:
The proposal for adding participation in the health care pretax expense account represents an appropriate, and adequate, change with respect to those benefits considered in the reporthealth insurance, life insurance, tuition, and paid time off. Part time employee participation in retirement and disability programs should be considered when these components of the overall benefit program are discussed in the near future.

M. Yes 43%No 57% to the question:
The proposal for adding participation in the health care pretax expense account is an appropriate, but not an adequate, change with respect to those benefits considered in the reporthealth insurance, life insurance, tuition, and paid time off. Part-time employees should receive pro-rated health, life insurance, and tuition benefits, subject to service requirements. Part-time employee participation in retirement and disability programs should be considered when these components of the overall benefit program are discussed in the near future.

N. Yes 56%No 44% to the question:
Due to time constraints, the PBC was not able to conduct an adequate review and discussion of the proposals for changes in the benefits program for part time employees.

Paid Time Off
O. Yes 63%No 37% to the question:
The proposals for changing the vacation accrual schedule and reducing the number of classifications of time off represent appropriate modifications in the benefits program.

P. Yes 63%No 38% to the question:
The proposal to eliminate summer hours represents an appropriate modification in the benefits program.

Q. Yes 38%No 62% to the question:
The proposals for changes in the paid time off benefits are explained clearly in the benefits redesign report.

Graduate Tuition
R. Yes 89%No 11% to the question:
The PBC recommends that the graduate tuition benefit be retained in its present form for current University employees, as well as for employees who have been recruited to the University and who begin working as of 1/1/98.

Overall Report
The current report considers parts of the benefits packagehealth insurance, life insurance, tuition benefits, paid time off, and benefits for part time employeesnow, while deferring decisions on the remainder of the package, including retirement and disability programs, until next year. Since these latter benefits are significant portions of total compensation, we cannot analyze the entire benefits program, on the basis of total compensation, at this time. However, the need for changes in the portions of the program addressed by this report are pressing and will remain next year, if they are not addressed now. Please respond to questions S and T in this context.

S. Yes 75%No 25% to the question:
The PBC agrees that it is appropriate to revise portions of the benefits program now, with retirement and disability to be considered next year.

T. Yes 33%No 67% to the question:
The PBC concludes that changes in benefits should be made only after proposals have been developed for all aspects of the program. This will permit analysis of all proposals on the basis of total compensation question.

Summary of Votes and Abstentions

% Yes % No Abst % Yes % No Abst
A 56% 44% 2 K 14% 86% 4
B 88% 13% 3 L 57% 43% 4
C 38% 63% 3 M 43% 57% 4
D 75% 25% 3 N 56% 44% 2
E 33% 67% 2 O 63% 38% 3
F 38% 63% 3 P 63% 38% 3
G 67% 33% 2 Q 38% 63% 3
H 75% 25% 3 R 89% 11% 2
I 88% 13% 3 S 75% 25% 3
J 89% 11% 2 T 33% 67% 2

--David B. Hackney, Chair

Personnel Benefits Committee 1996-97
Chair: David Hackney (radiology) Faculty: Patrician Danzon (health care system) Charles E. Dwyer (GSE) Carl Polsky (accounting) Gerald Porter (mathematics) Curtis Reitz (law) Jerry Rosenbloom (insurance) Sheldon Rovin (dental) Administration: Rachel Cogan (Wharton) Lois McNamara (GSE) Rosemary Byrd Meecham (law) A-3: Sarah McLaurin (Ofc of the Secretary) Patricia Noel-Reid (microbio) Students: Sherri Lauver Ex officio: Alfred Beers (comptroller) Clint Davidson (v pres human resources) John J. Heuer (dir human resources) Al Johnson (asst mgr, benefits counseling) Barbara Lowery (assoc provost) Fina Maniaci (asst mgr benefits acctg)


Recreation and Intercollegiate Athletics

The University Council Committee on Recreation and Intercollegiate Athletics (CRIA) held six meetings during the year. Major topics discussed were:

(1) The Division of Recreation and Intercollegiate Athletic's (DRIA) new Mission Statement and Strategic Plan as presented by Athletic Director Steve Bilsky.

(2) The beginning of the reorganization of the DRIA Recreation Division program as presented by the newly appointed Director of Recreation, Mike Diorka.

(3) The NCAA re-certification of Penn's Intercollegiate Athletic Program as presented by Senior Associate Athletic Director, Carolyn Schlie-Femovich.

DRIA Strategic Plan
Mr. Bilsky indicated the importance to Penn of improving existing recreational and intercollegiate athletic facilities and of constructing new facilities such as a multi-purpose fieldhouse, all of which will require significant fund raising efforts.

Reorganization of the DRIA Recreation Program
An outside consulting firm, with extensive input from focus groups representing appropriate and important campus constituencies, was in the process of surveying the present recreational program and will soon make recommendations for its improvement. Mr. Diorka noted that input from students and Wharton cohort groups had been particularly helpful in the survey process. The completed survey and the recreation division's proposed reorganization plans will be discussed by CRIA during the coming academic year.

During discussions of the recreational program, Mr. Diorka made the following key points:

  • campus recreation offerings have expanded to include wellness and fitness programs and with this expansion it is important to make certain that all of Penn's existing recreational facilities are optimally utilized, changes in facilities and programs are necessary to make recreation "state-of-the-art" for the new millenium. Mr. Bilsky, in support of this, indicated that it was very important to develop a feasible plan for renovation/construction of needed recreation/athletic facilities.
  • a good working relationship with all constituencies is a high priority of the division of recreation,
  • programs offered should be instructional and/or competitive and/or recreational in nature,
  • activities should provide opportunities for increased faculty-student interactions, and the West Philadelphia university community has a stake in Penn's recreational plans.

CRIA also had a preliminary discussion related to the question of what is the basic recreation program that should be prepaid and opened to the University community at large. The concept of selling passbooks and/or instituting a declining balance system for recreational facility usage was mentioned. These discussions will continue during the '97-'98 academic year.


NCAA Re-Certification of Penn's Intercollegiate Athletic Program
CRIA was kept apprised of the progress of the NCAA re-certification process, which began in February, 1996, sought widespread input from various Penn constituencies, produced Self-Study draft and final reports, and culminated with a four day (April 1-4, 1997) site visit of Penn by an NCAA Peer-Review Team.

The final draft of the Self-Study report was read and discussed by CRIA. The final Self-Study report was approved by CRIA. Both the NCAA site-visit team and CRIA found Penn's Intercollegiate Athletic Program well-integrated into the academic programs of the campus. The complete NCAA Peer-Review Team's report and the final NCAA Re-Certification report, when made available to CRIA, will be discussed during the coming academic year. Particular attention will be directed by CRIA towards DRIA intercollegiate athletic program issues, which the Self- Study and the final NCAA Re-Certification reports identify as in need of improvement and their resolution within the stated time-tables.

--Peter Hand, Chair

1996-97 Committee on Recreation and Intercollegiate Athletics
Chair: Peter Hand (animal biology/vet) Faculty: Steven Galetta (neurol/med), Stephen Gluckman (infectious diseases), Alan Heston (Economics), Stephen Hoch (marketing), Donald Morgan (otorhino), Cynthia Scalzi (nursing),Perry Stafford (ped/med); Administration: Erika Gross (risk mgmt), Jennifer Wollman (alumni relations); A-3: Walter Benjamin (admissions) Shelton Mercer (telecomm) Alumni: Gay Lacy, Hunter Lott (asst dev ofcr, athletics); Students: Larry Kamin (C '98), Mark Lubow (C'98), Lawrence Pace (W '98), Gloria Suen (WhG); Ex officio: Steve Bilsky (dir div rec & intercoll athletics), Larry Moneta (associate VPUL),Willis Stetson (dean of admissions)


Safety and Security

The Safety & Security Committee met eight times during the 1996-97 year. This included a joint meeting with the Community Relations Committee convened January 28. Topics addressed during the year included the following:

1. Semiautomatic pistols for University Police: the major debate on this issue occurred during the 1995-96 meetings. The final report was approved by the Committee at the October, 1996 meeting and then presented to Council by Dr. Kennedy.

2. Committee members Maureen Rush and Scott Reikofski arranged presentation of the Bittenbinder crime prevention program and subsequent distribution of the videotape.

3. The committee initiated the joint meeting with Community Relations to gauge community members' feelings on violence and the University's role in preventing/ responding to it.

4. The committee received information that international students are involved in many of the automobile/pedestrian accidents on campus, apparently due to traffic patterns differing from their home countries. In response to these concerns, the Office of International Programs was contacted to provide representation on the committee.

5. Partly in response to The Philadelphia Inquirer's articles on college crime statistics, the committee looked into how Penn does in fact report those statistics. The committee concluded that the current reports are comprehensive and available.

6. Committee members Barbara Cassel and Courtney Fine surveyed via e-mail 2000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students to learn their perceptions of crime at Penn. The goals were to inform the committee of students' awareness of available resources and to contribute to short term and long-term security measures.

7. The Committee debated and supported the president and UPPD's initiatives in response to the series of crimes in the fall, specifically: strategic University security initiatives, e.g. the 40th Street Project; tactical initiatives e.g. video cameras, cellular emergency phones, hiring of new police officers and Spectaguard officers, public safety expo; regulations for after-hours parking in University lots.

8. The bicycle safety subcommittee was reimplemented. Due to a perceived need for expertise of this type, Professor Ponzy Lu, an avid cyclist, was invited to become a member of the committee and lead this subcommittee.

9. Michele Goldfarb, student dispute resolution center, was asked to become a member of the committee.

--Sean Kennedy, Chair

Committee on Safety and Security, 1996-97
Chair: Sean Kennedy (anesthesia/med) Faculty: Alan Heston (econ), John Lepore (civil systems), Noam Lior (mech engr), Jerry Prince (romance lang), Alvin Rubinstein (pol sci), Karen Winey (materials science), Gail Yarnell (restorative dentistry) Administration: John DeLong (student finan svcs), Donna Di Scullo (nursing) A-3: Betty Thomas (SFS) Students: Jonathan Brightbill (Wh '97), Courtney Fine (Col '99), Dore Preston (GSAS), John William (med) Ex officio: Jeanne Arnold (dir African Am Res Ctr), Barbara Cassel (Aooist VPUL), Christopher Dennis (dir housing & res life), Elena Di Lapi (dir Penn Women's Ctr), Robert Furniss (dir Trans & Parking), James Miller (dir Fire & Occup Safety), Scott Reikofski (acting dir Frat/Soror Affairs), Maureen Rush (dir police operations), Thomas Seamon (mg dir public safety).


Student Affairs

The Student Affairs Committee (SAC) met 8 times during the academic year. The first two meetings were primarily informational in nature, including a review of agenda items from past years, and a discussion of the findings from the survey of incoming freshman at Penn.

It was decided that the SAC would focus on 3 topics pertaining to the quality of student life at Penn:

(1) monitoring the developing plans for residences, dining halls and recreation,

(2) considering the request of the United Minority Council for a seat on the University Council,

(3) gathering information about alcohol and substance abuse on campus.

During the fall semester, reports were presented on general plans to restructure living, dining and recreational facilities at Penn. The SAC generally concurred with the vision and direction of these reforms, particularly with plans for upgrading the physical plant, and for offering students more choices for dining and recreation. The SAC also offered to serve as a forum for discussing specific details of the plans when they became available.

A joint meeting was held with the Pluralism Committee on December 17,1996. At that time, a resolution was considered and passed recommending that the University Council offer the United Minority Council a permanent seat on the Council.

The spring semester was devoted entirely to discussions about alcohol and substance abuse at Penn. Examining surveys of student alcohol and substance use, it is clear that Penn has a higher rate of binge drinking compared to other private colleges. Moreover, roughly 50% of students at Penn report having been adversely affected by students engaging binge drinking. The SAC heard from representatives of the Health Education Center about their efforts to reduce alcohol and substance abuse on campus, primarily through peer educators. It also heard testimony from resident advisers, faculty and students regarding the patterns of student alcohol and drug use. A number of themes emerged from these presentations, including:

  • stories about drinking parties are often discussed during tours of the campus for prospective students;
  • incoming freshman are recruited to attend events where alcohol will be served even prior to orientation week;
  • freshman are the most likely students to be involved in serious alcohol intoxication requiring emergency room visits and/or hospitalization;
  • few students who receive emergency treatment for alcohol intoxication ever attend counseling sessions
  • there appears to be little enforcement of the "zero tolerance'' policy at Penn.

Despite these alarming indicators, there is also evidence that efforts to reduce underage drinking on campus have been somewhat successful, as evidenced by:

  • fewer bottles of alcohol observed in garbage dumps following weekends;
  • the BYOB policy of fraternity parties which has reduced availability of alcohol;
  • reduced incidents of unpleasant alcohol-related behavior in the dormitories;
  • the absence of any alcohol- related deaths at Penn.

A wide spectrum of opinion was expressed regarding the role that the University should play with respect to student behaviors surrounding alcohol and drug use. Some on the committee favored a minimalist approach while others argued for a more vigorous enforcement of existing policies regarding drinking and drug use. Despite these differences, the SAC was able to conclude its deliberations with the following recommendations to the Council and to the entire Penn community:

1. The problems of underage drinking and excessive (binge) drinking at Penn are real and need to be openly recognized and addressed. Data from a variety of sources (e.g. student surveys, ER records, police records, RA incident reports) should be collected regularly to quantify the nature and extent of these problems. Efforts to gather such information should be fiscally supported and centralized within one organization on campus, such as the Health Education Center.

2. Student culture at Penn promotes widespread alcohol consumption, and there is a permissive attitude on the part of administration and faculty regarding this culture. Greater efforts need to be directed at changing the prevailing pro-alcohol culture among students by promoting non-alcohol recreational activities, and by creating more opportunities for students to meet and socialize on campus in alcohol-free settings. Greater resources need to be allocated to build attractive gathering places for students, and to support student events and organizations which offer alternatives to alcohol consumption.

3. The admissions process, including tours of prospective students to the campus, should be reviewed to insure that the image of Penn as the "party Ivy" college is no longer promoted, and to select students who are more likely to abstain from drinking.

4. Freshman orientation should include a greater emphasis on drug and alcohol abuse prevention. Books (e.g. Drinking - A Love Story; by Caroline Knapp), movies, TV shows and other educational materials should be formally introduced during orientation. Peer education sessions should be provided throughout the freshman year to reinforce these messages. Furthermore, sustained efforts should be made to monitor drinking among freshmen, and to intervene consistently and directly when such behavior is identified.

5. The relative lack of enforcement of University policies on drinking and drug use is a serious concern which the Council needs to address. Mechanisms for improving the enforcement of these policies should be identified and implemented. Measures for responding to students whose drinking behavior is harmful to themselves or is disruptive (or harmful) to others need to be fairly and consistently applied.

6. It is time to bring all members of the Penn community together to take a close and serious look at this very difficult and sticky problem which is hurting many students and which is detracting from the quality of life at our institution. There must be a renewed commitment among all the constituencies at Penn to reduce the incidence of student underage and binge drinking as well as drug use. To this end, the work of the Drug and Alcohol Task Force should be disseminated and discussed throughout the entire University community.

In the coming academic year, the Student Affairs Committee intends to continue in its mission to monitor the quality of student life at Penn. Priority areas include ongoing monitoring of the plans for housing, dining and recreation, and discussing ways to implement the recommendations regarding alcohol and drug use on campus.

--Anthony Rostain, Chair

Student Affairs Committee 1996-97
Chair: Anthony Rostain (psychiatry) Faculty: William Ball (psychiatry) William Graham (materials science) Alan Charles Kors (history) Maureen Marcenko (social work) Jeremy McInerney (classical studies); Administration: Carla Armbrister (residential living) Julie Cohen (CPPS) Students: Joe Becker (GSAS) Jonathan Brightbill (Wh '97) Ron Jenkins (Wh/C '98) Susie Lee (CAS '97) David Scott (Wh '98) Ex officio: William Gipson (University Chaplain) Tal Golomb (chair, UA) Larry Moneta (associate VPUL) Alex Welte (chair, GAPSA)

Return to:Almanac, University of Pennsylvania, November 25, 1997, Volume 44, No. 14