Neighbors and art students who favor a mural of drag-influenced goddesses at 15th and Waverly streets in Center City are calling support for its existence a matter of “protected speech.”At least one member of the city’s Historical Commission is calling that assertion politically correct hogwash.

Jim Mergiotti, senior vice president and chief operating officer of Peirce College, which is near the mural and is challenging what amounts to its approval by the Historical Commission, says the issue is about following proper permit procedures -- something that Michael Sher, who commissioned the work, didn't do.

Either way, the painting, by transgendered artist Dee Rosado and titled The Death of Venus, will no doubt remain a hot topic for some time to come.

John Klinzing, dean of students at the University of the Arts, wrote a letter to Sher, who manages the building that is host to the work, in December. Klinzing writes that the "University community" that he represents hopes the mural will not be removed.

Some are skeptical, though, of the mural's significance to the city's streetscape.

Historical Commission member Michael Sklaroff, who voted for removal of the work, says dryly, "The proponents have pitched this as something to do with fine arts." He adds, "The life of this city, however, will not turn on whether or not this mural remains."

Mergiotti says that in 1999, when Peirce began the renovations that transformed student dorms into the spiffy new administrative offices that comprise Alumni Hall, the school made sure it was approved by the Historical Commission.

Mergiotti insists that it's not the content of the work, which includes 13 mostly scantily clad female figures against a bright fantasy backdrop, that administrators have a problem with. "We object to the fact that they didn't follow the [permit] process."

Rosado, who signed the mural under her former name, Wesley Chhin, completed The Death of Venus in 2001; within months the city issued a code enforcement complaint to Philip Steinfeld, the owner of the building, for not acquiring a permit before the painting’s creation.

The architectural committee of the Historical Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the commission, reviewed Sher's after-the-fact "proposal" for the alterations and recommended that the commission deny permission for the mural's continued existence, stating that "the mural is not compatible with the historic materials and features" of the building, namely ornate brick support.

Half of the commission's voters then opted to discard the architectural committee's recommendation and support a work that was put up illegally.

The tie resulted in a "nonaction" by the commission, which means the mural can stay. But Peirce has the right to appeal the decision to the Board of Licenses and Inspections Review, and administrators have done just that. The board is scheduled to hear the case May 28.

Realtor and building manager Sher, who commissioned and paid for the work, says he didn’t think there would be a legal problem with the mural.

"I didn't touch the brick; the mural is on the stucco, and it's up a dark side alley," he says, referring to Waverly Street. Prior to the mural's existence, says Sher, graffiti was a problem. "I was constantly painting it over."

At the hearing, a few members of the commission, as well as Judith Eden of Center City Residents Association, expressed concern that granting permission for the mural will send a message to citizens that it's all right to paint first and ask building-code questions later.

Norman Tissian, a commission member who voted yes for the mural, says, "I don't think the approval will be setting a precedent. I think that each case will be looked at based on its own merits." If murals erected without permission "become an epidemic," Tissian says, "We'll deal with it then."

Sklaroff says commission support for the mural "is an example of a squall of political correctness that is snuffing out any remnant of common sense. People are afraid to be seen as opposing the free expression of ideas."

But whether the mural stays should have little to do with content, artistic or otherwise, he says.

"I voted no, because number one, it was put up without permission. Number two, it's detracting from the brick detail of a wonderful building."

Jim Cuorato, city representative and director of the Department of Commerce, is the acting chair of the Historical Commission. He says, "We as members of the Historical Commission have a responsibility to bring a certain amount of subjectivity to the discussion" as well as to keep in mind the possibility of setting a precedent.

He is unabashed when giving his opinion on the work. "I love the mural. I was probably openly telling people that before the vote. I think it's provocative. I think it's aesthetically stunning.

Cuorato says Peirce administrators need to keep in mind where they are. "Peirce is right next to the Avenue of the Arts -- a cultural hub. That said, the mural fits in with the character of the neighborhood."