Last month, President Clinton promised to lead an entitlements conference at Bryn Mawr College in exchange for U.S. Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky's vote on his budget plan.

Democrat Margolies-Mezvinsky's home district is highly Republican. Her vote for Clinton's more liberal budget plan went against the wishes of many of the people who elected her.

But she got the conference, which is scheduled for Dec. 13.

Although Margolies-Mezvinsky voted for the budget plan in exchange for the conference, she believes the plan will move the country toward change, said Jake Tapper, her press secretary. Clinton would not attend the conference if she would have voted against the plan, he added.

Margolies-Mezvinsky's decision to vote for what she believes leads to the question of whether a representative should represent the constituency or party beliefs, said Michael Young, director of Harrisburg's Center for Survey Research and University professor of political science and public policy.

"She stood up to her constituency and took lots of criticism for it," he said.

But Michelle Rodgers of Montgomery County said Margolies-Mezvinsky's move backstabbed her conservative constituents.

"She knew what the public wanted and turned around and voted against it," said Rodgers, a University graduate. "The public wanted change so they voted in a Democrat -- a mistake they will never make again."

Young said Margolies-Mezvinsky's vote with the Democratic party on the budget plan may not have represented the people of her district, but she deserves credit for making Clinton focus on real problems such as entitlement spending.

"She would say that she acted as a trustee (of the party)," Young said. Members of Congress often face the problem of having to vote against constituent or party views, he said.

The entitlements conference will include panel topics such as retirement, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare. Social security, veterans aid, student loans and other entitlement spending, which comprises almost 40 percent of the federal budget, will also be addressed.

Michael King, associate professor of political science, said that 20 years ago if Margolies-Mezvinsky had voted against her own party's administration, it would have been an outrage.

"There is a D after her name, not an R," King said. Since her largely Republican constituency voted her in as a Democratic representative, he said there is some sense of hypocrisy among voters' complaints.

Margolies-Mezvinsky was in a no-win situation, King said, adding that she could vote with her constituents and be popular in Montgomery County or vote with the party and bring something back to her constituency.

"The public gets ticked off at Congress, but you can't have it both ways," King said. He also pointed out that political bargaining and compromises offer incentives and trade, allowing the community to get something back in return -- like a bridge, a road or a conference.

Margolies-Mezvinsky could have taken the "chicken's way out" and abstained, but she made a choice, King said. The conference could be good for Pennsylvania and for the country, he added.

John Miller (freshman-political science) said the conference is not adequate compensation for Margolies-Mezvinsky's vote in favor of the budget plan.

"People could care less about a conference -- they just don't want to see their taxes go," Miller said. In the long run, the conference will benefit the public, but it will not re-elect Margolies-Mezvinsky, he said.