Gorski Leaves

LAST WEEK'S resignation of David L. Gorski, chief of University police, offers the University an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the course it expects to follow in dealing with the Harvard Patrolmen's Association. Gorski, who is leaving Harvard after thoroughly revamping the University police, merits high praise for his success in lowering Harvard's crime rate--yet his notable failure to maintain good relations with his employees tarnishes this otherwise enviable record. Now that he is departing, the University should reconsider the wisdom of such a policy, and make the effort to resolve this inner conflict that it has previously avoided.

The policemen's discontent surrounds their assertion that Gorski's reorganization unfairly increased the burden expected of them, and destroyed morale within the force by instituting sharp changes in their work routines without their consent. Naturally, some of this discontent stems from the natural resistance to change that characterizes any comfortable organization. Yet Gorski dismissed most of the union's grievances out of hand, without realizing that the officers had a right to complain about their conditions of employment. The University has done little to mend the feud. In almost three months of contract negotiations, Harvard has made no significant effort to deal with the union's complaints, and has stalled its selection of a federally ordered third party to examine the reorganization question. Meanwhile the police officers, unwilling to come to terms without resolving the dispute, have been working without a contract since January 1.

Harvard has already taken a small step to remedy the dispute. By appointing William A. Lee, a labor relations specialist from the Department of Buildings and Grounds, as acting police chief, the University has shown it recognizes the importance of maintaining good relations with members of the force. The Patrolmen's Association should welcome the change.

Yet this is only a first step. Lee, who has no previous police experience, is only an interim appointee, without the authority to modify Gorski's organizational innovations. Harvard must realize that the officers are more interested in making sure that Gorski's permanent successor--whom it will choose before next fall--will be likely to listen to their position and judge it on its merits. The University should stage an intensive search for a chief who will combine Gorski's extensive knowledge of police procedure with a willingness to deal with all sides of the reorganization problem. Moreover, it must now proceed to the current negotiations with a willingness to hear out the union's demands, no longer bound by institutional loyalty to the insensitive and inflexible former chief. Such a course would be a sharp change from Harvard's traditional dealings with the police union. Yet it may now be the only way the University will be able to keep the peace within its own peace-keeping force.