Guards Angered By Delay Of Probe

The faces of security guards look the same as they did six months ago, when General Counsel Margaret H. Marshall was only two months into her job and her investigation of the guard unit was new and full of promise.

Back then, guards on both sides of the dispute over alleged discrimination by the unit's supervisors had high hopes for Marshall.

She had hired former FBI agent James A. Ring, now an investigator for her former law firm of Choate, Hall & Stewart, to interview guards. Guards, in general, liked Ring's independent status, and many thought the issue would finally be resolved.

Now, six months later, Marshall's probe appears to be seriously bogged down. Ring has not conducted an interview with a guard, sources say, in more than two months. And with the general counsel now on a summer vacation, the end of the probe is probably several weeks off.

So while the faces of guards have not changed, their voices have lost almost any hint of the hope they had in mid-winter. In interviews with two dozen security guards conducted during the past week, many said they feel personally betrayed by Marshall, who promised in a January 15 letter to provide guards "with a working environment free from any discriminatory practices, or the perception thereof."

That sense of betrayal, while present among guards on both sides of the discrimination dispute, is strongest among those who have charged discrimination publicly. Some had brought their complaints to then-General Counsel Daniel Steiner '54 in 1990, and the general counsel's office investigated their claims before, finding nothing wrong.

University Attorney Diane Patrick, who conducted that first probe in the spring of 1992, interviewed none of the guards who had alleged discrimination and offered no written report. For her trouble, some guards note wryly, Patrick was promoted to director of human resources for the University.

Meanwhile, morale in the guard unit remains low, and both sides of the dispute are edgy. Are the 11 former and current security employees who have charged discrimination correct in their accusations? Or are they misguided and, as some have suggested, motivated by a desire to cover-up their own spotty employment records?

"Everyone needs to see something come out of it," says one guard, who does not believe there is discrimination and, who, like all the guards, spoke only on condition of anonymity. "Most of the guards get along well. We need to show and prove that what these people say is hearsay."

While they wait for Marshall to answer these questions, the guards have begun to sound like men and women who feel they are stuck in a stalemate that was not of their own making. What's most frustrating, some say, is that Marshall--the person holding the life line--seems in no particular hurry to pull them out of the mess.

"Look at all the money they must have spent, hiring this guy Ring, having him do the interviews," says one minority guard, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. "And for what? No answer from Marshall, no change in the situation. They should have saved that money and given us raises."

In one sense, the University's investigation of the security guard department has been exhaustive and noteworthy. Ring has conducted, by The Crimson's estimate, some two dozen interviews ranging in length from 30 minutes to more than four hours.

That kind of intensive interviewing parallels the kind of exhaustive questioning used in reviews of many municipal police forces such as the one conducted in Los Angeles two years ago by now-Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher.

But while the interviewing has clearly been extensive, Marshall's probe, from the beginning, has not gone according to plan.

In some ways, that pleased guards. Ring often scheduled sessions that were too short to cover all the pertinent information, and some guards happily came back for extra discussions.

But the unannounced appearance of Choate, Hall & Stewart lawyer Karen Cartotto startled and upset many guards. Upon entering the Holyoke Center interviewing room to find Cartotto with Ring, many guards were told that they, too, could have someone accompany them.

Many guards say they would have liked to take advantage of the opportunity to have a representative accompany them, but by the time of the interview, it was too late.

Marshall's letter had made no mention of any interviewer other than Ring, although she told The Crimson in January that Choate lawyer A. Hugh Scott would participate in the investigation. Scott has had no visible role in the probe to this point.

Although Marshall's letter to guards asking them to participate in interviews reads as an urgent appeal for evidence. Ring himself was reportedly curt with several guards and former guards who phoned him to request an interview. It is unclear if everyone who wanted to be interviewed was, in fact, questioned.

Marshall, Ring and Cartotto have all refused to comment for the duration of the investigation.

President Neil L. Rudenstine, who initiated the investigation with public statements he made last October, has said he is content with the deliberate pace chosen by Marshall.

"In any case where there is a question of fairness to people, potential legal action and so on, you want to move ahead with expeditiousness," Rudenstine said in a May interview. "At the same time, you want to move ahead as fairly and carefully as possible, so that you really are being fair to everyone. [Margaret Marshall] has been at it, and will stay at it until it's done."

In fact, the investigation's slow pace may be by design. In her first interview with The Crimson after taking over as general counsel in November, Marshall said she would move with "deliberate caution" on the guard issue.

But the landscape of the controversy has changed since Marshall launched her investigation in January.

One of the guards who charged discrimination was fired. The guard, a Russian citizen who has asked that his name not be used, was involved in a scuffle in the security office.

While an internal police investigation was not completely conclusive as to whom had instigated the incident, Police Chief Paul E. Johnson found the Russian guard at fault and terminated him. Rudenstine said in an interview that the guard could be reinstated, but only at the end of the investigation.

And in the spring, two Black men who had spent time as supervisors in the security department, current security supervisor Andrew J. Parker and Harvard police Sgt. Arthur Fitzhugh, said they had been treated unfairly by department officials. Their charges, like those of the other security employees, have been denied by Manager of Operations for Security Robert J. Dowling.

Many guards say the statements made by Parker, who is generally well liked and respected throughout the unit, carry weight with them. Parker was interviewed by Ring, while Fitzhugh and Harvard Sgt. Robert Sutherland, another former security supervisor, were not.

Police Chief Paul E. Johnson has been interviewed as part of the probe, but he may not even be part of the department when the investigation is finally concluded. Johnson, who has talked privately of retiring at the end of this year, is seriously ill, and Lt. Lawrence J. Murphy has replaced him as officer-in-charge of the police department.

Even six months later, the allegations of harassment continue. Last week, guard Pierre R. Voss was taken to the hospital after falling on a flight of stairs during his shift. Voss, who had just returned to work after a back injury, says he was wrongly assigned to an extremely arduous shift. Dowling denies the charge, saying the shift is no more difficult than any other.

The sheer length of the investigation seems to have derailed any potential it had for heading off legal action by some guards.

Juan Figueroa, a former guard in the Business School who was fired last spring, has already filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination charging his termination was wrong because he had no history of discipline and because other guards were given lesser punishment for the same offense.

University Attorney Allan A. Ryan Jr., who is handling the case for Harvard, alleges that Figueroa was a bad employee who frequently lied in his guard reports. Now, guard Pierre R. Voss, who was the first security employee to allege discrimination, has also begun the process of filing a complaint with MCAD.

Four other guards who have contacted attorneys are keeping quiet as to their legal plans. These guards had said earlier in the year that they would wait for the results of Marshall's investigation before filing any legal action. But with the date of an announcement unclear, these guards say they may not be able to wait that long.

Some believe that an answer from Marshall could bring matters to a close, but the majority of guards say she has waited too long. For a general counsel whose task was to eliminate even the "perception" of a problem, the last six months have just given that perception more time to take hold.

Many guards say they believe the likely result of all this could be an extended legal quagmire that could consume security department time and University money for years to come.

"It's because they don't want to come out and say anything," says Stephen G. McCombe, a guard and union steward who has charged discrimination. "I think Marshall shirked her duty, and should have come out with an answer long ago."

"I think her dragging her feet has hurt the unit," McCombe says.

In January, General Counsel Margaret H. Marshall began an investigation into allegations of discrimination in the security guard unit, and guards on both sides of the dispute had high hopes for a resolution. Now, with no end to the probe in sight, the same guards have become frustrated with Harvard's top lawyer.CrimsonJoe MathewsSecurity guard PETER SKILLMAN chats with a parking officer outside Johnston Gate yesterday.

So while the faces of guards have not changed, their voices have lost almost any hint of the hope they had in mid-winter. In interviews with two dozen security guards conducted during the past week, many said they feel personally betrayed by Marshall, who promised in a January 15 letter to provide guards "with a working environment free from any discriminatory practices, or the perception thereof."

That sense of betrayal, while present among guards on both sides of the discrimination dispute, is strongest among those who have charged discrimination publicly. Some had brought their complaints to then-General Counsel Daniel Steiner '54 in 1990, and the general counsel's office investigated their claims before, finding nothing wrong.

University Attorney Diane Patrick, who conducted that first probe in the spring of 1992, interviewed none of the guards who had alleged discrimination and offered no written report. For her trouble, some guards note wryly, Patrick was promoted to director of human resources for the University.

Meanwhile, morale in the guard unit remains low, and both sides of the dispute are edgy. Are the 11 former and current security employees who have charged discrimination correct in their accusations? Or are they misguided and, as some have suggested, motivated by a desire to cover-up their own spotty employment records?

"Everyone needs to see something come out of it," says one guard, who does not believe there is discrimination and, who, like all the guards, spoke only on condition of anonymity. "Most of the guards get along well. We need to show and prove that what these people say is hearsay."

While they wait for Marshall to answer these questions, the guards have begun to sound like men and women who feel they are stuck in a stalemate that was not of their own making. What's most frustrating, some say, is that Marshall--the person holding the life line--seems in no particular hurry to pull them out of the mess.

"Look at all the money they must have spent, hiring this guy Ring, having him do the interviews," says one minority guard, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. "And for what? No answer from Marshall, no change in the situation. They should have saved that money and given us raises."

In one sense, the University's investigation of the security guard department has been exhaustive and noteworthy. Ring has conducted, by The Crimson's estimate, some two dozen interviews ranging in length from 30 minutes to more than four hours.

That kind of intensive interviewing parallels the kind of exhaustive questioning used in reviews of many municipal police forces such as the one conducted in Los Angeles two years ago by now-Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher.

But while the interviewing has clearly been extensive, Marshall's probe, from the beginning, has not gone according to plan.

In some ways, that pleased guards. Ring often scheduled sessions that were too short to cover all the pertinent information, and some guards happily came back for extra discussions.

But the unannounced appearance of Choate, Hall & Stewart lawyer Karen Cartotto startled and upset many guards. Upon entering the Holyoke Center interviewing room to find Cartotto with Ring, many guards were told that they, too, could have someone accompany them.

Many guards say they would have liked to take advantage of the opportunity to have a representative accompany them, but by the time of the interview, it was too late.

Marshall's letter had made no mention of any interviewer other than Ring, although she told The Crimson in January that Choate lawyer A. Hugh Scott would participate in the investigation. Scott has had no visible role in the probe to this point.

Although Marshall's letter to guards asking them to participate in interviews reads as an urgent appeal for evidence. Ring himself was reportedly curt with several guards and former guards who phoned him to request an interview. It is unclear if everyone who wanted to be interviewed was, in fact, questioned.

Marshall, Ring and Cartotto have all refused to comment for the duration of the investigation.

President Neil L. Rudenstine, who initiated the investigation with public statements he made last October, has said he is content with the deliberate pace chosen by Marshall.

"In any case where there is a question of fairness to people, potential legal action and so on, you want to move ahead with expeditiousness," Rudenstine said in a May interview. "At the same time, you want to move ahead as fairly and carefully as possible, so that you really are being fair to everyone. [Margaret Marshall] has been at it, and will stay at it until it's done."

In fact, the investigation's slow pace may be by design. In her first interview with The Crimson after taking over as general counsel in November, Marshall said she would move with "deliberate caution" on the guard issue.

But the landscape of the controversy has changed since Marshall launched her investigation in January.

One of the guards who charged discrimination was fired. The guard, a Russian citizen who has asked that his name not be used, was involved in a scuffle in the security office.

While an internal police investigation was not completely conclusive as to whom had instigated the incident, Police Chief Paul E. Johnson found the Russian guard at fault and terminated him. Rudenstine said in an interview that the guard could be reinstated, but only at the end of the investigation.

And in the spring, two Black men who had spent time as supervisors in the security department, current security supervisor Andrew J. Parker and Harvard police Sgt. Arthur Fitzhugh, said they had been treated unfairly by department officials. Their charges, like those of the other security employees, have been denied by Manager of Operations for Security Robert J. Dowling.

Many guards say the statements made by Parker, who is generally well liked and respected throughout the unit, carry weight with them. Parker was interviewed by Ring, while Fitzhugh and Harvard Sgt. Robert Sutherland, another former security supervisor, were not.

Police Chief Paul E. Johnson has been interviewed as part of the probe, but he may not even be part of the department when the investigation is finally concluded. Johnson, who has talked privately of retiring at the end of this year, is seriously ill, and Lt. Lawrence J. Murphy has replaced him as officer-in-charge of the police department.

Even six months later, the allegations of harassment continue. Last week, guard Pierre R. Voss was taken to the hospital after falling on a flight of stairs during his shift. Voss, who had just returned to work after a back injury, says he was wrongly assigned to an extremely arduous shift. Dowling denies the charge, saying the shift is no more difficult than any other.

The sheer length of the investigation seems to have derailed any potential it had for heading off legal action by some guards.

Juan Figueroa, a former guard in the Business School who was fired last spring, has already filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination charging his termination was wrong because he had no history of discipline and because other guards were given lesser punishment for the same offense.

University Attorney Allan A. Ryan Jr., who is handling the case for Harvard, alleges that Figueroa was a bad employee who frequently lied in his guard reports. Now, guard Pierre R. Voss, who was the first security employee to allege discrimination, has also begun the process of filing a complaint with MCAD.

Four other guards who have contacted attorneys are keeping quiet as to their legal plans. These guards had said earlier in the year that they would wait for the results of Marshall's investigation before filing any legal action. But with the date of an announcement unclear, these guards say they may not be able to wait that long.

Some believe that an answer from Marshall could bring matters to a close, but the majority of guards say she has waited too long. For a general counsel whose task was to eliminate even the "perception" of a problem, the last six months have just given that perception more time to take hold.

Many guards say they believe the likely result of all this could be an extended legal quagmire that could consume security department time and University money for years to come.

"It's because they don't want to come out and say anything," says Stephen G. McCombe, a guard and union steward who has charged discrimination. "I think Marshall shirked her duty, and should have come out with an answer long ago."

"I think her dragging her feet has hurt the unit," McCombe says.

In January, General Counsel Margaret H. Marshall began an investigation into allegations of discrimination in the security guard unit, and guards on both sides of the dispute had high hopes for a resolution. Now, with no end to the probe in sight, the same guards have become frustrated with Harvard's top lawyer.CrimsonJoe MathewsSecurity guard PETER SKILLMAN chats with a parking officer outside Johnston Gate yesterday.