IT HAS BEEN A BLEAK FALL for the Harvard Coop. The federal government has launched a probe into Coop "intimidation" of union organizers, apparent deception has surfaced in dealings with record companies, a past controller has hurled an $80,000 lawsuit against the Society to claim benefits allegedly due, a former director is seeking to nullify last spring's election results, more than half of the Coop employees have requested a vote on unionization, and 1971 changes in the Coop pension program have been shown to greatly worsen the lot of newly hired workers. The number and nature of these events pose hard questions about the fitness of the Society's top management.

Yet the Coop's student directors, lulled by pleasing rebate and revenue rises, have responded listlessly so far to these developments. They have shown, no signs of looking beyond the Coop management position that disgruntled former employees have manufactured the troubles.

A simple series of questions, if answered, would settle the extend to which Coop management is responsible for the problems. The Crimson has attempted to ask these questions. The president of the Coop said in late October he would meet with Crimson reporters if a third party was present, but when a recently resigned Coop director, Stephen S.J. Hall, vice president for Administration, agreed to be a witness, the president became "too busy." In a similar reversal. Coop general manager Howard W. Davis withdraw his agreement to field the questions if they were asked in the process of a current student director.

ONLY THE DIRBCTORS, then, remain in a position to demand explanation. If the students who serve on the Coop board are concerned with the dictates of ethical business practices and the Coop's stated purpose of lowering the cost of living at Cambridge universities, they can make five easy queries to resolve the issue once and for all.

First, the student directors should ask to see a chart of benefits for employees hired after mid-1971. They will find, if given a sample of representative salaries and lengths of stay, that new employees accept sizeable benefit losses and must wait up to an extra 20 years to fully collect what remains.

Second, the directors should press for an explanation of the apparent deception in Coop refunds of Capital and Columbia records. Albums purchased by the Coop from an independent dealer have been returned to the manufacturers under questionable pretenses for profit.

Third, they should ask the Coop management why employee turnover is so high, and why the recent unionization drive, in stark contrast to those of previous years, has been so successful.

Fourth, they should question whether last spring's election measured up to standards set by Coop by laws. Delegation of ballot processing does not appear to be authorized under the by laws. More importantly, last spring's ballot processors said they did not verify ballots from Episcopal Theological Seminary students or check to see that voters who paid membership fees after October 10 were disqualified.

Finally, the directors should ask why John Roberts, former accounts payable manager, and Fred Fox, former controller, were denied the chance to reply before the audit committee to a damaging report on the accounts payable department last winter. Roberts has claimed, and offered substantial supporting evidence in a statement November 2, that the report was grossly misleading. The report was used to shoehorn Roberts out of the department and undermine Fox's responsibilities, and led eventually to their resignations.

Coop members deserve a satisfactory answer to the questions. While rebates and volume may now be booming, the long-term health of the Coop depends on a confidence in the quality of its management.