That the hardware for the system, a Datapoint 5500, is inadequate and was chosen in part because in early 1975 Wyatt overturned an OIT-staff recommendation on hardware for a payroll system and ordered use of a Datapoint machine.
Most of these allegations have not been responded to systematically because Gibson, and Kenneth E. Shostack and Edward W. Deehy, staff analysts at OIT, declined to comment on the Brown-Beasley case. However, Wyatt defended the choice of Datapoint hardware for the payroll system in an interview last week, stating that the OIT staff had recommended the Datapoint machine for a "distributed" computer system and a Hewlett-Packard computer for a centralized system. Wyatt chose the Datapoint machine, he said, in part because he believed the distributed system better fit into budgetarily decentralized Harvard. The Datapoint machine also afforded greater privacy, he added, and it could be leased, unlike the purchase-only Hewlett Packard. Wyatt also said that Datapoint "is looking quite good now," and that Harvard is considering taking out a long-term lease on it.
In a previous interview, Brown-Beasley painted a different picture of the OIT staff recommendations, charging that the staff group had proposed the Hewlett Packard machine and had been surprised by Wyatt's choice of the Datapoint hardware. Brown-Beasley argued that the Datapoint machine can be matched or bettered by the Hewlett-Packard and several others considered in the study.
The OIT study, obtained by The Crimson after the Wyatt interview with the approval of Wyatt and Ciannavei, appears to bear out Brown-Beasley's scenario: The report concludes that after a month's study the Hewlett-Packard machines is best for the payroll system, adding, "We have been very impressed with the quality and professionalism of their company's activities." There is no apparent discussion of centralized vs. distributive systems, and security is not one of the eight systems requirements listed.
Ciannavei and Robert A. Carroll, manager of systems and operations in the OIT computing center and head of the group that conducted the study, said last week that Wyatt chose the Datapoint machine after receiving promises of a systems software innovation whose availability was discussed in the report: "Our overall feeling about this system is that with the addition of the 5500 processor, it would be quite adequate to do the presently-defined task in Payroll. However, this system's capability to accommodate more terminals or additional processing functions gracefully would be in question."
Although Carroll said that "with all the input he (Wyatt) had, I concurred with his choice," an official at Hewlett-Packard involved in the payroll proposal said last week that Carroll and other members of the evaluating group had been "disappointed" by the decision. The official said that the company had received what was practically a letter of intent and was going to make the hardware order "momentarily" when it learned that Wyatt "virtually put forth an edict which declared a unilateral decision." Wyatt later explained to Hewlett-Packard, the official said, that although its machine had the necessary capability, which the Datapoint machine outline did not, he believed he could "make it do the job"--which the Hewlet-Packard official would require an efficiency rate of more than 100 per cent. An attempt to obtain Wyatt's additional comments on these claims was unsuccessful.
Carroll also said last week that Hewlett Packard had not felt it had been "done in." However, the Hewlett-Packard official contradicted this, declaring, "We were shocked, frankly." Carroll also denied that the Texas base of Datapoint had been an element in its choice by Wyatt, who was born in Texas and lived there until coming to work for Harvard.
I.D. cards and NAMAD
Brown-Beasley's allegations also include criticism of Gibson's decision to issue bursars cards last year to faculty members and other University officers with validation dates of October 1980. Because they were produced and then mailed through an outdated list, some of the so-called 10-80s were mailed to persons who had left the University the preceeding spring, such as Neiman Fellows. In addition, the five-year cards went to some who will leave the University before 1980, such as teaching fellows.
The difficulties raised by the mailing, which The Crimson revealed last fall, aroused representatives of Harvard's libraries, who feared that invalid cards would be used to remove books fraudulently. In his appeal document, Brown-Beasley wrote, "As an irreligious (negligent, careless, indifferent, lax) person as far as the bulk of your responsibilities in Fiscal Services goes, you've most likely never asked anyone at the libraries just what that particular irreligiosity...is going to cost us, but I did ask. And do you know what I was told? It will be years before the full impact can be assessed, if indeed ever."
Brown-Beasley also contends that the NAMAD retrieval system being developed to allow Fiscal Services faster access to records on students, employees and alumni is over a month and a half late. He also questions the work of OIT analyst Shostack on the system, alleging that his testing is an expensive waste of time. It was an August 3 disagreement between the two men, who worked together when Brown-Beasley was at OIT, that led to Brown-Beasley's dismissal.
The grievance procedure
Brown-Beasley's case is further complicated by several procedural questions he has raised about his dismissal and appeal. For one, he argues that Gibson violated regulations in the personnel manual that call for "progressive" discipline of employees, including a warning letter before suspension and a suspension before discharge. One section also reads: "An employee should not be disciplined or discharged in haste or anger. If a serious incident occurs which may warrant discharge, the employee should be suspended pending investigation."
Gibson apparently did not follow these steps in disciplining Brown-Beasley, who received neither a warning letter nor a suspension. However, Edward W. Powers, associate general counsel for employee relations, called attention last week to another clause in the manual that permits "discharge without prior warning or suspension" in the case of "very serious offenses, for example, serious dishonesty, including theft of University