Page 4

GAY PEOPLE'S CHRONICLE May, 1990

Living Room

Continued from Page 1

no employees to work and handle the situation then there's no sense in having the money." He noted that the interim policies were still not accepted and no new ones had been issued when he left in April.

Grievance filed. It was during February and March that the incomplete policy guidelines, Whitehurst's frustration and stress, and the inconsistent demands of his supervisors came together in a series of events that led to his resignation.

As his vacation week of February 16 approached, Whitehurst had several discussions with board member Dolores Noll, the Center's acting executive director, about vacation time and compensatory time issues. (Noll is responsible for dealing with the Center staff's personnel matters.) According to Whitehurst, Noll first approved and then, several days later, denied his request to "carry over" into the next pay period excess hours worked.

Previously, these types of requests had been informally granted as long as the staff member completed work assignments. Whitehurst explained, “We've been allowed to have flexibility in our hours, even though there was no compensatory time." (Noll was contacted by the Chronicle but declined to discuss her decisions, noting that this was an internal personnel matter and all questions would have to be directed to the board president.)

Whitehurst was instructed to be at work the rest of the week, although he had already worked the required number of hours. Being faced with a dilemma-having completed his hours but feeling if he didn't show up for work he would be considered insubordinate he placed a telephone call to Laycock which did not resolve the problem. Whitehurst decided to initiate the grievance procedure described in the policies by submitting a formal written grievance to Laycock on February 12. Feeling the stress of the situation, he remained at home the rest of that week, calling in sick each day. He recalls, "My refusal to work was not a strike. I had already put in my hours. They weren't going to pay me any carry-over time, therefore I wasn't going to work for nothing."

During the week Whitehurst stayed home, he talked with several of the donors and members of the Center. According to Whitehurst, "there was nothing in the grievance procedure that says you can't tell anybody about it. One of the donors asked for a copy of the grievance; I sent it, and got punished."

The punishment Whitehurst refers to was a two-week suspension without pay voted by the board because he distributed his grievance. Determining that Whitehurst's actions fit the category of "grossly inappropriate behavior that jeopardizes the agency," the wording specified in the policy manual, the board imposed the maximum disciplinary action short of termination. He was suspended February 26.

Whitehurst and another source close to the incident questioned why such a severe action was taken by the board. According to Whitehurst, "I had never received a performance review since I became a staff member which I was supposed toand I never received any disciplinary warnings of any kind up until then. I think it very unfair to give me the maximum penalty and deny me half my month's income just before the first of the month, without even giving me a fair hearing."

Several days prior to the suspension, Laycock did provide Whitehurst with a detailed formal response to his grievance. The grievance and response cover several issues dating back eight months; the documents show that both Laycock and Whitehurst found frustration, confusion and misleading statements due to informal or non-existent policies. The incident of Whitehurst's absence the week of February 12 was not considered an act of insubordination due

to "extenuating circumstances," according to the board president's response.

The approach, as well as the answers to the response, only increased Whitehurst's dissatisfaction: "On one hand the [board talks to the staff] about us being a family and working together, and how they understand that these few people working together is stressful; and yet Laycock handled this grievance so bureaucratically... I think they are imposing a lot of new rules before they've even sat down and developed the personnel policies.”

The Living Room evolves. Following his return to the Center on March 12, Whitehurst found that the Living Room programs were functioning on their own. "When I got back, no one told me what I needed to do, what I needed to catch up on, what I had missed," according to him. Earlier in the year, he and Sharon Thomas, the other Living Room coordinator, agreed to program changes that would offer more social, peer support and client directed activities. These were in process during Whitehurst's personnel dispute and suspension.

According to the Center director of services Aubrey Wertheim, who was also Whitehurst's direct supervisor for program activity, the changes to the Living Room were a natural evolution as the program found better ways to meet the needs of the HIV spectrum it supports. During the last week of Whitehurst's suspension, Wertheim led a meeting with the Living Room's volunteers about its new directions. This meeting was the last step in the process of having the volunteers start the new focus, and had been scheduled before Whitehurst's difficulties. In the interview, Whitehurst felt that he should have run or attended the meeting. Wertheim did not agree, citing the fact that the volunteers were already familiar with the changes, and that a suspended employee is excluded from activities during the suspension period.

Feeling excluded and ignored after his return, and finding that his health was not improving, Paul Whitehurst finally decided to resign from the Center on April 2. "I didn't leave because of the grievance; I left because my health was deteriorating, and I couldn't take the stress of the job any longer-that's not all the Center's fault. But a lot of what was going on at the Center was just exacerbating my stress," said the former program coordinator.

With his departure, the Living Room continues to function with Sharon Thomas as a coordinator. Thomas presently oversees the services and volunteer aspects of the program and is a paid staff member of the Center. Most of the work continues to be performed by the many volunteers who have contributed their time to make the Living Room a respected achievement. According to Wertheim, about 80 percent

of the volunteers are HIV positive, and more volunteers are always welcome.

Laycock is also proud of the success of the Living Room, and feels that the combination of Thomas, Wertheim and the volunteers will allow the program to continue without interruption. "Obviously we wouldn't want this to remain a permanent situation, but in the interim the Living Room will be able to function okay," commented the board president. Both Laycock and Wertheim expect that another coordinator will be named, but the board president did not indicate when that would happen.

Wertheim explained that the Living Room's new direction is already in place, offering more social settings such as a video night; providing one-on-one peer counseling and support; and maintaining a "client continuum" to keep a concerned eye out, through a network of doctors and members, for the health

condition and location of the people who

use the Living Room.

Growing pains. The incidents leading to Whitehurst's departure made the board acutely aware of just some of the problems they face with the growth of the

Center. These include the need for

policies that are clear and pertain to specific challenges the Center faces, such as hiring people who are HIV posi-

tive.

One of the problems Whitehurst addressed in his grievance concerned his

HIV status and how the board and other

staff reacted to that. It was also one of the reasons he felt he had to leave. "I resigned over the fact that I don't think the Center is prepared at this point to run a program by the HIV spectrum. I don't think they're prepared to deal with the staffing problems involved," according to the former employee.

The existing policies were a major part of the problem. "In these interim personnel policies, there were no special considerations for the HIV spectrum. I think there should have been. These could apply to any chronic illness, also," said Whitehurst. "I think it ludicrous to have a program where you require people to be chronically ill and then you don't provide for any kind of safeguards for the fact that they are chronically ill."

As president, Laycock responded to this criticism, noting that the board is aware of the issues. “We recognize that when you hire staff, which we do in the Living Room, specifically on the basis of their HIV status, then obviously there are going to be issues around illness and time off from work. And that is one of the issues that we're looking into with the policy revisions that we're doing now, so that those matters will be adequately addressed. We understand that."

Aubrey Wertheim agreed, stating that, as a staff member, he has seen progress being made by the board's personnel committee to create policies that

are "equitable and sophisticated, especially in the area of HIV-positive people being hired. The Center is a pioneering organization in designing policies to accommodate them."

As far as the policies in general, Laycock feels that he is on schedule, now that the funding proposals are complete. There is much to be done, says the board president: "We have to review job descriptions, and deal with other issues that staff have brought to my attention that they would like looked at. All of those, of course, will get addressed, pretty much in sequence. That process will take a couple of months, so I've told staff I hope to have the critical things completed sometime in the summer. Basically, I think we're on track."

The Lesbian-Gay Community Service Center of Greater Cleveland is reaching a critical stage in its growth. Laycock is pleased with the current board of trustees, citing the "extraordinary calibre" of the group and is optimistic about the future.

"Our budget has from maybe around $20,000 a year, to grown substantially around $100,000 a year, and will be growing beyond that. We used to have maybe two or three programs at any particular time, now we have 13 to 15," said Laycock. "The Center is growing dramatically and it's moving from being an informal organization, operated primarily if not entirely by volunteers, to an organization which is more professional, has paid staff, has more complicated finances, and more complicated programs." He views the growing pains as a positive indicator: "It's a sign of the health of the Center. The fact that we are growing, and the fact that we are going through the adjustments that go with this growth shows that the Center is succeed-

ing and moving in the correct direction."

As the Center and the Living Room program face the future, none of the persons involved with Whitehurst's dispute carry much resentment from the past. According to Laycock, "Paul made an important contribution to the Center. He was there when the Living Room opened, and as the program coordinator he was a valuable addition to the staff. We all benefitted by having him in the position."

Whitehurst stressed that "there are caring people at the Center and it does wonderful things." He did not want his personal conflicts to overshadow the good work being done by the Center and the Living Room. He also noted that "of all of the people in the Center, I think Dolores is the fairest, even though it was what happened between her and I that started all of this."

Paul Whitehurst's reflections on the Living Room:

"The Living Room program is wonderful for, but very difficult to introduce in Cleveland, because of the empowerment movement. Empowerment is a hard thing to get started here. It's not easy to come out about being gay, much less about being HIV positive. And we still have a lot of roadblocks in the medical professiondoctors and social workers who, I think, are not empowering their patients or their clients

"The things that are going on at the Living Room are good. The massage therapies have been very successful and well-received by the people in the spectrum. The library and literature rack have been used; and it's just the whole idea that people are meeting other people who are positive in a setting other than the few support groups that are going on. They can meet one on

one.

"I spent hours convincing people that the need to include the HIV spectrum

population in what was going on in this city was important. We are now being invited to speak, we're invited to conferences, we're invited to sit on networks and consortiums and our opinions are being taken seriously. I don't think that a lot of traditional agencies or traditional medical people necessarily are excited that we have to be considered, but they're turning around and recognizing that it's necessary. My participation in things like the HIV Volunteer Network that's with the Health Issues Taskforce (HIT), the Housing Council, the Data Collection Consortium-those kind of things have brought to light the need for HIV invol-

vement.

"I put in a lot of hard work at trying to convince people in the spectrum that it's okay to walk into the Living Room, that you don't have to be embarrassed by being HIV positive, that it is not

something that you should hide--especially from your own community.

"I think that I helped to put a face on AIDS. There's also a lot of other people out there doing it with HIT and other organizations. I joke sometimes at different meetings I go to, saying, 'You know, I've become the poster child at some of these meetings.' People look over at me and say, 'Well, he's openly HIV positive-not necessarily that there isn't anyone else in the room who's HIV positive-but he's the one we all know.'

"What I tried to do there was bring as many people that are in the spectrum together so that they at least have one place where they can talk about it. Not everyone goes to a support group, not everyone is gung-ho about volunteering at an organization. But the Living Room was a place where they could drop in and be nobody if they wanted to, or be a friend, or be a volunteer.”▼