The members of the committee who disperse our Christmas packages for needy families refuse to tell our board who the recipients are, saying the families might be ashamed. I think some of the packages go to relatives of other board members. Do you think it is ethical to be doing this?

I am not sure what “this” is in the question I received. Is it the lack of name disclosure? The inclusion of relatives in the distribution? The poor communication between board and committee?

1) Is it ethical to refuse to inform the board members of the recipient names? Yes. Providing the names would violate the spirit of privacy law even if not necessarily the letter of the law. Such information should be limited to those who need to know, and the only people who need to know are those who decide whether or not the family meets the criteria, anyone engaged to periodically review such decisions, and those who make the actual deliveries. If a third party, such as a commercial firm or the post office, does deliveries there is no need for that third party to know that the packages are charitable in nature. The board is not on the “need-to-know” list. Some recipients might be embarrassed. Even if the distribution includes volunteer recognition as well as need, directors might be able to figure out which was which fairly easily.

However, it is very useful for fundraising and building commitment to the project to have some families or shut-ins who will speak up about the value of their package. Families can be asked if their children will write letters of thanks that might be photographed or reproduced in an annual report (without any identifiable information). Some adults can be asked if they would be willing to speak to the media or the members, perhaps along with a child. It is ethical to ask. It is not ethical to pressure. Anyone being asked must be sincerely assured that their package or future packages are not dependent on going public.

2) Is it ethical to give services to relatives or friends of board members? Yes, provided they meet the criteria and are not given preferential treatment (see also my answer from March 27, 2006, about a related question).

The board should consider asking the committee to recommend to the board whether or not relatives of board members should be eligible, and get that approved as a policy. There currently seems to be a lack of confidence and/or communication, and getting a policy agreement might sort that out amicably.

It seems reasonable to me to include relatives of board members since the board should be representative of its community. That would mean board members who have frail parents or sick family members and board members who are not well off. I see no reason their families should be penalized for having a family member who volunteers his or her time to run your organization.

3) Is it ethical for the board and committee to not cooperate on how this program is delivered? No. The board is obligated to use the resources of the organization wisely, and be accountable to the community for results.

I realize that small organizations may not have criteria other than “someone put them on the list.” If resources are that plentiful and there is a reasonable level of trust in the community, that may be sufficient criteria, but that still needs board confirmation. The board needs to set criteria that not only determines eligibility but also gives direction on ranking the households if resources are inadequate. Do elderly shut-ins get preference over poor families with kids or vice versa? Volunteers being thanked for their services over people with severe disabilities? Such questions can generate an excellent dialogue but may require tough choices.

The committee likely has such criteria and an informal ranking system (if needed) in place and can easily submit it to the board. The committee members would likely be quite happy to do this instead of being pressured to release names and possibly embarrass the recipients. The discussion about criteria could build trust between the committee and board. The current contention might have been avoided if the committee had been given proper terms of reference up-front.

The board needs to carefully review the proposed criteria and any ranking system to ensure that both are fully objective and appropriate. For example, if the funding-raising and the distribution are limited to members of a single church or religion, then religion might legitimately be part of the criteria. If the fundraising and/or distribution are within the community at large, then discrimination based on religion would probably be a violation of human rights laws. A broader distribution might mean ensuring that non-Christian families do not get packages with religious content or wrapping. It would also violate laws if the criteria gave preference to families based on marital status or sexual orientation.

Other legitimate issues for your board to consider:

• How long will the information be kept that was used to determine eligibility or ranking? It may be enough to keep track of which families were considered, so they can be contacted again next year for updated information, rather than worry about secure storage of highly sensitive data. Or use information from larger agencies and let them worry about data security rather than your small volunteer group.
• How often and how will the committee work be reviewed to ensure the policy is being consistently applied? There should be an annual statistical report from the committee to the board. Perhaps every five years one trustworthy volunteer or your auditor could review the files before the information is destroyed, and confirm policy compliance without violating privacy. Again, relying on larger agencies to suggest recipients might eliminate the need for review.

If I have not answered your question, feel free to write again!

Since 1992, Jane Garthson has dedicated her consulting and training business to creating better futures for our communities and organizations through values-based leadership. She is a respected international voice on governance, strategic thinking and ethics. Jane can be reached at jane@garthsonleadership.ca.

To submit a dilemma for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Jane directly.

Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.