The federal government recently came out with policies on whistle-blowers. Working in a nonprofit organization, who protects whistle-blowers? I have encountered staff who work in nonprofits who feel that if they cannot go to the executive director, there is no one else to turn to – not even the board of directors – for fear of getting fired.

Every organization should have a policy about how staff and volunteers should bring forward concerns, and what alternatives are available if they do not feel safe using the primary channels. The policy should include protection from reprisal. The board and senior staff cannot deem themselves as governing or managing well enough until they have approved and communicated such policies, and put some kind of monitoring in place.

However, I caution you that even the new federal policy will not fully protect whistle-blowers, though it should help. Most external whistle-blowers suffer reprisals that no law can prevent, such as being shunned by co-workers and neighbours, denied promotions even years later, or fired for fabricated reasons after the monitoring period is over. The process may be anonymous, but people make guesses, and in a small unit or organization only a few people might know about any particular issue.

A complaint about your manager is bound to damage the working relationship. Some whistle-blowers find they have to change careers or communities. Think very strongly about how serious the issue is before you take such risks. It is lucky for us that some people do have such courage, but make it about the right issue. If several employees concerned about the same issue act together, this reduces the likelihood of reprisals.

Only in cases of urgent public health and safety, such as a toxic spill your organization refuses to report, is external whistle-blowing justified in advance of trying to work through internal channels.

Also, keep in mind that whistle-blowing is about the public interest. It is not about perceived unfairness in work distribution or schedules or promotions, unless a human rights law is being violated. If you attempt to whistle-blow about something that specifically affects you, it will be perceived as self-serving and manipulative.

Whistle-blowing is most often about unethical practices such as significant misuse of public monies, meaning on activities that do not serve the mission. Paying a spouse for fictional services is an example. Whistle-blowers may also bring forward illegal activities such as theft or sexual harassment, so the procedures need to deal with who reports this to the police or human rights body. Dishonesty may also be grounds; an earlier column dealt with the finance person realizing the director was giving false information to the board. A disagreement about program priorities or how to allocate funds among priorities is not grounds for whistle-blowing even if you disagree with the decisions being made.

In small nonprofits, with few if any layers of management, the internal options are limited. If your immediate supervisor is part of the problem, then you go to the next person in the chain of command, if there is one, or to a designated position such as director of human resources or internal audit – but those positions do not exist in a small nonprofit. If your supervisor is the executive director, or the executive director is the problem, then, as you ask, where can you turn?

That is where the board comes in. The board has options. It can hire the organization’s lawyer or external accountant to take such calls. Because of corporate governance laws and expectations, particularly for private companies based in or traded in the USA, more accountants are providing that service. The board can hire an ethics hotline service, such as ConfidenceLine™. It can also designate a board member, such as the chair of the audit committee, to take such inquiries, or ask a trusted former director to volunteer in that capacity. In the absence of a board policy, I suggest that the chair must be prepared to take such calls.

Even if there are designated persons, any board member receiving such a call must handle it; that individual may be the only person the staff member trusts enough to call.

It is important that the designated recipient not be perceived as biased for or against the executive director, as any calls that reach this far will likely be about the ED or about issues the ED has chosen not to act on. And whoever takes the calls has to understand what processes are to be followed to protect privacy, ensure fairness and avoid reprisals as much as possible. Note that concerns have been raised, particularly in Europe, about adequate protection for those accused via anonymous methods.

If the call is not about the ED, the procedure will probably require the board member to give the issue to the ED to investigate, with communication back to the caller via the person he or she originally called. There must always be such communication back, to build trust in the system and let the whistle-blower know that his or her concern was taken seriously.

Can a whistle-blower be fired? Unfortunately, yes, except perhaps in the federal government and where company policies prohibit it. They may have a good unjust dismissal case, but I think the organization may also have a civil case if its reputation was damaged without grounds.

Vague suspicions are poor grounds for whistle-blowing. Firsthand knowledge should, if possible, be supported by witnesses or documents, such as a set of real outputs from the financial software versus what the board is being given. Even when you come forward with credible information, ask for an investigation, with due process, not for immediate disciplinary action.

In summary, all staff and volunteers should have appropriate internal routes for internal whistle-blowing. The organization should have processes to act on the allegations, and policies to provide both fairness and protection from reprisal to the extent they can. But much more importantly, organizations should minimize the need for whistle-blowing by:

• hiring only employees with integrity;
• putting good internal controls in place, to reduce the chance of wrong-doing and to allow management to quickly spot any that slips through;
• operating with transparency so disclosure is routine – wrong-doing can flourish in an atmosphere of secrecy;
• communicating and acting on shared values.

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.