Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Ethical quandary

It has been part of the protocol of every nominating committee on which I have sat, or which I chaired, for the meetings to begin with a reminder that all the discussion of the committee is absolutely confidential.

In a recent instance, the committee was charged with filling 12 spots on the board; 6 more are for appointment by the president. Through an error by the chair, we actually invited 13 for our 12 spots, and the president rescued us (me) from embarrassment by letting our extra be one of her six. She also suggested that we share with her the names we considered seriously that did not make the cut, for her consideration as her five appointees. Mostly from inattention, those names did not get passed along. That is probably NOT the reason that, in the six months since, none of those appointments has been made.

Now, however, the president has asked me to provide our overflow names, which I am frankly not sure I can find. But assuming I am able to put my hands on the missing file -- is providing this information a violation of the confidentiality strictures? My gut says that the spirit of the sharing is benevolent, and therefore it's okay to pass the names along; but a nagging voice says Confidential is confidential. Accordingly, if I find it, I'll pass the list along; but this puts me on record that I was at least sensitive to the issue.

NOTE: As I was brooding about this, I discovered a resource called Non-profit Ethicist, part of Non-Profit Quarterly -- and I also raised the question with their experts. Maybe they've posted a response, but three weeks later, I havne't had a direct response. I also looked, at least in the obviuus places, for the notes that might have had the names of those who didn't make the cut -- no luck. (Or maybe that is luck.) Nor has the pres asked again for the information. So the issue remains, even if the quandary is dormant.

No comments: