This is one of those stories that have to be true because it’s too crazy for someone to make up. Here’s the link to the story http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14156077/detail.html, and here’s the link to the video: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/14156089/index.html. There are some lessons in here for all of us who sit on any type of a board. Take a minute to either read the article or watch the video so the rest of what you read is taken in context.

So, is anyone else wondering why the board was investigating an anonymous letter? Since when do we get to point a finger at someone and then walk away? Our legal system says that a person, or in this case a funeral home is innocent until proven guilty. So what happened here?

The accuser made anonymous allegations, and then the funeral home had to defend themselves; the accuser didn’t have to prove anything. And what does this say about the board? Don’t they have to build a reputation that they are trustworthy and don’t betray confidences? By investigating this, the board has set a precedent that an accuser doesn’t have to come forward. What’s the motivation for any future accuser to provide their name to this board now since they know they don’t have to? Anyone can accuse any funeral home of anything and simply walk away. The investigation of the board should begin with following up with the accuser, asking what their complaint is, how they have been violated by what happened, and what they would like to see as a resolution.

If this board required a name with a complaint then this probably wouldn’t have hit the media. And here’s why it shouldn’t have. There can be no satisfactory resolution in the case, no one knows who these organs belonged to, and since they were organs, and not bone, there is nothing to return anyway. So the funeral home may well get fined, and a slap on the hand, but how can they resolve it other than to say, “We won’t do it again.” Meanwhile, every family who experienced the death a loved one in 2003 and used that funeral home is wondering if their loved one’s organs were involved in this situation, and the reality is that the organs probably came from coroner’s office if it was all one type of organ. Who was it that started this complaint without regard for the families, knowing full well that this couldn’t be resolved? Oh, that’s right, we don’t know.

Since the two employees who were in question no longer work there, my inference is that one of them “anonymously” reported this incident. So he/she committed the “crime”, pointed the finger at the funeral home, who may or may have not known this was going on…. The “perpetrator” is off the hook, and the funeral home takes the bad press hit. If someone is reporting an “anonymous” crime, chances are they were involved, somehow, some way.

This is bad policy for any board of any kind to investigate anonymous complaints.

It sets up a scenario that the accused has to defend themselves instead of the accuser proving their case.

It leads to lack of credibility of the board to keep the confidences of those reporting legitimate concerns.

The board may just be protecting someone who actually committed a crime within the nature of the complaint.
It can lead to a proliferation of illegitimate complaints that will only waste the time of the board members while they could/should be investigating legitimate complaints.