Note: Please read all updates listed below.
Update 8/24: After posting the update of 8/22, I e-mailed Ms. Walters, Goodwill of Central Virginia's Director of Marketing & Communications:
"As promised, I amended my blog post to reflect the information you shared with me. If for some reason there are inaccuracies in my latest update, please let me know so I can correct them immediately."
An e-mail I received from Ms. Walters this morning explained that there are some remaining inaccuracies and that Goodwill would appreciate that they be corrected. These changes mostly concern what the alleged eyewitness told me. It's important to note that there is a discrepancy between what this individual, who claimed to have been on-site at the time, and Goodwill states -- namely that, based on the surveillance video, only the former employee and the private investigator were on-site at the time, thus putting into question the accuracy of what this "eyewitness" allegedly saw and heard.
As Goodwill is most likely aware, it is common practice, in support of the blogosphere's spirit of transparency, to correct factual inaccuracies -- especially when they are substantive in nature -- in such a way that readers can follow both the original "error" and the correction. Furthermore, due to earlier versions of a post being captured electronically, "overwriting" entire posts is not recommended.
Therefore, I've attempted to reconfigure the text of the original post to reflect the facts as presented by Ms. Walters via the written edits she submitted to me, in conjunction with the changes made on 8/22. However, I also attempted to stay as true as possible to the story shared with me by the alleged eyewitness in order to accurately report what I was told, keeping in mind that the eyewitness statements are simply one person's interpretation of what actually occurred.
First a bit of background. Over the past decade I've donated many items to various non-profit organizations, and in the past year to Goodwill of Central Virginia. Most of the time when I stopped at the local donation site a man I'll call "Joe" helped me. "Joe" had been employed by Goodwill for several years and was well-known in the shopping center where the donation site was located. But yesterday "Joe" wasn't there.
Here's what I was told by an eyewitness someone who claimed to be an eyewitness:
A woman came to the donation site with a sob story of how she had just moved into a new place, had little money, and no furniture to put in it. She saw gently used baby equipment at the site and wanted to know if maybe -- please -- she could take it, even though this wasn't really allowed.
Now, "Joe" no doubt knew that he should ignore this plea. But after taking pity on the woman, "Joe" relented.
Shortly thereafter, "Joe" was fired from his position.
So here are the questions, assuming the incident as outlined above is true and accurate:
- Should "Joe" have allowed the woman to have the baby equipment? No, as it wasn't his to give away.
- But would he have been inclined on his own to give someone these items, without being induced?
- And weren't "Joe's" actions in line -- in spirit, at least -- with Goodwill's mandate of helping people in need? Goodwill's position is that "the resale of donated items funds critical education, training, and career services to help people in need. Donations are the lifeblood of our organization. Fewer donations = less dollars for programs = less people served"
- Did he, through his actions, violate the organization's Code of Ethical Conduct?
- Did he personally profit from this action, and should this have factored into Goodwill's decision to terminate him?
- Was the punishment excessive, and would an option instead have been to give him a reprimand and unpaid time off from work?
Goodwill of Central Virginia's leadership is comprised of several attorneys. Perhaps they were consulted, or helped establish policies, that govern situations as the one mentioned here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL POST OF 8/19:
It doesn't take much to question the reputation of an organization -- even an unconfirmed story such as the one outlined below.
First a bit of background. Over the past decade I've donated many items to various non-profit organizations, and in the past year to Goodwill of Central Virginia. Most of the time when I stopped at the local donation site a man I'll call "Joe" helped me. "Joe" had been employed by Goodwill for several years and was well-known in the shopping center where the donation site was located. But yesterday "Joe" wasn't there, apparently the victim of a sting.
Here's what I was told by an eyewitness someone who claimed to be an eyewitness:
A woman came to the donation site with a sob story of how she had just moved into a new place, had little money, and no furniture to put in it. She saw some old pieces at the site and wanted to know if maybe -- please -- she could take it, even though this wasn't really allowed.
Now, "Joe" no doubt knew that he should ignore this plea, regardless of how desperate the woman appeared (and according to the eyewitnesI spoke with, person who claimed to be an eyewitness, she layed it on pretty thick). But after taking pity on the woman, and apparently given the old condition of the furniture, which the eyewitness told me would likely have been disposed of anyhow, "Joe" relented.
A few moments later, the conversation having been secretly recorded, "Joe" was fired from his position by the very women, actually an employee of Goodwill, who entrapped him (strictly speaking, entrapment is a legal term that involves a law enforcement officer or his agent inducing or persuading someone to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; here the women was neither a part of law enforcement or an agent thereof).
So here are the questions, assuming the incident as outlined above is true and accurate:
- Should "Joe" have allowed the woman to have the furniture? No, as it wasn't his to give away.
- But would he have been inclined on his own to give someone these items, without being induced?
- And weren't "Joe's" actions in line -- in spirit, at least -- with Goodwill's mandate of helping people in need?
- Did he, through his actions, violate the organization's Code of Ethical Conduct?
- Did he personally profit from this action, and should this have factored into Goodwill's decision to terminate him?
- Was the punishment excessive, and would an option instead have been to give him a reprimand and unpaid time off from work?
Goodwill of Central Virginia's leadership is comprised of several attorneys. Perhaps they were consulted, or helped establish policies, that govern situations as the one mentioned here.
Update 8/21:
I spoke with the supervisor for the donation site, Henry White, and told him that I've been a regular donor to Goodwill and wondered why "Joe" was no longer employed there. Mr. White commented that "[Joe] went on to better things." When I mentioned to him the story I've been hearing, he said "that's not what happened" and referred me to Human Resources.
I called HR Supervisor Michelle Danner and explained to her what I had heard and wondered whether she would comment on the situation, but she referred me on to Missy Murdock, Vice President, HR.
After telling Ms. Murdock that I'm a regular donor to the organization and that I'm concerned about what I'd heard, she stated that she couldn't speak about this. I also mentioned that I work in PR and that, by not commenting, the impression that "Joe" had been somehow set-up was the only one left with the public. Ms. Murdock repeated that she could not comment and thanked me for the call.
--------------------------------
From a public relations perspective, is the negative word-of-mouth surrounding the circumstances of Joe's termination -- which, by the way, is apparently being was characterized as a voluntary quitting by the alleged witness -- worth Goodwill maintaining a "we will not comment under any circumstances" policy?
While I appreciate Goodwill of Central Virginia's general policy of not commenting on confidential employee matters, the refusal to make a statement explaining its side of this story, even in very broad terms -- and instead leaving the impression that a former employee was terminated under questionable circumstances -- probably isn't an entirely productive approach.
Additional note:
I've edited this post several times as I've received more information and tried to address the points made in the comments.
Update 8/22:
Aimée P. Walters, Goodwill of Central Virginia's Director of Marketing & Communications, contacted me via e-mail today, and we had a phone conversation about Goodwill's mission, policies and procedures, codes of conduct, employee training, and, of course, the incident discussed above, without divulging any confidences she is obligated to keep either by law or policy. She also mentioned that tomorrow she intends to leave a comment on this post, in order to explain, in the organization's own words, what transpired. And, just to note, Ms. Walters consented to our conversation being "on record."
According to Ms. Walters, Goodwill has a very strict policy governing donated items and loss prevention that is communicated to its employees. Furthermore, it lets its employees know that donation sites are canvassed at random -- which is what Ms. Walters said took place here:
-- A licensed, female private investigator (who is a former undercover police officer), was canvassing several of the donation sites on the day in question. She approached "Joe" and had a 16-second conversation with him, which was recorded on a surveillance video w/o audio, as permissible by law.
-- Based on the communication between the investigator and "Joe," which was transcribed by the investigator (the specifics of which were not shared with me), a policy violation took place that was grounds for termination.
-- The incident did not involve furniture, but instead baby items.
-- The surveillance video did not indicate that any other person besides "Joe" and the investigator were present.
Not directly related to the facts of this situation, but nevertheless interesting, was that Ms. Walters said she first learned about this post from someone outside Virginia (I believe she said California and Arizona, and maybe she'll confirm that in her upcoming comment) who filled out Goodwill's online form, perhaps this one, and provided a link to the post itself. Only later did she find out, when speaking with Ms. Murdock, that I had contacted Goodwill directly -- it had apparently been Ms. Murdock's understanding that I was simply a concerned donor, which is why my inquiry was not passed on to Ms. Walters. Mentioning that I work in PR did not trigger me being put in touch with Ms. Walters, who deals with media-related matters.
