Introduction: Thank you to everyone who shared their thoughts on our newest moral dilemma. After outlining the original dilemma and then adding a wrinkle to it later, we are now ready for an analysis of the dilemma from an expert in moral theology and ethics.

The dilemma that Barbara, receptionist-for-the-school-principal, now faces is a test of character—for her, for first-time principal Courtney, and for vice-principal Tom. How each of them responds says something about the kind of person each of them is the values each of them holds, and their integrity (or lack of it) underneath. This school office moral dilemma illustrates a kind of ethical conundrum that is less about one isolated decision and more about “virtue,” the pattern or kind of character each of us has.

• We certainly have a sense that Courtney is in trouble. She is a rookie principal, hired following the retirement of a much beloved predecessor, younger than many on her staff, and facing her own insecurities, ego needs, and personal issues (i.e., marriage troubles and alcohol use/abuse).
• Vice-principal Tom Williamson seems to be the wounded and brooding veteran on staff, disgruntled that he was passed over for new principal, and—following the wrinkle—having questionable moral integrity and a poor sense of the common good.
• Barbara (56) seems to have a pretty good track record, both in terms of her decade of service as principal’s receptionist and in her relationship with her former boss and other school personnel. Aware of her own discomfort level with Courtney as new principal, both their age-difference and the inevitability of new procedures and ways of doing things, Barbara tried walking the tightrope of being helpful, but not pushy. Apparently she failed, given that Courtney reprimanded her. Or, perhaps, Courtney’s outburst was illustrative of the new principal’s own nervousness on the job and personal issues.

Green

In any event, that ill-at-easeness, mishandled early on both by Courtney and Barbara, is the nub of many of the problems which have ensued. A principal however experienced or ‘green,’ has the right to expect confidentiality, cooperation, and a modicum of good will on the part of her staff, especially her personal receptionist (secretary/administrative-assistant). Early on we find Barbara rolling her eyes, smiling coyly, and saying “no comment” when asked about her new boss. Seeds of discontent sown from the outset, I fear!

So, in terms of personality and/or virtuous character, Courtney as well as Barbara should have had a “come to Jesus” conversation early on, either straightening out their working relationship or coming to some mutually agreeable understanding. Transitions from beloved bosses to new bosses, especially first-time administrators, are rarely smooth. It is in this mildly poisoned climate that Barbara “overhears” or “happens upon” very personal information about Courtney’s private life—her marriage difficulties and the somewhat mysterious rehab center appointment.

As one Busted Halo® respondent wisely said, “Barbara really doesn’t know what is going on in Courtney’s life . . . only what she ‘overheard’ and ‘acquired’ from opening an email that she shouldn’t have in the first place. She only knows what she assumes. . . . If she were questioned, she should only note what she has observed at work (i.e., calling in sick several times and being late for work).”

Trust

In terms of whether she ought to confide her second-hand knowledge of Courtney’s personal issues to Tom, another on-line respondent adds, “Considering Barbara shouldn’t know about the issues to begin with, I don’t think it appropriate that she share them.” This person went on to defend Courtney’s privacy concerning the alcohol issue, since, at this point, she seems to be doing something to confront and resolve that issue herself.

From my perspective we have a legal/moral question here, revolving around work-related vs. privacy issues. We have a question of poor communication and trust level between an employer and her confidential assistant. We have a jealous vice-principal with questionable motives. And, at this juncture, we have Barbara trying to decide what she should do—professionally and personally—with information about her employer’s personal life vis-à-vis professional conduct.

I vote whole-heartedly with the reader who wrote, “I am a big believer in talking directly with the person involved and then determine what steps to be taken.” This echoes well Jesus’ own prescription in the Gospel that we first try to deal with someone’s offense or indiscretion face-to-face, one-on-one. If that seems to have little or no effect, only then do we consider what to do next and whom to report to.

Subsidiarity

In Catholic social ethics this is succinctly summarized in a principle called “subsidiarity.” In sum, it means that conflict is best handled at the lowest level possible in the chain-of-command. We only escalate an issue, taking it to higher authority, making a bigger mountain out of it, if we are unable to find resolution at the most personal or local level.

Thus, I suggest that Barbara would be best to have a one on one conversation with Courtney, behind closed doors. She needs to acknowledge (i.e., confess) her having overheard phone conversations and reading email related to her employer’s personal life and troubles. Barbara was wrong to do so, but in an office setting, such breaches and slips are practically unavoidable. In the same breathe, Barbara needs to assure her boss that this information is privileged, confidential, and not immediately related to the principal’s work performance. Thus, Courtney has the right to take some confidential personal time off to deal with these issues, without that information being gossiped or crassly made public. This is all that I believe Barbara would be obliged to do and say.

If the conversation is going well or cordially at this point, it would be helpful to suggest to Courtney that she confide her personal issues to “someone” related to the school system—whether the superintendent, chair of the school board, her vice-principal, or someone in authority. However, it is not the receptionist’s job to mandate or coerce this professionally recommended interim step.

Spying

Barbara herself also might need to seek some support during this whole process. But she ought to choose here counselor or confidante wisely. Tom Williamson, both because of his vested interest in the principal’s job and his own unprofessional actions in ‘spying’ on Courtney, ought not to be this peer/professional confidante. Perhaps a professional counselor within(?) or outside the school system would be best.

I commend all those respondents who argued against Barbara getting “hooked” into trying to resolve Courtney’s personal issues. While Christian compassion is to be commended, Courtney’s marriage break-up, single-parenting, and substance issues are her own business, until or unless they manifest themselves in major on-the-job mistakes and incompetence. Since that has not happened to this point, and because Barbara learned about these issues “unofficially” or by happenstance, these ought not be brought into the public domain at this point. They may well play out over the next few weeks/months, but it seems to me that it is not Barbara’s duty or responsibility to “blow the whistle” at this early point in Courtney’s own dilemma and process.

Finally, it is commendable, now, in advance, for all of us to check into the proper chain-of-command or protocol in our respective institutions. If and when it comes time to report the misconduct of another—after all one to one and subsidiary steps have been taken—one still should only raise the issue or conflict to the next level higher (i.e. office manager, regional manager, human resource officer, etc.). In the case of Barbara and Courtney some readers suggested telling all to Tom (the vice-principal). Others suggested to the superintendent or the school board. One even recommended calling the police. Sadly, some folks are tempted or prone to alert the press or media before exhausting all in-house options.

In no way do I want to condone cover-ups or company-wide corruption. Sometimes we have to go to the top or even go outside the system when conflict or corruption is systemic. But I recommend that when faced with a personnel or interpersonal dilemma, one starts by breathing deeply, taking one’s own pulse, and asking how can I impact this situation for the good at the lowest or least invasive level. Barbara and Courtney were off to a bad start. Tom hovering like a hungry lion only compounded the tension. I think it was an old Simon & Garfunkle song that begins, “Slow down, you’re movin’ too fast.”

Need to get up to speed with the first part of the dilemma or “The Wrinkle?” Read the original dilemma and then read the wrinkle and vote/comment on one or both before reading our moral theologian’s analysis.