Like the Family No Social Media Policy, my family's Confidentiality of Family Finances Policy is clear on its face but is nonetheless subject to broad and rather inconsistent application. When I was first provided the Policy, I honestly thought the Finances provision would be easy to comply with. What can be more straightforward than this:
Any individual member's Financial Information shall be held in the strictest confidence. No member shall seek information regarding any other member's Financial Information, including, but not limited to: current, previous or future income, investment portfolio performance, retirement portfolio performance or any other indicia of economic status. Under no circumstances shall any member disclose its Financial Information or the Financial Information of any other member to anyone outside the organization, such disclosure to be deemed distasteful and reflecting poorly on the entire organization and therefore prohibited. Violations will be handled under the Corporate Communications Policy.
Now I admit that as an attorney with decades of experience under my belt, I should have known better. But recall I hadn't even been informed there was a Policy (and in my defense, I suspect that fact may have been withheld from me on purpose). Anyway, the Family's application of this clause proves that you really cannot leave anything in a Policy open to interpretation. (People love to criticize attorneys, but honestly I would have done a much better job drafting this Policy than whatever junior associate the Family hired.)
As it turns out, you can drive a truck through the phrase "indicia of economic status."
So the organization has collectively decided — albeit informally and without proper Executive Committee approval — that the term should be interpreted as narrowly as possible. Accordingly, direct discussion of income remains strictly prohibited while unlimited, repeated and comprehensive commentary is permitted regarding:
Decisions regarding retirement, work schedules and time off of work are, of course, subject to the most searching inquiries, given their obvious economic implications and status as irresistible fodder for rampant speculation.
In retrospect, it should have occurred to me immediately that I myself had engaged in such discussions in the past and that therefore the Policy couldn't be taken at face value. But honestly, it completely slipped my mind given that I had these discussions when my own handbags and wine were 3000 miles away from the eyes of other members of the organization.
Now admittedly most members of the organization remain wary of the Communications Policy (recall no Aggrieved Party is allowed to communicate with any Offender) so these discussions take place when the member being opined about is out of the room. But some members take the position that the Communications Policy doesn't apply to these discussions so they are inclined to publicly comment on, for example, the color of the bottom of one's shoes at family gatherings (let's just say I learned my lesson early that red soles should not be worn at these functions).
The bottom line is that the organization therefore knows absolutely everything about everyone's finances (or at least it thinks it does) while technically remaining in full compliance with the Policy. The attorney in me objects to this — particularly given the inconsistent interpretations applied by different members — although the member in me recognizes that squashing fun was not a Policy goal (strictly speaking).
We do all agree, however, that disclosing Financial Information outside of the organization is unquestionably in bad taste.