Penn State, Sandusky, and Board Governance

There has been much discussion about the question of board culpability for the sins of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State and at his foundation, Second Mile.

In all the hand wringing about Penn State/Second Mile/Sandusky there is an underlying perplexity regarding, “what about the boards?” What is the business of accountability and responsibility and assuring both? People have no problem fixing blame and responsibility to individuals. We muddle around when it comes to the boards. We usually ask, “Did the boards react appropriately?” This belies our underlying mental model of governance by question-asking and reaction. We rarely ask, “What responsibility did the board(s) have to pro-actively minimize the likelihood of a Sandusky?” We have a hard time figuring that out. This comes from our view of board governance and the lack of clarity, even befuddlement, over execution of board responsibility to delegate and assure accountability, first, by assuring that board values (including the unwanted) are expressed and then reasonably, yet sufficiently, implemented.