When in Doubt, Inform

A prominent board member of the non-profit at the center of the Penn State child rape scandal just admitted that he was asleep at the wheel. Actually, he charged the organization’s staff with keeping him in the dark. Either way, this is the kind of malfeasance that is far too common in the nonprofit sector. And it shouldn’t take a front page story to focus attention on it.

Staff at the organization, The Second Mile, learned of allegations against its founder, Jerry Sandusky, a year before the board member first learned about them in a newspaper article. Chances are that all board members were equally clueless about the allegations (unless some board members were also complicit in withholding information from fellow directors).

The board member in question is a state senator. His presence on the board undoubtedly opened doors for the organization and gave it credibility in certain quarters that it might not otherwise have. Perhaps the board membership was a feather in his cap that helped the senator politically as well. Whatever both sides sought or got out of their relationship, it was apparently a very flawed one.

There is generally a bright line between the kinds of day-to-day operational issues that staff needn’t bother board members with, and larger concerns that impact the organization’s credibility, financial viability or other big picture matters. And while there may be some gray area on either side of that line, the default should always be to inform the board when in doubt.

Some executive directors treat boards as the legal requirement they are and little else, tolerating their existence but always trying to minimize their role (and, ultimately, their effectiveness). Some board members like the title more than the responsibility. There’s plenty of room between those two approaches, and it’s probably where most staff and board member find themselves.

It is hard to attract and retain good board members, and that might be why a well-intentioned executive director will try not to burden them with a messy situation she thinks she can handle herself. That might be the right instinct in many circumstances, but systems should be in place to help staff recognize when to err on the side of informing at least the board chair.

The scandal at Penn State is layered with instances in which information was inappropriately withheld and authorities turned a blind eye to circumstances under their control. The Second Mile’s role in the scandal may turn out to be relatively small, but its staff and board seem to have been as dysfunctional as other more primary figures.