This sounds reasonable enough in principle. My only objection is that once we start using the law to enforce more than minimum standards, it gets twisted to be used on those with good intentions while ignoring the worst offenders. Asset forfeiture is a prime example of this in action.
Often it's not that the reason something wasn't done can always be pinned down to this or that but more that did what happened really rise to a level that either got the right person attention or did what occur rise to the level someone figured they just figured it simply could no longer be ignored. Unfortunately it's not always because it was right or wrong.
I do know from my experience at least that the organization one works for generally does take on the character of the person in charge. Whoever it is can't always be aware of everything that transpires but the organization for a good part does take on the characteristics of the person at the top,