WHAT ARE THE MAIN DUTIES OF BRIDGE CLUB COMMITTEE MEMBERS ?................... ( Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi investigates )
Signing up to become a committee member isn't quite the same a joining a friendly gathering or family party, where you are at the heart of all decision making, but with no real responsibilities other than to sit and listen, voice a few opinions, and vote on matters of interest every now and again.
Committee members even in small social bridge  clubs are under a duty of care to serve the club and its members first and foremost. This duty can be broken down into several very distinct ones such as :
- a duty to act in good faith
- a duty not to gain personal advantage or gain by improper use of their position
- a duty not to misuse information
- a duty to carry out designated tasks and acts with due care and diligence
- a duty of confidentiality ( non-disclosure )
In essence committee members, being the elected servants of the ordinary members, must put the interests of the club ahead of their own, both collectively ( as a committee ) and individually. In some ways the job is akin to a poison chalice.....you're there to be blamed and shot at if things go wrong. Moreover whatever decision is voted upon,  there will always be critics who strongly condemn you for taking what they see as the wrong option. 
However, nothing is as problematic as balancing these two incompatible duties : the duty of non-disclosure which firmly flies in the face of a duty to whistleblow ( full disclosure ). Clearly, confidentiality matters when committees are dealing with highly sensitive personal information about members, which quite rightly should never be passed onto third parties. Yet in the interests of openess and transparency, it does seem right to inform the ordinary members of a club about wrongdoings or other injustices being carried out against particular members.... or  even the club, being a separate albeit artificial entity. 
Wherever you look in law, every duty comes with exceptions, and the duty of confidentiality ( non-disclosure ) thankfully is not absolute one. Departing from it is always justified on legal, moral and ethical grounds. Exposing a wrongdoing or injustice which results in harm or damage being done to club members often requires a brave act of whistleblowing.......that is of course,  if no other ways of correcting the situation from within the committee can be found.
Whistleblowing itself must be strictly limited to certain situations, which usually means " only in exceptional circumstances ". Key questions need to be looked into,  before claiming a duty to disclose has now taken the higher moral ground. Would non-disclosure cause more harm than good ?  Does non-disclosure put members at serious risk or harm of some kind ? Is the risk one which has wider implications for the club, or severe implications for the few ? Is there a danger of widespread abuse if the duty of non-disclosure is rigidly adhered to ?
Moreover, if the duty of confidentuality is simply used a way of covering up wrongdoing, or establishing a mafia style code of silence then everyone has the right to ignore it. If however, the duty is to ensure that sensitive and personal information doesn't fall into the wrong hands to the detriment of innocent people, then adherence to it becomes the prior objective. As for the stuff that falls between these two black and white extremes, we now unfortunately enter a large grey area where good judgement, objectivity, and moral conscience are all needed to resolve the impossible dilemma.