CONSTITUTION MATTERS...............( Article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )

Club constitutions, drawn up by committees long gone ,  are then interpreted years later by different committees voted in at AGMs. But how do modern day committees go about interpreting the clauses drafted by those , who were brought up in a society with a completely different set of values and attitudes?  
The harsh reality of a modern day club committee is that its members are usually voted in on a tidal wave of apathy , allowing the despots within the group to dominate the meetings and run the club as they see fit. This process of seizing and implementing control often sees the committee falling back on the constitution when it suits them , or turning a blind eye to its provisions when it doesn't. Despots will never see themselves as servants of those who voted them in , only their masters.
Abuse of power comes in many disguises but two of the most sinister forms focus on silencing dissenters and expelling members they dislike , especially those who seek to question and challenge the actions and decisions of the committee members.  Every club will have a few awkward members seeking to cast a critical eye of what the committee is getting up to , quick to expose and broadcast any instances of wrongdoing , corruption and incompetence. This often drives committees to operate in complete secrecy , imposing a code of silence on its members by reminding them of the importance of collective responsibility and confidentiality.
Typically, a committee will see its critics as troublemakers and/or enemies , and dissenters as undesirable elements  within the club. In every case the committee longs to see the back of them , harbouring strong desires to have such destabilising forces silenced or removed , in order to restore harmony and peace back into the club.
Thankfully ,  most committees can turn to a cleverly drafted clause within their constitution which goes along the following lines :
" Investigations will be carried out against those members who the Management Committee believe are responsible for alleged misconduct , which it suspects may potentially be injurious to the character or interests of the club , endanger the good order of the club , its public reputation o the game of.........more general ; and take disciplinary action as appropriate against the members concerned. "
What a catch-all clause that is ! So many ambiguous words , all capable of being given wide , all encompassing meanings    : alleged , suspects , potentially , misconduct , injurious , character, interests , good order , public reputation . How does anyone go about defining these words and setting appropriate boundaries as to their sensible , common sense meanings. For if the widest possible interpretations are given, then a ruthless and robust committee would appear to have the constitutional backing to sling out a member for alleged whistle blowing , such as passing on documents deemed to be controversial or sending private e-mails to other club members raising concerns about the suitability of people holding senior officer posts . 
The issue here of course is whether or not the clause is used to hide and cover up the truth exposed by the whistle blower , as opposed to a more legitimate aim of protecting the committee from damaging and malicious material likely to bring shame or ridicule upon the club. 
Clearly , this involves asking the key question : were the whistle blower's actions justified or not? Members are surely entitled to pass on facts which are true , or perceived to be true, and to make fair comments in a society which prides itself on the right to free speech. Exposing wrongdoing, corruption and incompetence are not acts of betrayal or disloyalty , and it is right and proper that committees should be made accountable for their failures and shortcomings. However , when lies, malicious gossip and evil plots are involved , then the errant member cannot use the defence of justification.  His/her motives become highly questionable, being far more likely to reflect a vindictive desire to undermine the reputation of the club and/ or the committee. 
Yet which people are best able to judge the actions of members and to decide whether or not they are in breach of this all embracing disciplinary clause ?  If the committee are expected to deal with this difficult task , then how confident can anyone be that a logical , objective and common sense approach will be adopted. Victims never make the best judges. Vengeance will usually dictate their thoughts allowing their bias and prejudice to run riot.  Only impartial outsiders have any chance of being relied upon to do such a job. Even ordinary club members with their cosy, close knit friendships , closed minds and misplaced loyalties, would be prone to take immediate sides . Indeed , the apathy within the wider, hugely indifferent ranks of the membership often translates into a vote of confidence in the committee, irrespective of what the committee gets up to. An apathy that says it is better not to rock the boat or question the committee's right to do as it pleases.
A frightening scenario wouldn't you say ?
.