" WE DID NOTHING WRONG " : THE MANTRA OF ALL COMMITTEES............ ( Article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )

Albert Einstein once said " it is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil from the spirit of man ". Indeed , the main problem in life is not one of physics but of ethics. If no one can overcome his/her inner demons, instincts and feelings when making decisions , how can anyone expect committees to behave any differently. Decisions are imperfect because they are shaped by imperfect human beings.
Put together a group of people into a world of inflated egos ,  domineering personalities and petty politics , then we have a recipe for disaster. Decisions become the product of " collective failings ", which always exceed the sum of the individuals' failings. Negative synergy for want of a better term. 
Sir Barnett Cocks had a rather amusing but perceptive of a committee , being nothing more than a " cul-de-sac down which common sense and rational thinking are lured and then quietly strangled ", such is the dominance of those in control to maintain control over the others. For me the real weakness of a committee becomes savagely exposed , when it is required to take on a quasi-judicial function over disciplinary matters ,  combining the roles of  prosecutor, judge and jury in the process. The likelihood of getting things wrong becomes all too inevitable. 
Because let's face the facts here. Committees are made up of amateurs , non-experts in the field of law. Legal issues involved in contentious suspensions and/or expulsions in the realm of unincorporated associations and small private social clubs are never clear cut. Nothing is ever black and white. In short , the topic area of law is a legal minefield , where legal certainties are few and far between. So how a committee could ever say " well , we did nothing wrong " beggars belief , when a more sensible approach needs to be adopted , such as asking " Well did we do anything wrong  ? " .
Arrogance and ignorance are two notorious bedfellows who all too often climb into bed with committee members . Once committee members believe that they know best , well intended warnings and advice fall on deaf ears. Over the years , countless articles have been written on the failings of committees , and my research has come up with a list of 10 classic mistakes that disciplinary committees have been known to make.

1. Solving problems with a gung-ho approach . Failing to recognise that there are no perfect solutions and that cost-benefit analysis is a useful technique to find the best way forward.. 

2. Lack of proper research on the financial , economic and legal implications following a particular decision. Knock-on effects can be endless. Long-term implications need to be into account alongside the more obvious short-term consequences . 

3. Not fully understanding the nature, roles and responsibility of the job they are being asked to do. The first and foremost duty a committee member is under is to ensure the long-term financial viability of the club, and therefore not to invite potential law suits and costly litigation.  

4. Blindness to personal prejudices. It's all too easy to see bias in others while failing to see bias within themselves. 

5. A tendency to focus on their own interests and agendas , often to the exclusion of what's best for the members of the club. Committee's develop an introverted view that they are the " club " , and that their vision for the club's future represents the membership as a whole. 

6. Choosing to put gut feeling and instinct ahead of cold logic and rational thinking

7. Avoiding the difficult questions. Also known as the elephant in the room. Choosing to step or skirt around a crucial issue just because it might cause an unpalatable change in direction is not the way to go about decision making. 

8. Taking themselves too seriously and perceiving themselves as " masters " rather than the " servants " of those who elected them into office.

9. Believing that they know best. 

10. No training or natural orientation to do the job in question. Acting in a quasi-judicial capacity requires a certain skill set. When it becomes evident that the task might well be beyond their level of competence , then now is the time to seek advice or all in outside expertise. 

In conclusion , I would like to leave you with the words of Paul Valery , who had this to say about those who sit on judgement upon others : " Our judgements judge us , and nothing reveals us , exposes our weaknesses more ingeniously than the attitude of pronouncing upon our fellows. "