However, there has been a recent turn of events. Relationships between friends have been strained and suspicion and distrust arose within the committee. It all started when Bob* decided to re-run for the next committee after the current members have stepped down.
Bob had always been everybody's friend. He was always the entertainer, the food expert and "the nice guy". Hence, you can imagine the shock the judging panel suffered, when he spoke ill of his fellow committee members during an interview, specifically of those who he had encouraged to re-run for the next election with him. He picked on their flaws and shortcomings, informed the panel of his ideal "elite committee members" and criticized the people who he wanted out.
His ideals for the club's future directions were also entirely different from what the club had been for the past two decades; it was as if he wanted a major revolution and transform the club into something corporate, something that will yield a high profit turnover.
After the interview, the panel came together and had many discussions about Bob. On one hand, Bob, with his experience,leadership skills and popularity with the candidates, he definitely stand a high chance of winning the election. On the other hand, the judging panel is reluctant to handover the reins to Bob and many have expressed concern and unhappiness towards his two-faced personality.
As I was not there during his interview and all that I know of are hear-say, I have no right to make any comments or to take anybody's side. Maybe Bob had the club interests in mind and he felt that he had to be honest during the interview but unfortunately, put his ideas across wrongly and was misunderstood? But fact is that his speech had outraged all 14 of the members of the judging panel. The panel wants him to withdraw from the election, but has no idea how to put it across to him without use of underhand methods, but nobody is brave enough to step forward to confront Bob in fear of causing bad blood between the club and him.
What do you think the panel should do? Do you think its fair to judge based on hear-say and be swayed towards the majority, since the majority cannot be "too wrong", right? Or not?

*Name has been changed.