Why is it that in school, we have two categories of clubs? Namely, the "dead" category and the "supported by a whooping number of students" category.
Well, put the blame on the specific advisers in-charged. This is freedom of speech without any hostility and provocation. So, I have my legal rights. Hate me, fry me, bake me.
I am a committee member in one of the clubs that I joined in school. It had been a rather sombre club for the past few years. But being a member in that club (let's just call it Club X) for four years, I was aware that the advisers had put in an effort to recruit new members. That is good, what a sombre club needs is a sporting adviser and a working committee and poof, it will resurface.
Unfortunately this year, Club X had gotten itself an adviser who complains way too much, has not offered a single brainchild and has not even bothered to recruit new members the way the previous advisers did. Yet, the blame seems to always be shifted onto the committee members as being not good enough.
I believe that club advisers should not just shove all the work to the committee members. As a club adviser, he or she ought to be the one to supply a fresh batch of ideas to the committee, be willing to attend ALL meetings, supportive of projected ideas and make an attempt to promote the club. Talk about showing advisers supposed to set a good example!
Am I the only one who thinks this way about my adviser? I doubt that. I have heard plenty of complains about specific club advisers.
Why am I typing this? It is because I feel that Club X needs its' adviser changed.