The popular and funny explanation that a camel is a horse put together by a committee is more notion than concept. I find the notion understandable because of abuses of committees, but it misses their nature and purpose. Committees are important for social organizations, and we need to understand them to use them well.

A committee is a small group of people that performs a task for a larger group by collaborating their individual knowledge or understanding on behalf of the larger group to accomplish what it cannot because of size. No committee will ever work unless it is made to work.

Committees are not so much unavoidable as they are necessary —even desirable. To be so in fact as well as intention, they must be rightly conceived and operated.

Many committee meetings are doomed before they convene, because no one has made preparation. When a member walks into the room, he or she must know and understand the purpose, especially what is to be accomplished. A published agenda distributed in advance allows participants to arrive with tentative individual decisions. The agenda should be more than an identification of an issue, but describe the issue, indicate factors to be considered, and it might even offer a specific motion on which to act. When members anticipate offering a motion, it is helpful to submit it in time to be included verbatim in the agenda.

If to be offered by a sub-committee or working group, the motion must be in the exact words from the group’s own minutes. Its chair or representative may not offer a motion to the full committee merely because he feels it expresses the sub-group’s motion—it must be exactly theirs.

When a decision is made, everyone must know and understand exactly what it is, rather than having a general idea. It must be in the minutes who will implement the decision and often how and when.

I have been in many commission, board, and committee meetings that ended with everyone pleased that it was “a good meeting” and “we got a lot done.” I questioned: What decisions did we make? “Well, we talked about this …” and “We decided to do something about that …” I observed: Yes, we talked about this, but what did we actually decide? Yes, we decided to do “something about that,” but what is this “something?” Who will do it, when, and how? How will we know it was accomplished? Where did we delegate responsibility, and who is accountable? When I read the minutes of the meeting, I found them even more vague than the answers to my questions. The minutes were as worthless and unproductive as the meeting.

If anything was eventually done, it was by the unauthorized initiative of an individual, and then it was too late to be adequate and was most inefficient. Moreover, it was what the individual decided to do and not what the committee had decided.

The agenda for the next meeting ought either to report the accomplishment of the assignment or call for a report. If neither is ready, the item must appear in every agenda until it is or the group decides to withdraw or change the decision.

Twin factors cause failure, i.e., starting late and running over. When the chair waits for late-comers to arrive, this ensures they will be late for the next meeting, and so will others. The group should decide as the meeting begins when it will adjourn.

When this time arrives, the meeting may continue only by unanimous agreement.

Absentees must be promptly advised of meeting results. On important issues, final decision should be delayed until concurrence can be secured from absentees. In some instances, action should be delayed until the committee can meet again with all present.

Reports made to the larger group should forthrightly indicate if a decision was unanimous, unanimous of those present but not the full committee, and the terms of a divided vote.

It is often helpful to the larger group if the minutes include who voted for and who against. The better yet, if the minutes would include reasons for dissenting votes.

If we work to make a committee work, it will work like a derby winner.