The Professional Clerk-Of-Course (CoC)

Over the last week, we have had a very lively debate over at Mike's blog. The forum attracted in excess of 100 comments—easily a record for that blog—although not counting the old blog which was plagued by spams. A major portion of that debate centred on a mistake by the Clerk-of-Course (CoC), resulting in the wrong order of the top winners in the Media Category of that hunt. However, after several days, the matter was resolved with the CoC taking full responsibility for the mistake; and the affected teams duly rewarded for their respective victories.

While this episode is still fresh in our minds, I'd like to write my thoughts on this issue, i.e. the responsibility of the CoC, from the general point of view, and not specifically pointing to the NPC Hunt only.

Although I am not going to dwell on the twist of events in the NPC Hunt, it is necessary to understand the nature of the mistake in order to appreciate the eventual decision of the CoC. Briefly, the CoC, upon the closing of the end station embarked on marking the submissions of the teams. He then arrived at the overall results of the hunt. However, perhaps out of habit, he decided to make another round of checking. Unfortunately, before he could do that, some of the treasures were removed from the bags submitted by 2 teams. Of all the bags, those were the ones submitted by the top 2 winners of the Media Category. Consequently, upon the second check of the scores, the top two winners came up short on points, resulting in a fall in positions to 4th and 6th places respectively. The winners were announced and these affected teams later checked with the CoC on the missing points. Well, the mistake was discovered and as I said, after a few days' deliberation, the CoC decided to compensate the affected teams and rewarded them for their respective victories. It is noted that the CoC had to fork out the compensation from his own pocket.

The (mis)handling of the treasure bags before the final count of the scores was not a proceeding to be recommended; that was inviting trouble. But of course it is easy to give such comments from the sidelines. We all know that famous line—hindsight is always 20-20.

CoCs are not immune from making mistakes. It's not the first time that this kind of mistake has happened. In fact, a little over 2 years ago, Mike made an almost identical mistake too. He marked a wrong treasure submission as correct, and because of that the lucky team was announced the 2nd place winner, thus pushing the deserving 2nd place winner down to 3rd place. However, that lucky team comprising Ramesh, Kok Seng, Soo Khian and Shandra alerted Mike on the possible mistake. Upon re-checking the scores, Mike made the brave decision to announce his mistake and switched the 2nd-3rd positions. Interestingly, Mike used his own money to pay the RM500 difference in prize to the deserving 2nd place winner; yet allowing the now demoted team (from 2nd to 3rd) to keep the prize money they had already received.

As you can see, the mistake in the NPC Hunt was not the first time it has happened. And I am inclined to believe that sooner or later, a similar mistake will happen again. The question we should ask ourselves is:

Should CoCs be made responsible for such mistakes?

I think the answer should be yes. In fact, I think that responsibility should be emphasised and then incorporated into the term of engagement. That's what being professional is all about. Many CoCs, when lobbying for jobs to clerk hunts, have the tendency to undercut on their fees. They have no foresight of their responsibility in case anything should go wrong.

I think it is time that when CoCs quote their fees to potential clients, they should reflect on their heavy responsibility. The nature of that responsibility should be clearly explained to the potential clients. Mistakes might not happen all the time (unless if that CoC is a total idiot), but once it happens, it's gonna be painful.

It has been suggested that some kind of bailout measures be initiated where hats are passed around, and everyone is encouraged to contribute RM5 to help out the CoC. The idea seems to receive positive responses from 2 hunters, but I doubt that it is a very popular idea.

If I made a mistake in my work for which I charge a "professional" fee, and as a result of that mistake my client suffered losses, I doubt that anyone will start a bailout plan for me. The tort of negligence is much more complicated than that, of course. But the basic principle is the same. The CoC owes the duty of care to his clients, and in the event of his clients suffering losses due to his mistake, he must shoulder the consequences. After all, the hunters pay good money to hunt. Although the idea of "having fun" is the one that usually sells, at the end of the day the satisfaction of winning the prizes still counts. I am not talking about the amount, mind! Even winning RM500 might mean a lot to many people.