Leadership Assessment
Evaluation of Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary performance across 11 MCC meetings. The committee experienced a leadership transition in late November 2025 — from a friendly but ineffective chair to a more assertive but polarising one. A secretary who fundamentally misunderstood the role compounded dysfunction throughout.
Leadership Transition
Darlington Wleh served as Chair through November 25, 2025, when Maureen Wepngong transitioned from Vice Chair to Chair. Sanjaya Wanigasekera was elected Vice Chair (Co-Chair) on November 25. Abhik Nag served as Secretary throughout the entire period.
Darlington Wleh — Chair (Nov 18 – Nov 25)
Facilitation
- Maintained informal, welcoming atmosphere
- Lost control of time — meetings regularly exceeded scheduled duration
- Failed to prevent sidebar conversations from dominating meeting time
Decision-Making & Strategy
- Did not always distinguish between discussions and formal votes
- Co-chair election on Nov 25 caused voting confusion
- Focused primarily on administrative items rather than strategic direction
- Left significant work undone by transition time
“love the turn out. I guess we’re trying to impress the new people, huh?”Darlington Wleh, Nov 18, 2025
Verdict: Friendly but ineffective leadership marked by poor time management and lack of strategic progress. Appropriate use of power but perhaps too passive in driving accountability.
Maureen Wepngong — Chair (from Nov 25)
Strengths
- More structured than predecessor — clear agendas, time boxes
- High preparation: comprehensive documents, budgets, frameworks, handbooks
- Strong strategic vision: Mirror boards, dashboards, documentation
- Pushed for votes and formal decision-making processes
Weaknesses
- Often monopolised speaking time with long explanations
- Poor conflict management — became defensive when questioned
- Struggled to build consensus despite clear ideas
- Threatened unilateral action when frustrated
“I feel like no one is responding and I ask what does everyone think and I expect the committee members to say something and no one says anything.”Maureen Wepngong, Mar 3, 2026
“Do you need me to make decisions by myself? I can do that. Trust me.”Maureen Wepngong, Mar 3, 2026
Verdict: Strong strategic vision undermined by poor interpersonal skills and inability to build consensus. Ultimately respected voting processes when they occurred despite frustration.
Sanjaya Wanigasekera — Vice Chair (from Nov 25)
Performance
- Led the Open Office Hours initiative — delivered
- Coordinated hub-related work and KPI development
- Active WhatsApp coordination of hub initiatives
- Mixed accountability: some delays on hub KPI document
Verdict: Active vice chair who took ownership of key initiatives. Delivered on core commitments (Office Hours) but delayed on others (hub KPI document).
Abhik Nag — Secretary
Core failures
- Minutes chronically late — last upload from “October 28th” as of February
- ClickUp access issues plagued the committee for months
- Meeting invites and platform access consistently problematic
- Discord questions went unanswered
Boundary violations
- Advocated positions during votes instead of facilitating
- Brought guests without prior committee approval
- Shut down meetings against committee vote — the “rugged meeting” incident (Mar 3)
- Deflected governance violations rather than investigating
“I probably have to upload the last week’s one which I’m going to do today.”Abhik Nag, Feb 3, 2026 — on chronically late minutes
Verdict: A secretary who fundamentally misunderstood the role, seeing it as a governance position rather than administrative support. Core administrative duties consistently underdelivered while boundary violations compounded committee dysfunction.
Overall Assessment
Is the committee well-led?
No. The committee suffered from weak initial leadership that failed to drive progress, a transition to stronger but divisive leadership, and a secretary who overstepped boundaries and underdelivered on core responsibilities. The biggest failure was the secretary’s boundary violations combined with the chair’s inability to manage this constructively.
Recommended changes
- Replace the secretary with someone who understands the administrative nature of the role
- Provide the chair with conflict resolution training
- Establish clear written protocols for decision-making
- Institute regular one-on-ones between chair and members to improve engagement