[kbenson]

I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. If your remit is to deal with issues like this, but you find the structure is broken enough that you can't do what you see as your job, what do you do?

Going public may be against the point of the group, but it might also be the only way seen to fix the problem and address the problems that prevent your group from doing its job.

So you're left with the unenviable option of explicitly doing what your team is not supposed to do in order to try to fix the team so it can function in the future. The responsible thing to do at that point would be to resign, so someone else can come in and gain the benefits you fought for, and your prior breaking of the rules does not taint the team.

I think that's the charitable view. I don't know if it's correct, but I do think it's worth considering.