Every institution I've worked with responds to a governance failure the same way: it creates a new committee. This is, almost always, treating the symptom rather than the underlying disease, and it tends to make the disease slightly worse over time.
A governance failure is nearly always a decision-rights failure — a decision that needed a clear, accountable owner didn't have one, so it either didn't get made or got made badly by whoever happened to be in the room. A new committee doesn't resolve this; it adds another group of people who can plausibly be consulted, without naming who's actually accountable for the outcome.
Institutions that have been through several governance failures accumulate committees the way an old building accumulates load-bearing walls that were never in the original design — each one added in response to a specific past problem, none of them removed once the problem's memory fades, and the resulting structure becomes slower with every addition, even as it looks more thorough on paper.
The alternative requires actually naming an accountable individual for the decision category that failed, which feels riskier than spreading the responsibility across a committee — and is, in practice, exactly why committees remain the more popular response, despite being less effective.
The next time an institution responds to a failure by proposing a new committee, it's worth asking a different question first: whose job was this decision supposed to be, and why didn't they make it? That question is uncomfortable. It's also the one that actually leads to fixing the problem, rather than adding another layer around it.