A comment on a Guardian article about Ayn Rand says simply:

"And Ayn Rand was the ultimate hypocrite, relying on the state that she so despised to look after her in her final years."

A reply to that comment claims:

"This is the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because
1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said, or
2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions."

However, the original commenter never claimed Ayn Rand's claims were invalid, merely that she was a hypocrite. Therefore the claims that this is an "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" fallacy is a failacy in itself. At best the original argument is a simple ad hominem fallacy, an attack against her person vs the argument. At worst it is a simple statement of fact and therefore the "Tu Quoque" claim is a Straw Man fallacy - an attack against a mischaracterization of the opponent's argument.

The committee commenced blamestorming over the situation rather than seeking solutions to the problem.