LAA needs to extricate itself from this mess. To my mind the solution is simple and revolves around ONE question, which I, as a member, pose below.
We appoint people to make decisions on our behalf. If we are unhappy with their performance there should be a motion of no confidence, which, if passed ought to result in the person(s) concerned stepping down or being removed from their post.
The awards committee made a decision based on information available to them at the time. They later revisited their decision and decided it should stand. Their decision was then overturned by a vote at the 2016 AGM.
The ONE simple question that I suggest should be addressed is “Was it right to allow the decision of the awards committee to be overturned in this way?” The answer to that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of the spat between the two principals and their supporters.
If you start with that question, rather than the intricacies of the argument between the protagonists (which is no business of the LAA) it's easy.
To my mind it was wrong to allow the decision to be overturned in this way, in the same way that it would be wrong to allow a decision by the CEO or our airworthiness experts to be overturned by a simple majority at an AGM.
LAA should not be involving itself in the wider argument.