Above The Clouds, I actually think many elements of the above are completely independent upon the outcome of the vote. The noise created by this issue far outweighs the relative (in)significance of the award. "Conduct prejudicial" is what springs to mind. Do people really need to make extremely public statements regarding the alleged bias of their members' association?
I think my point is that we need to be careful in allowing personalities and possible grievances to influence procedure. If the procedure wasn't followed then that needs to be addressed and put right. In the same breath, if members have not behaved in the spirit of the organisation (in this case the Association Rules), then they must be held to account for their actions. The LAA, by reopening the issue and going back to a vote, is playing fair so why the need to go public (BBC radio etc)? On the other hand, do we really need to regurgitate, at any opportunity, every single suggestion of inappropriate use of the word 'solo' and the apparent deceit?
Dave Mole's motion makes better reading than Stewart Jackson's. However, in hindsight, perhaps Mole's motion should have been to refer the award back to the Awards Committee for reconsideration in light of the original nomination and subsequent factual information? Of course, once the award element is resolved, if the Board decides to engage with the less honourable member(s) regarding Rule 9a it is highly likely that Stewart Jackson, as Vice-President, will have to recuse himself from any potential appeal.
It's a mess, all of it. For that there are one or two who should be ashamed.