I don't think it advisable to be basing decisions on "he said/she said" third-hand hearsay. You will always have the teller of the story injecting their own personal view of what was said, and how it was said and this will always contaminate the broth. I prefer to go on what I know to be factual, so an actual human conversation with each of the candidates would be in order if I need anything clarified.
As well, if we are all to be held accountable for the things we say it would be a harsh world indeed. We all say things we don't mean, or at least don't intend to say, and regret it later and USUALLY it's no harm-no foul. It's what we DO that is important, and each of the candidates in the running has a pretty clear history of behavior to draw one's conclusions from.
For what it's worth; I think each of the candidates is adult enough and professional enough to be able to work with any of the others, and/or any of the existing members. In spite of what someone may have heard someone say (or not), when the rubber meets the road everyone will step up and work to do what's needed for the betterment of the sport.
