@ZogG: You state that you didn't follow the submissions one by one. In fact you did, but too late. The councilors had their submission there and there was enough time to object. Checking the list and being unsatisfied with the results is easy.

@Everybody: There was a conflict of interest. Reading the submission list I was certain that all council members who nominated themselves will receive a device. I even tried to make a prediction for the results in a spreadsheet marking those I thought would get a devce in a blink and all the submitting councilors are in that list. The only reason I didn't object even though I saw it, was that they were the only ones in the list who had a democratic right for it. They have been chosen, exactly because of their past deeds by the community to represent it
I can argue forever for any other person in that list that he should, or not, receive a CA. But not for the council, as they have the absolute proof. The community votes.

And up to now, in this thread, nobody has claimed that the members of the council are unworthy of a device. All the discussion is a matter of procedure. If we did change the procedure and we do agree that council members deserve a device for their deeds, would the actual, tangible result be significantly different? No. The only difference would be that Woody would have gotten a device, and somebody else wouldn't.
So let's stop this discussion now unless someone comes here and points a council member who does not deserve a device by name. And before someone does that, please think what it does mean for the community and the democratic process.