I love how you talk about this like you werent there at the meetings and how would you know "with such a divided community" when you guys dont speak for the community (as some of the council members have mentioned, contrary to the devs), you speak for yourselves right? I think this council is meaningless until its either fully transparent or we just abolish it because in parts that actually matter it requires a larger sample size anyway.
1. There are no meetings. the Council literally is just another Forum Section, but private.
2. If you are active in the community, you would know that there is a pretty big divide in what each player wants from the game.
Some players want more PvP, Some players want More PvE, Some want less PvP.
Some want more artificial game elements, some want even less.
Some want a game solely for factions, some want a game approachable by solo players.
You yourself even fit in to this picture.
Im fine with them closing the council if they want to or see the need to, but with thread just shows more why they did create it in the first place.
They wanted a controlled enviroment where discussion was more civil and with less witch hunts and spam and focused on the Topic.
Seems to work, since this odd "we VS them" (in this case your weird obsession with the council members) sentiment that you emit on any discussion about the game doesnt appear there as much from what i recall. Discussions are a lot more productive when its about the topic, and not what kind of gameplay group they are appart of.
Since you seem to have a hard time to grasp what the council is, here it is explained to you:
1. Someone (Dev or Council Member) makes a new Forum Post on the Council. They describe their Suggestion or Topic
2. People Discuss the topic further, add suggestion or mention concern about how something might have an effect. Occasionaly a dev themself mention their opinion too.
3. FB can now form an image of what some circles in the community want, what the concerns of some players are with that demand and the variation of how people think about that topic.
As an example of this, you can take a back look back at the point we talked about earlier. You complained that there was bias against the introduction of Points of Interests, however it can pretty easily read out of it that there were people for it, and that there were people with some concerns, and for transperency FB included those Concerns in the report. As the report states, its also not in a phase of development based on just this discussion, just that FB now is aware of those opinions that flow around. For extra transperency and broader discussion, they then release the report, in which they can see if people disagree with the sentiment on a topic or not.
So if i were you, instead of trying to Witch Hunt Council members (like you clearly try to for some reason), i would rather formulate a well written response to why you think those Concerns arent actually problem. If you focused on that, maybe FB hears your feedback.