For the record: 
 
1) I definitely did not mean to imply that Roy Weintraub, as an 
individual, was in any way involved with promoting or opposing any 
particular DF candidate or candidates.  I did and do assume that his 
view, embodied in his editorial and also in the HOPE supplement on the 
future of the History of Economics, is shared by some segment of the 
membership, and that this could have an impact on various decisions made 
and positions taken within the society. 
 
2) Contrary to what Roy says is fairly standard operating procedure, no 
one ever contacted me in subsequent years following my nomination of 
Heilbroner to invite me to re-submit another nomination.  Of course, 
maybe my letter was deemed unworthy and someone else was invited to 
submit a nomination for Bob in the subsequent years following my 
nomination, and he was denied again in those years. 
 
These are very difficult things to discuss, as they regard what I assume 
are confidential deliberations and people's feelings, etc.  On the other 
hand, in a relatively small and professionally close group such as this, 
word sometimes seeps out.  Bob's dead, so it doesn't matter, but we 
probably do not want to discuss other recent reportedly controversial 
decisions in which what constitutes the history of economics was made an 
issue. 
 
Anyway, the point was that discussing an issue such as what constitutes 
a contribution to the history of economics seemed like a valuable way to 
honor his memory.  Bob never asked for awards, didn't care anything 
about them.  He was the kind of person who would have said something 
like "why don't you nominate so-and-so, I have always thought their work 
on such-and-such was so important." 
 
Mat