I am a part of an activity group of 10 members (in our case: theatre). We mostly get along pretty well, know each other for quite some years already, but have worked as such a group only for a year by now. At the moment, a split seems to be inevitable in the next season as the majority of the group has a bit of a problem with one person in a group.
This person (he) has been the activity mentor of most people from the group in the past and has definitely had at least a bit of a hand in helping them achieve their current status. The person is the oldest in the group, being 5-10 years older than all the others (so there is a bit of a generation gap perhaps). The person is prone to outbursts of infectious bad mood, prone to scheming (telling different things to different people in the group to achieve his goal) and is well aware of his own senior/mentor position in the group (shows that by behaviour often).
A clique of the size of half of the group is determined to throw the person out of the group as they especially do not get along neither on stage, neither on our exercises and meetings and are pretty dealt up with the person. They do not get along in terms of group vision and philosophy.
My position: I am somewhere in between the person and the clique as far as group vision and philosophy go, but am also fed up with some of the scheming and antics of the person and would rather continue working with the clique that wants the person out of the group than not.
I am worried though about the mental status of the person if this throw-out goes as planned and would like to keep at least semi-friendly relation with the person in the long-run as we will certainly be seeing each other at least from time to time on community activities. Although the person has not been my mentor I am already feeling bad about myself just for thinking about doing this since we have known each other for plenty years now.
Other people in the group: one with a position similar to mine, one who is a bit inactive and one who is most likely to stick with the person till the end.
I am terribly sorry if this all seems confusing, but I believe that the context and at least some sub contexts (there are of course more) must be know in order to appreciate the complexity of the case.
How could this be resolved in at least an appropriate manner?