ALL MEMBERS ! Please fill out those proxy forms..!!

[jangiolini]

I find it very difficult to accept that a properly executed decision of the board should be overturned by a vote of such a tiny minority of the membership.

That said if only a tiny number of members bother to vote then it shows a general apathy with the remainder! It would be very difficult nae impossible to get any motions passed if we were to enforce the rules! We would need to make a case for making voting mandatory!

[Donald Walker]

In this particular case 188 people's votes were cast, which represents less than one quarter of one percent of the membership. Article 18 sets the quorum at a general meeting to be "one percent of the beneficial shareholders eligible to vote, or fifty of those members whichever is the greater". One percent would have been around 760 members, but the chairman does have discretion to accept a lower number. The same number is required to demand that an EGM be held (e.g. to change articles).

Does the LAA have 76000 members?

[Mike Cross]

My apologies, crap arithmetic on my part, the number of members reported at the 2016 AGM was about 7,600.

[Brian Hope]

Fact is we have often struggled to get the required 76 (actually it should be 77 as at the last count we had just under 7750) beneficial shareholders at an AGM to be quorate. Even after arranging a more interesting day of events, the AGM hasn’t ever been well attended. Arranging Proxy Voting has at least given members who are unable or unwilling to attend the chance to vote.
I agree we need to look at the Articles and maybe amend protocols Mike, but do you really believe this particular issue would have been resolved if we had done so? Unfortunately I believe we would have been right where we are now.

[Mike Cross]

It’s not about amending the articles Brian. It should have been possible to avoid the vote on Barrie’s motion in the first place if the board had stood firmly behind the decision and said “This is our job, we were elected to this, by all means put a motion asking us to reconsider but if you want to overrule is we’ll stand down and you can choose someone else to do the job.” That didn’t happen and I’m not blaming anyone for that. However, if enough members can recognise that the vote should not have taken place and support David Mole’s motion we can extricate ourselves without having to take sides in the argument between Tracey and Sam.

[Chris Martyr]

This motion was deemed libellous by the board.

This is something that rather mystifies me . In 2016 , when Barry initially submitted his proposal , it was duly returned via LAA's Admin. Dept. as it had been pointed out that some of the wording could be misconstrued. Barry subsequently reworded his proposal and forwarded it to me as seconder to sign .
That was it ! Nothing more ! At the time , I thought nothing of it.

Barry's amended proposal states exactly this [ I have it in front of me ]

" In my considered opinion the award of this trophy by the LAA has brought our organisation into disrepute , I urge the Association to reconsider its decision and to rescind the award ".

Nothing libellous about that is there ?

His ORIGINAL proposal was sent via myself , to LAA Admin. then back to Barry and then deleted .

So how did that become public then ? [ A bit of leaky plumbing ? ]

[ChampChump]

According to TCT (on 5 Live today) she has contacted the LAA to try and get a meeting to get this all resolved ( "...urged them to meet with us and discuss it but all of that was blocked" ). She also says that at the award removal she was not allowed to make a defence. "At no point did anybody contacted ...contact me from the association so I was never able to present a defence..."

Copied from another forum. I cannot vouch for the quote as I have not yet listened to the piece, which is here, but will do so when I am able, later.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/p06nkhpr

[Graeme Park]

It’s not about amending the articles Brian. It should have been possible to avoid the vote on Barrie’s motion in the first place if the board had stood firmly behind the decision and said “This is our job, we were elected to this, by all means put a motion asking us to reconsider but if you want to overrule is we’ll stand down and you can choose someone else to do the job.” That didn’t happen and I’m not blaming anyone for that. However, if enough members can recognise that the vote should not have taken place and support David Mole’s motion we can extricate ourselves without having to take sides in the argument between Tracey and Sam.

Are you suggesting that the Board should have threatened to stand down en masse in response to the motion submitted by Barry and Chris? If so, I disagree completely. IMHO, that is not the way to govern a democratic association!

Furthermore, I cannot see how voting for David Mole's motion, clear and concise as it is, will avoid taking sides. Tracey, and her supporters, clearly want the award to be re-instated and Sam, and apparently many others, clearly do not!

I know you will probably disagree, but, in my view, the best way to bring this matter to a close (and allow the Board to concentrate again on the core role of the LAA) is for members to vote decisively against both the new motions.

[Bill McCarthy]

TCT - please, for my sanity, attend the AGM, put yourself into the lion’s den and give a full and true account of the whole team effort. Only then will things calm down.

And to prove that I’m not missogy.....migso.....sod it, a woman hater. If I hear for one moment that Neil Armstrong didn’t walk on the bliddy moon in ‘69 I am going to raise merry hell about it, so there !!

[Paul Catanach]

.... reading threats of votes of no confidence...

Where?

[josher]

David Mole Company Secretary no less writes

'The LAA elects a Board to manage its affairs. Board members are obliged by the rules to keep the proceedings of the Board confidential.'

actually its in the Directors Code of Conduct
'Except as the Board may otherwise require or as otherwise required by law each member of the Board will uphold the strict confidentiality of all meetings and other deliberations and communications of the Board of Directors and undertake not to divulge information deemed to be confidential'.

I wonder who wrote that and what purpose it is intended to serve? It seems evrything is 'deemed confidential! I know of no other memeber association that has a similar requirement of it's officers.

I think this whole sorry fiasco could probably have been avoided if the management of the Light Aircraft ASSOCIATION operated like every other member organisation of which I am a member in a fashion transparent to it's members. ie publishing agendas and minutes of meetings [redacted where there are GENUINE matters of confidentiality - very few! controversial is not the same as confidential] of the Board and other meetings.

In the last ten years I have not seen a single agenda or minute of a Board or any other meeting. I have only the faintest idea what my representatives [ I think that is what they are supposed to be] talk about or who to. The fact that I [nominally] elect them to act on my behalf does not entitle them to act in secret

Once this all over one way othe other perhaps transparency should be top of the agenda

Sorry for the thread drift!

[Alan Kilbride]

I'm getting fed up with all the tales of woe towards the board. They are doing a good job of running our association. Harry and his team are in my opinion beyond reproach.
This hell should be all over once and for all at the AGM. I know it is divisive and lots of posts seem vociferous and bitter, but remember, we are all in the LAA and will be so after the AGM.
I hope we can get back to some sort of normality soon.
I abstained last time because it seemed like a witch hunt. It looks as though some people are turning against the board in the same manner. Shame on you.
This is a terrible situation and I hate being put in this position.

[Planemike]

However, if enough members can recognise that the vote should not have taken place and support David Mole’s motion we can extricate ourselves without having to take sides in the argument between Tracey and Sam.

You are not really seriously suggesting members should vote for this motion ?? T- C-T does not deserve the award, the correct decision was made back in 2016.

[Tracey Curtis-Taylor]

Gentlemen

The conspiracy theory that behind the two 2018 AGM motions stand mighty commercial forces threatening the LAA on my behalf is wholly misconceived.

Since November 2016 a solicitor has written four letters to the LAA on my behalf, the last in December 2017. Letters since then to the President have been from me. All this correspondence is the property of the recipients, who have always been free to make it available to whomsoever they wish.

May I remind you that this time-consuming situation arises from an unnecessary and spiteful motion passed at the 2016 AGM. Anyone who still thinks that was a good idea should not complain about the consequences.

I will of course be attending the AGM

[Alan Kilbride]

Accusations of mysoginy and an old boys club don't help you Tracey.
The association are fairly proactive in youth education and encourage people from all walks of life.
I'm glad you will be attending, but due to our legal proxy system I doubt you will alter the result.
In my opinion, the award was given in good faith and should have been left alone, but your actions both during and after the 2016 motion haven't endeared yourself to the GA flying community.
I certainly didn't like the proud way you bragged about low flying over animals in Africa, over whales, etc. The bit about a Stearman only having a wiggly thing in front that doesn't do a lot may be the reason you foot is sore, having shot yourself in it.
Blaming contaminated fuel at Winslow was a bit of an own goal too.
Should you win or lose the motion, I sincerely hope that will be an end to it.
Even though I seem to be against you, I am torn, due to the honesty and decency Harry and his team have shown.