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

[dmcnicholl]

• You will find in the Minutes of the LAA Board of 23 September 2016 that the hostile motion was written by the Chairman.

No, according to the 2016 Minutes the motion was proposed, and I presume written, by Barry Tempest. The chairman then as now was Brian Davies. Perhaps your statement refers to his deletion of what was deemed libellous content, but that would be editing not writing. Not the same thing at all.

...This was in response to repeated requests not that the vote be overturned but that the processes which led to it be reviewed.

Contradicted by Brian Davies's Personal Statement this year

Within weeks of the Motion being passed, the LAA received a letter from Tracey Curtis-Taylor's lawyers, requesting that we reverse the decision of the AGM which, of course, we could not do. This was followed by a further three letters, culminating in a threat of legal action against the LAA and/or its officers.

[edited to add] One final snip from the 2016 minutes, the last sentence on the motion,

The matter is now closed.

If only...

[Chris Martyr]

75% of those who attended the meeting and heard me speak voted against a hostile and personal motion but it passed by virtue of an unprecedented volume of proxy votes. .

This comedy show gets better and better doesn't it ?
" 75% who attended and heard me speak",,,,Tracey conveniently leaves out the fact that it was only herself & supporters who were allowed to speak . Everyone else was requested to remain quiet .

She also conveniently leaves out the fact that she had brought a significant entourage along with her , so that when the plan they had cooked up to disregard the proxy voters kicked in , it would be 'job done'. She tried to go against the LAA Articles of Association ! i.e. Fiddle the vote ! Yet has the gall to write in her post that this is all about the way the LAA conducted itself.............Pinch yourselves in disbelief dear readers but ,I WAS THERE !

And Tracey's "unprecedented volume of proxy votes" ???? That is how democracy works Tracey . Those were the LAA members who thought you didn't and still don't merit the Bill Woodhams Award.

The rather laughable remarks about "people ringing around and encouraging others to vote against her" indicates people who really are clutching at straws.
As a Unilever shareholder , I was recently approached by a telephone lobbyist regarding a current corporate matter. Maybe Tracey & Co. need to wise up a bit to how things go on in the real world , and not in the bubble.

And for what it's worth . I have no need to do any lobbying or 'phoning around' . Tracey is doing an admirable job of that herself.

[Gaznav]

I have just voted via the Proxy Vote that landed on my doorstep this morning and my personal position has not changed since 2016.

I am also disturbed that misogyny has been cited in some of the supporting words. Having been awarded my flying badge with the first full-time regular female RAF pilot and having trained/flown with some excellent aircrew of both genders then I have to say that I am disappointed that misogyny has been raised in this way - it has nothing to do with gender and you either deserve the award on merit or you don’t, regardless of gender. As a big supporter of real feminist issues I find this allegation scurrilous to the LAA, its members and the wider GA community.

I will now crawl back under my rock on this forum having said my two-penneth and voted with my pen.

I wish you well, either way the result falls, Ms TCT and I hope that this vote will draw a line under it one way or another.

[DominicConnolly]

I just received the following from an LAA member who has asked me to post for them as they are having IT trouble and wishes to remain anonymous on this forum.

My reflection after reading through is this:

It is very evident that TCT has spent no time whatsoever actively addressing the concerns and reasonable questions that people have had about her claimed achievents. It is NOW very evident that, rather than attempting at any time to encourage people to see her point of view, her immediate reaction was to go to law.

She has obfuscated throughout, accused the membership of unwarranted misogyny and bullied the board and Brian D personally but hasn’t bothered to try reasoned persuasion at any time so far as I can see. I have always considered Jay Sara to be a bully but (I still think so) and an obsessive but her latest pronouncements reveal her to be just as bad-in fact, worse.

Had I known zero background and read only the Motions and Statements from Jackson, Curtis-Taylor and Mole I would be uncertain, perhaps wavering to support. Knowing the background (filtered through a bullshit filter on both sides) but in particular reading Davies’ statement , I think that she is a nasty piece of work.

Frankly - by her actions subsequent to October 2016 - I do not think she is a fit member of the Association as she does not consider what is good for it, only what is good for her. Now, that has nothing to do with a strict interpretation of what the Bill Woodhams trophy award criteria are but nevertheless it will direct my vote.

Hi Paul.

the forum rules on anonymity are quite clear:

https://services.lightaircraftassociati ... f=45&t=644

Can I politely ask that you identify the individual with a supporting statement from him that you are posting on his behalf with his express permission, or that you remove the post.

Unfortunately if a blind eye is turned to this it opens the back door to anyone to put up posts purporting to be from anonymous individuals with no confirmation you they are from. Presumably his 'IT trouble' has been fixed by now, although his 'IT trouble doesn't appear to have preventing him from communicating with you directly, if not this forum.

many thanks

Dominic Connolly
LAA member
BMAA member

[Paul Catanach]

Hi Dominic.

I have no problem whatsoever in deleting that (done). Given the overwhelming response from members I doubt that my friend’s comments will make a great deal of difference. What he had to say has been echoed several times over.


Regards


Paul

[dmarti32]

Can we email our proxy forms to the office or do they have to be posted?

Regards

Dave

[Gerry Holland]

Dave
In the light of the manouverings going on I sent mine 'Recorded Delivery' to ensure my Vote at least gets to LAA for inclusion.
Gerry

[Donald Walker]

I have not seen anything to suggest that an emailed proxy form is acceptable.

[Chris Martyr]

Strangely enough , regarding Tracey's penchant for calling in the lawyers . It looks like their woes are just starting to come back to bite them from the people who run the FBO at Winslow AZ.

They really are "Mr & Mrs Popular " aren't they.....

[dmole]

Proxy voting by email.
An interesting question about proxy voting by email has been raised. I am the one to answer it, as company secretary.
Article 16 (a) says that proxy voting may be "where permitted, by means of electronic communication as instructed on the proxy form." There are no instructions on the current proxy form about voting by email and nothing anywhere to say that it is permitted - but neither is it forbidden. My natural inclination is that what is not expressly forbidden is impliedly permitted.

What is clear is that the proxy form must be signed and must show a membership number. I think ‘signed’ must mean signed by hand and not signed electronically, bearing in mind that all proxy forms are carefully checked in the LAA office.

I think the most sensible pragmatic answer is that I will accept an emailed legible scan of a properly signed and numbered proxy form. However it has been noticed that scans emailed at low resolution can be almost illegible when they are received in the LAA office, so the wisest course maybe to post the paper form.

Other points
And now that I am here, I cannot resist commenting on a couple of further points.
1. In her post on this forum Tracey says "You will find in the Minutes of the LAA Board of 23 September 2016 that the hostile motion was written by the chairman.”
That statement is in danger of being seriously misleading. It makes it sound as if the Chairman was hostile and responsible for the motion. That would be far from the truth. As Tracey well knows, Barry Tempest put the motion forward. He did so in accordance with the articles. The issue whether parts of the motion were libellous and should be excised were raised with the then Company Secretary and considered by the Board. The motion was amended, in accordance with the articles, to remove the libellous material. The chairman was simply expressing the decision of the board. The Board had (and has) no power beyond that to change a member's motion.
By the way, is not accurate to say that no one was given the chance to speak for the motion at the 2016 AGM: I recall the chairman asking Barry Tempest if he wished do so, but he declined.

2. Tracy also says “I am sorry that the 2018 AGM is confronted by a motion about me. It comes at the suggestion of the chairman.”
That statement is also likely to be very misleading unless it is seen in context. As Brian Davies has already said, Tracey engaged solicitors who wrote to the Chairman and demanded that the Board somehow set aside the members’ decision. It was explained on behalf of the Board that there was no power to do so; it is a Members Association with rules that it must follow. Tracey's solicitors threatened legal action, specifically a judicial review. It was pointed out to her solicitors that the Court will not grant a judicial review unless there is no other remedy available to the person asking for it. In this case there was a remedy – Tracey could, if she wanted, put forward her own motion and, if she persuaded a majority of the members, she could get the award reinstated. Naturally the letters went out over Brian’s name. He was conducting the correspondence on behalf of the Board. Clearly I cannot know what Tracey’s legal advice was but I do know the solicitors advising her are experienced in these matters. So it is difficult to imagine that The LAA’s response to her came as a surprise.
David Mole
Co Sec

[Bill Scott]

Oh joy, a wet Saturday and a few hours to kill. Salvation comes in the form of my LAA mag. I look forward to some relaxing reading, until I see the enclosure. Good grief ! If only it were the April edition. I was one of the many proxy voters who saw to the 2016 result and with what has subsequently come to light, I have to conclude we were right. Threats of legal action are easily made, but to carry through does , of course, risk exposure of evidence that would not show the plaintiff in the best light.
The posts by Tracey in here do not address the issues / reasons why the decision was made in 2016 and are nothing more that deflection or as my grandma used to say " froth n bubble".
In particular, the suggestion of mysogyny is utterly absurd and the reference to old men in the Times article shows a contemptible attitude. Last but not least, the (2016) suggestion of disregarding proxy votes is reminiscent of the kind of countries one might fly over after departing Capetown and also displays the same reprehensible lack of respect for fellow members as in the recent Times article.

[jangiolini]

Well said Bill, I was sure our forefathers sorted out the last dictator that tried to undermine/remove our Democratic Rights. My Proxy vote is in the post recorded delivery, worth paying the extra for you know us tight Scotsmen
John.

[David Hunter]

All this has left a bad taste. I don't know the person involved but surely it should be a prerequisite that any award in this field should be that an LAA type aircraft is involved otherwise we could have a member who pilots an A380 to Australia for his day job gets an award for it which would clearly be nonsense.

[RichardMaxted]

To what extent should the award of an award be subject to a motion at the AGM ? An award is made by the LAA Awards Group. At the time, given the information they had, they made a considered decision. I don't doubt with the best of intentions ( given a long track record of previous decisions ). Further information and the strength of feeling within some sections and possibly a majority of the membership called that judgement into question ( in retrospect ). However, the original award was not made by the membership at an AGM and I wonder if "Should the Award have been made" is really the question ?

Even if the answer, with hindsight, is that it should not have been, is it practical to ask a group of individuals to decide awards if they are to have to continually look over the shoulders and judge whether their decision will subsequently be reversed by a membership vote. Few people would be likely to volunteer to be placed in that position. Under those circumstances, one might as well make all awards by membership vote rather than awards committee.

Perhaps the unavoidable conclusion is that the process of the award is the issue. Perhaps it means that really one either allows a committee to award awards and then use the AGM to either support or dismiss that committee or one moves the whole system to a popular vote. Given that an honest decision was made by the Awards Group I would support their decision at the time given the facts they knew. So, for me, this motion is really less about the deserving-ness or otherwise of the recipient and more about the fact that the original 2016 resolution was well intended but misplaced. I see why it might be ( through gritted teeth ) important to support the decsion of the Awards Group at the time, however honestly mistaken they turned out to be subsequently.

[Chris Martyr]

[quote="Tracey Curtis-Taylor"] Though I am prepared to defend myself against foul accusations,/quote]

In which case Tracey ; When you flew off from Farnborough , alone in an open cockpit biplane , where was your next point of arrival ? And did you continue on alone in your open cockpit biplane ? [I'm sure you know the flight to which I refer]

What about the "Baragwanath Arrival" then ? Remember that one ?

I know that this puts you on the spot , but these are not " foul accusations" are they , just simple and straightforward questions . If you want your Bill Woodhams Award recognition back , then how about a few PROPER answers as to why that should be so.

Just stop talking in sound bites and drop all the BS . I do somehow get the impression that the people who have chosen to leap up in your defence may not be in behold of the full facts . And once they are in behold of the full portfolio , then they will probably feel a bit foolish and gullible .