Originally Posted by
suninmyeyes
Derek Lamb wrote “It has damaged our reputation and made us look misogynistic.” I don’t think restoring the award will repair the LAA’s reputation. I don’t think the LAA did anything wrong in the first place, they issued an award without knowing the real background and then rescinded it based on members votes when the full facts came to light. I despair if they want to give the rescinded award back to Tracey to avoid looking misogynistic.
Derek also wrote “The Awards committee looked closely at allegations and decided there weren’t grounds for withdrawal. It was pushed through by proxy voters who hadn’t heard the arguments.” I am confused here. Am I mistaken in thinking the award was for “a feat of navigation, aviation, tenacity and endurance" which actually involved the use of GPS, another pilot on board and a back up team? If I am wrong please enlighten me. What were the arguments that those present at the LAA AGM were apparently aware of that all the proxy voters and Pprune viewers who have read probably far more background information were not?
I would be delighted if the LAA could change my mind and convince me that Tracey is fully deserving of the award.
Since it is readily available online, and might be helpful, there would appear to be no bar to repeating exactly what was minuted in respect of Item 6 at the LAA AGM on 22 Oct 16, together with some highlighting in red, together with my personal observations in bold red, namely:
MINUTES OF 2016 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
OF THE LIGHT AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION LIMITED
Sywell Aerodrome. Sunday 22nd October 2016.
"6. Motion for rescinding of the award of the Bill Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor.Proposed by Barry Tempest (member no 017423), seconded by Chris Martyr (member no. 022516).
The Chair allocated Barry
two minutes to present his full motion and any other comments.
The Chair then invited Harry Hopkins in his role as Chairman of the Awards Committee, to respond.
Tracey Curtis-Taylor read a prepared statement, also available in written form, and pointed out that two other written submissions were available from Ewald Gritsch and from Barry Latter from the Museum of Flight in Seattle.
Can anyone elaborate on what they contained?
TC-T submitted that she had not claimed to make a solo flight, and that any such claims came from members of her team and not approved by her.
She's certainly been given every opportunity to refute these third party "claims" She also stated that the Motion had only been raised 18 months after the award had been made, following an orchestrated series of personal attacks that had threatened her reputation.
Interesting - Character is what you are, whilst reputation is what you get. In her opinion the LAA was merely being used as a vehicle for these attacks.
There was then a period allocated to discussion from the floor. Manuel Queroz stated that the achievement, whether solo or not, marked an ‘unbelievable journey’.
He certainly got that right!
Tim Allibone,
a newly joined member, and Phillip Lowry, suggested that the proxy votes be excluded as those making their vote in that manner had not been able to hear both sides of the argument.
Demonstrating a curiously naive understanding of the meaning of a proxy vote, a system used perfectly routinely and properly by companies and organisations many thousands of times a year, by definition without the voter being able to hear what is said at an AGM. The Chair responded that as Proxy Voting is included in the Articles of the Association, it should be allowed. A further query on the eligibility of proxy votes by Peter Andrews was similarly answered.
At this point the Motion was voted upon.
Votes From Floor Proxy Votes TOTAL
In favour of motion 17 106 123
Votes against 57 8 65
In addition the Chair had 36 proxy votes available to be allocated at his discretion. He elected that these be allocated to the majority.
Which, as has already been said, made no difference to the outcome The total in favour of the motion was therefore 159 votes and the motion was therefore carried. The matter is now closed."
If only..... Now why does Brexit come to mind?
Recalling that this all started with some difference in opinion between events in England and France perhaps, as an Honorary RNR Lieutenant Commander, the significance of the date of 21 October should not be lost on Tracey - could it be her Trafalgar?
I should also apologise if I have not been clever enough to get the columns for the voting figures correctly lined up in the submitted version.
Jack