Originally Posted by
Mike Cross
LAA needs to extricate itself from this mess. To my mind the solution is simple and revolves around ONE question, which I, as a member, pose below.
We appoint people to make decisions on our behalf. If we are unhappy with their performance there should be a motion of no confidence, which, if passed ought to result in the person(s) concerned stepping down or being removed from their post.
The awards committee made a decision based on information available to them at the time. They later revisited their decision and decided it should stand. Their decision was then overturned by a vote at the 2016 AGM.
The ONE simple question that I suggest should be addressed is “Was it right to allow the decision of the awards committee to be overturned in this way?” The answer to that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of the spat between the two principals and their supporters.
If you start with that question, rather than the intricacies of the argument between the protagonists (which is no business of the LAA) it's easy.
To my mind it was wrong to allow the decision to be overturned in this way, in the same way that it would be wrong to allow a decision by the CEO or our airworthiness experts to be overturned by a simple majority at an AGM.
LAA should not be involving itself in the wider argument.
Mike, I think you are close, but not actually on target.
The importance of the Awards Committee in this is that they should have proposed the motion to rescind. Having discovered, or at least having had it explained to them, that they had been deceived, there is surely some moral obligation to either make it right, or ask the membership whether or not they are content to allow it to stand.
What we actually got was a member raising a motion, which highlights the fact that the Committee were happy to not take action. Subsequent statements show that the upper reaches of the LAA were not prepared to resolve this, in a way that the majority of voting members wanted.
Now that we have had a vote, and the award rescinded, we should be dealing with the reluctance of the LAA Board to distance the remaining good name of the Association from the TC-T camp.
Looking at all that Tracey has said and done, I am unable to find where she has furthered the stated aims of the LAA. As more of her lies are broadcast by the BBC, there is an increasing certainty that the wider public will associate her name with fraud, and worse. She has today said in a BBC interview that she was not allowed to make a defence when the vote was taken to rescind the award. That's even more black and white lying than the Herne Bay video
Why is is so difficult for the Board to see that?