The Appeals Panel for England - no, but yes, but no...

It's been slightly complicated, but my future as a member of the Appeals Panel for England suddenly doesn't exist.

As I noted a few days ago, the appointment is a matter for the Executive Committee of my Regional Party and, it seems, there was an apparent unwillingness in some quarters to simply reappoint the incumbent. I am, in fairness, pretty relaxed about such a principle - the appointment is in the gift of the Regional Party, represented by its Executive Committee.

However, there didn't appear to be a settled view as to how to proceed and, rather than see the argument over the basic principles of democracy and transparency (both of which I'm rather fond of) drag out when the focus should be on getting as many Liberal Democrats elected as possible, I've decided to withdraw from consideration.

Once the Executive Committee have decided on how to choose their next nominee, preferably after 6 May, they can then take whatever action is required. But, if you're curious as to what the role entails and how it is appointed, here's what the English Party Constitution says...

9.1 There shall be an Appeals Panel for England, which shall consist of:

(a) the current members of the Federal Appeals Panel elected by the English Council under Article 22.1 of the Federal Constitution, one of whom shall be designated as the Chair of the Appeals Panel for England by the English Council; and

(b) one person appointed by each Regional Party according to its internal procedures. 

9.2 Each member of the Panel shall hold office for five years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment: provided that no person shall be entitled to hold office for more than ten years in aggregate. No person shall be eligible for appointment if (and any member shall forthwith vacate office upon becoming) an MP, MEP or prospective parliamentary candidate or a member of the English Council Executive or the English Candidates Committee or an employee of the Party. The body making the original appointment may terminate the appointment because the appointee is no longer able to carry out his or her duties as a member of the Panel on account of ill health or for other good cause. Any casual vacancy on the Panel may be filled by the body making the original appointment for the residue of the term of that appointment.

9.3 The Appeals Panel for England shall adjudicate on:

(a) any dispute over the interpretation of these Articles;

(b) any claim that the rights under these Articles of a member or of a Party body have been infringed, provided that no appeal may be brought under this paragraph where there is another appropriate appeal procedure;

(c) any dispute between the Liberal Democrats in England and a Regional or Local Party, or between Regional Parties or between Local Parties in different Regions; and

(d) any matter expressly so provided by these Articles or by rules made hereunder.

Subsequent to the adoption of Article 22 of the Federal Constitution appeals relating to disciplinary matters shall not fall within the remit of the English Appeals Panel and shall be dealt with according to Articles 3 and 22 of the Federal Constitution.

If that doesn't rule you out, and you survive the additional restrictions set by the East of England Regional Constitution;

4.15 The Regional Executive shall appoint a member of the Regional Party who is eligible to be a member of the Federal Appeals Panel and is not and has not within the preceding year been a member of the Regional Executive or of the Regional Candidates Committee to be a member of the Appeals Panel for England. This appointment shall be subject to the ratification of the next Regional Conference. 

then look out for an announcement from the East of England Liberal Democrats in due course.

As I drift gracefully into the distant reaches of the Liberal Democrat galaxy...

It's funny really, in that I've been a Party member for more than thirty-five years now - I joined the then Union of Liberal Students in 1984 - and always had a role of some kind, even when I was busy doing other things. It would be fair to say that what I've done has seldom been glamorous, and certainly not front of house.

But, where constitutions have needed to be applied, or elections run, I've generally turned up sooner or later. For, despite my rather forlorn protests that I'd like to be more engaged with the "idea stuff", I also recognise that a decent, competent bureaucrat is a useful commodity in a political party. Note the use of the word "useful", as opposed to "valued".

There has always been a job to do, or a committee to manage but, suddenly, that appeared to be coming to an end. Yes, I've got a couple of Returning Officer gigs to finish off, a co-option for the Young Liberals and a Chair election for the Parliamentary Candidates Association (and there's an irony given my history with them...), but they are coming to an end and I'm not expecting to continue in either post.

Indeed, the only formal position left in my portfolio was that of the East of England member of the Appeals Panel for England. I was appointed to the latter position five years ago and, whilst it can be a bit stressful, someone who has been a Regional Secretary in two Regions and a senior Returning Officer, combined with relevant professional skills, is pretty well suited to the task.

But it is perhaps typical of the value that the Party places on administrative skills that, having notified my Regional Party on 30 November that my term would be up shortly, I had heard nothing in response... until today, that is, when I received a telephone call suggesting that, if I was willing to continue, this would be arranged. Now, given my remoteness from Regional Party politics, how the constitutional niceties are handled is not something I would know much about. I assume that the Regional Executive will have a say and that, if there are any fundamental objections, someone will tell me. Mind you, if there are, that’s probably fine, after all, any benefits I receive from holding the position are hard to see.

And so, I think, I continue my supporting role in a little-known corner of the organisational complex that is the administration of a political party. You’ll barely notice that I’m there...

Keeping myself busy, and vaguely useful too...

Ah yes, constitutions. Wonderful things, in the right hands. Admittedly, in the wrong hands, a thing of peril, but they are at least reasonably certain. And, for someone like me, used to working in a rules-based, legislative system, a cause of work within a party political environment.

People do not join political parties to enforce rules - they generally join to make rules, or change them. And thus, anyone willing to be the arbiter of them is likely not to be stampeded in the rush to do so. My Party “career” is a fairly good example of that - seldom opposed and often left to get on with it unmolested by interference.

At the moment, I’m reminded of that. I’m on Returning Officer duty at the moment, for a decent seat on the East of England, and having to reacquaint myself with the Selection Rules. Who knew about candidate compacts? And who do you have to talk to in order to get things done? But it all seems to be coming together, so we’ll keep our fingers crossed.

We’re in a constitutional review phase too, seeing what was missed in the recent Governance Review and what has been “shaken out of the tree” as a result. Personally, I find myself wondering why the Federal Board nominates members to its various subordinate committees. Each of the committees is represented on Federal Board, so can report upwards and convey the wishes of Federal Board back down again. It implies an effective lack of trust and places people in position without an adequately defined role. What is the Federal Board representative on, say, Federal International Relations Committee, for? What is their intended role?

I’m not a believer in form over function, so I tend to the viewpoint that every Committee member must be there for a clearly defined reason to carry out a broadly defined role. Otherwise, what are they for, and how much value do they add?

I’m also of the view that a member of Federal International Relations Committee should sit on Federal Policy Committee, instead of the other way round as at present. FIRC advises the Party on international policy, not the other way round, yet there is no official representative - the Chair attends in an invited, advisory capacity.

I often think that the Party bureaucracy is designed to reflect a cynical but widely held view that nobody is to be wholly trusted with authority, and that the more people you have supervising any particular body or activity, the better. We talk a good game about proportionate supervision and regulation, yet seldom demonstrate it in our Party’s organisation. I guess that that’s ironic (don’t you think?).

So, having been asked to consider the question of possible constitutional amendments by our Committee Chair, Robert Woodthorpe-Browne, I have the slight advantage of having already given the matter some thought.

And, finally, I’ve got an English Appeals Panel “gig”, tasked with interpreting an element of the Party’s Constitution. Luckily, it’s a paper hearing, saving me a journey to London, but nonetheless it has to be done right.

I guess that all that Constitution Reading is paying off...

A Committee doesn't happen by itself, you know...

So, an election took place, and six members of the new Federal International Relations Committee were elected. So far, so good, especially as one of them was me. But what happens next?

Naturally, the Committee has to meet, and someone has to organise that. But who, and who makes sure that all of the members are invited? Indeed, who has the job of finding out who the members are? In the case of FIRC (no sniggering at the back, Jennie...), the questions are made more complex because it isn't always easy to establish who you would ask in the first place. How do you contact the State Parties, for example, and who do you need to reach?

Luckily, the outgoing Committee had taken the precaution of appointing a Secretary, and whilst I have no mandate beyond 31 December, I can at least make a start. So, I've sent out a stream of e-mails far and wide, seeking answers. This is what I've found out so far...

There are fourteen voting members of the Committee;

• Phil Bennion, Merlene Emerson, Jonathan Fryer, Paul Reynolds, Robert Woodthorpe Browne and myself, all directly elected
• a representative of the Federal Board, who meet on 14 January and will presumably decide then
• a representative of the Federal Policy Committee
• a representative of the English Party, whose Executive meet on 21 January
• Roger Williams (yes, the former MP for Brecon and Radnorshire), representing the Welsh Liberal Democrats
• a representative of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, whose Executive also meet on 21 January
• Hannah Bettsworth and Andrew Martin, the job-sharing International Officers of the Young Liberals (they only get one vote between them though)
• Catherine Bearder, our sole MEP
• Tom Brake, our Parliamentary spokesperson on Foreign Affairs

There are seven non-voting members;

• a representative of the Liberal International British Group, whose Executive meet on 9 January
• Nick Hopkinson, Chair of the Liberal Democrat European Group
• a representative of the Liberal Democrat Group on the Committee of the Regions
• a representative of the Brussels and Europe Liberal Democrats
• Ros Scott, as a member of the Bureau of the ALDE Party
• John Alderdice and Kishwer Falkner, as members of the Bureau of Liberal International

There should also be a representative of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but as there is no Liberal Democrat there, the position lies vacant.

We also need a Chair. According to the Federal Constitution, only those members who were directly elected are eligible to run. Accordingly, as I didn't want the job, I opened nominations to the other five, only to find that we had but one nominee, Robert Woodthorpe Browne, whom I declared elected.

We need a regulatory framework too, as specified by Article 7 of the Federal Constitution. But, because we were a sub-committee of the Federal Executive, we apparently didn't have one, so we need one fairly quickly. The good news is that there is a member of Party staff who is responsible for this sort of thing, so I've dropped him an e-mail. We'll see what comes of it, but it needs to cover transparency, conflicts of interest, diversity, and all sorts of other good things.

Finally, we need an agenda for our first meeting or, at least, an outline one. Luckily, I'm on top of that too, so a draft is with the new Chair and our International Officer, the estimable Harriet Shone, for their comment prior to circulation to the emerging Committee.

I think that we've made a pretty good start, and once we've worked out a communications and engagement policy, I sense that we might have a pretty good story to tell. There's an awful lot that can go wrong before that though...

Yesterday, Cambridge, today, the world!

Well, that was all a bit accidental. I arrived at the International Relations Committee a bit late - a level crossing problem at Claydon, track failure at Colchester, a rhinoceros on the line at Shenfield, you know, the usual Abellio Greater Anglia experience - having probably missed the Governance Review bit. And you know how much I love governance stuff...

However, it hadn't happened, and the agenda indicated that we were to adopt the idea that all Federal Committees would appoint a Secretary from amongst its own ranks. Apparently, nobody wanted the job... And whilst I have very little experience in a Secretariat role - five years as a Regional Secretary (in two Regions), Secretary General of the Young Liberals, Secretary of one of Liberal Youth's forerunners, etc, etc - I saw an opportunity to serve. And so I now do. 

Of course, this offers up a new challenge, in that without a job description, it is unclear what my role is. I could do whatever takes my fancy, interfering to my heart's content. You will doubtless be reassured that this is not my intention...

But having ideas is one thing, having a strategy is quite another. And so, gentle reader (and Jennie), I turn to you. What do you want to know about our work and how? What would make International Relations Committee more relevant/useful to you?

Stay tuned for more adventures in bureaucracy as "Liberal Bureaucracy" goes global...

European Selection: the first order of business for the Returning Officer

The disadvantage of my increasing distance from the Party’s central bureaucracy is that I don’t really know what they’re up to. This may be a good thing in some ways, but advances in administration do happen without me and unless you may an effort to stay ‘in the loop’, there is a danger that you act on the basis of obsolete guidance.

Accordingly, I’ve asked the Senior Returning Officer for the European selection (he co-ordinates stuff and deals with issues that transcend individual Regions, amongst other things) whether or not the Rules have changed from 2012. I’m led to believe that, as far as I’m concerned, not much has changed but we’ll see about that shortly.

In the meantime, and assuming that these bits haven’t changed, what am I expected to do as Returning Officer?

I will;

• Support the shortlisting committee through the selection process
• Protect the interests of members
• Ensure the fair and equal treatment of candidates
• Ensure that the selection rules are followed

I am also required to brief the relevant Regional Executive on the selection process before the appointment of the shortlisting committee (can I do that via Skype?).

So, it looks like my first task is to contact the Secretary of London Liberal Democrats and find out when they next meet. I wonder who that is these days?...

A good idea spreads across the Liberal Democrat world...

Readers of Liberal Democrat Voice will recall that, three weeks ago, Ros and I were in Ipswich, taking part in the Suffolk Liberal Democrats mini-conference. Ros opened the conference, and I gave the presentation on 'behind the scenes', as part of an introduction to the Party and its works.

Ros, who had come up with the idea and organised the speakers (and the guest speaker, Sir Bob Russell) offered to send a copy of the conference brochure to interested parties, and sent out about twenty or so, and our Regional Chair, who had filled a late gap in the schedule, conveyed the idea back. Indeed, the Parliamentary Party in the Lords have asked for a presentation, so that they can find out more. 

The Essex County Co-ordinating Committee liked it so much that they're going to be holding one too. Indeed, they've invited Ros to open the event, and I will be performing a reprise of my presentation (reminder to self, change references to Suffolk, replace with Essex throughout).

What will happen? Well, key activists and members will talk for four minutes each on a range of subjects:

• Being a councillor
• Being a Parliamentary Candidate
• Local Campaigning
• Making Policy
• Going to Conference
• Liberal Youth
• Behind the Scenes – the Party bureaucracy
• Using your skills – part summary, part inspiration

And then, over tea or coffee, members can ‘speed date’ with the speakers to find out more, fill in surveys to let us know their skills and interests, and meet their fellow members.

So, if you're in the Chelmsford area on Saturday, July 25th in the afternoon, and you want to know more about the various activities that you can involve yourself in, why not come along to the Trinity Methodist Church, Rainsford Road, Chelmsford CM1 2XB, starting at 3 p.m. It's close to the station at Chelmsford, so very accessible from East London too.

Ros and I look forward to seeing you there...

@liberal_reform - can you miss all four corners of a point?

I have been invited today to endorse a proposed amendment to the Party's Constitution, which reads;

In article 7.3 of the constitution, add to the end of the first sentence:

", and subject to the Leader's right to veto the inclusion of any specific policy."

What this means is that the Federal Policy Committee, which draws up the Party's manifestos for Westminster and Europe, shall retain its responsibility, subject to the right of the Leader to veto anything he or she doesn't like.

I like to think that I am not a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist - I prefer a panama for one thing - but do have some respect for the history and traditions of the Party. Policy making by ordinary Party members is one of the things that makes us different from Labour and the Conservatives, a point made abundantly clear by Lizzie Jewkes and her idea that raising the personal tax allowance to £10,000 per annum would be a liberal means of redistribution and would allow more people more control over their own lives.

This amendment would, if passed, allow a Leader to conclude - I don't think that this policy is workable, so I'll veto it, even were it to be passed overwhelmingly at a Federal Conference. And, you see, a Leader isn't always right.

I am a bit of a process geek. I favour the notion of testing ideas through the filtration of Federal Conferences and Federal Policy Committee, because there is always someone who will, if given a chance, get up and say, "I think that you'll find that the 1846 Paper Clips Act makes the proposal unworkable.". Liberal Democrats can be pedantic like that, but good policy making requires exactitude and knowledge.

Yes, a Leader has people to do research for them, but my experience of a series of Leader's Offices is that 'group-think' tends to set in sooner rather than later. Which one of them wants to be the one to say to the Leader, "You're wrong on this one, Boss."?

We are also a Party which treasures its internal democracy, the right for all of us to have a say. What impression would it give for the Party to have a passionate debate over an idea, draw its conclusion and then have that overruled by one man or woman?

I do see a logic in the way Liberal Reform are thinking. Tuition fees turned out to be a disaster, and had Nick vetoed it before the General Election, we might not have had so many problems with the notion of trust. But, it wasn't about the policy, it was about what we did with the policy, about the pledge that so many of our people signed in 2010, and how we dealt with it in Government.

My apologies, ladies and gentlemen of Liberal Reform, but you do not address a misjudgement by the leadership of a political party by giving that leadership more power. And so, with regret, I must advise that I won't be supporting your constitutional amendment...

A bureaucrat speaks to his expectant audience...

Here I am, trying, and failing, to look as
though I'm not reading my speech...

Yesterday saw the Suffolk Liberal Democrats mini-conference in Ipswich, and I was asked to speak for four minutes on the behind the scenes stuff that happens in our Party. Here's what I said; 

So, you’ve become a Liberal Democrat or, for some of you, been one for many years. It’s all about campaigning for liberal democracy, right?

Well, yes. But you need to be organised, because it’s not quite as simple as going out and knocking on doors, or calling people on the phone, or using social media. And, behind the public face of a political party, there are a bunch of people keeping things ticking over, raising and managing funds, recording what has been decided, making sure that members are able to take up all of the opportunities that being part of any organisation offers.

That means treasurers and secretaries, database managers and so much more. You need people to manage candidate selections so that they’re fair, to draft policy, to design leaflets, and most of all, to ensure that things are done by the rules. Government particular likes to make rules that effect political parties – campaign finance being one of the most obvious areas.

As a result, the bureaucracy of political parties can be very important, if not necessarily very glamorous. But it may be that, sitting in this room, are people with accountancy skills, or organisational skills like process management, who might not like active campaigning but want to help out behind the scenes, or who even like both. 

In my professional life, I work in central government, and thus am somewhat restricted in what I can do publicly. However, I have an accounting background and believe that process matters. And because of that, I’ve found myself a niche deep in the organisational structure of the Party over the years, and had the opportunity to meet, and work with, a range of people I probably wouldn’t have met otherwise – like Ros.

Daunted by the responsibility? Don’t be. There is plenty of advice and support, both locally and from Headquarters, and there are old-timers around like me only too happy to answer questions.

There is also a little-known network of committees that, effectively, run the Party, some locally, like the Executive Committee of your Local Party, some regional – in our case, the East of England - and some at English and even Federal levels. They all need people with skills who can help decide how we select Parliamentary candidates, organise our conferences, design and consult on policy and even how we co-operate with our sister political parties across Europe and beyond. And, there is no reason why it couldn’t be you, if you wanted.

More than a quarter of the membership of this Party have joined in the past six weeks, and a new Leader will doubtless want to change things too, so there are potentially new ways of doing things, and opportunities to influence how the Party works. And here in Suffolk, and beyond, the Party will warmly welcome you if you want to contribute your skills, your knowledge and your time behind the scenes.

So, if you think that you might be interested, come and talk to me in the session that follows these presentations. I promise to talk English, not Bureaucrat, and if you simply want to know how the Party works, I’ll be happy to explain as best I can.

European Parliamentary candidate selection: the expenditure cap for applicants

It dawns on me that it isn't really enough for Returning Officers to understand our internal selection rules, but might be useful to tell other interested parties. If you like, it provides an insight into the process for those who might choose to take part in the future.

Besides, I'm quite proud of this, as it was something that I had been pushing for...

One feature of the new selection rules is the change from dictating the number of pieces of paper etc. that each candidate may produce and send/give out, to having an overall expenditure cap for the selection. English Candidates Committee has produced guidelines for each type of election, but the shortlisting committee may decide that a different amount is appropriate for their own selection. When they are agreeing this, please ensure that they understand that the intention is to create a level playing-field for all candidates, and to make sure that applicants are not ‘priced out’ of the selection.

Each shortlisted candidate is responsible for maintaining their own up-to-date, itemised, record of expenditure during the selection and must keep receipts so that evidence of expenditure can be produced if required. Each candidate must bring their list of expenditure to the count.

If someone (another candidate or anyone who is entitled to ask for an Returning Officer ruling) lodges a complaint with the Returning Officer that a candidate has breached the expenditure cap, they must provide some level of justification for their challenge. The Returning Officer must then ask all candidates to produce their list of expenditure at that point (unless the challenge is made at the count it would be reasonable to allow 24 hours for this). If the Returning Officer then believes that the complaint is worthy of investigation, all candidates then have 48 hours to produce a detailed statement of their expenditure, including evidence – i.e. receipts, invoices, quotes etc. It is quite likely that receipts will not be immediately available for all elements of campaign expenditure, so quotations, unpaid invoices etc. may also be provided.

The candidates do not have to provide the Returning Officer with information about their expenses unless there is a challenge on these grounds.

The reason for asking all candidates to bring their list of expenditure to the count is so that, if the result itself is challenged on expenditure grounds, the Returning Officer can have immediate access to information to enable them to decide whether or not the complaint is likely to be justified. Otherwise the announcement of the result would always have to be delayed, maybe for an appreciable period.

This maintains the principle that we have carried throughout the rules, that the Returning Officer will investigate possible problems but that the onus is on the candidates to abide by the rules and to provide evidence, if challenged, that they have done so.

Now, call me old-fashioned, but this seems to be pretty reasonable, and allows applicants to decide for themselves how they will campaign - more, lower quality leaflets, for example... It's called freedom to demonstrate the abilities that we need from a candidtae, judgement, campaigning skill. Seems obvious too me...

Is that a Liberal Democrat Council Group I see before me?

Here at 'Liberal Bureaucracy', we do like to perform a public service from time to time, and this is one of those times...

The great minds of Liberal Democracy in England have come together and produced this definition;

A Liberal Democrat Council Group shall be automatically recognised if;

(a) Firstly; it comprises only Party members,
(b) Who all went through formal approval as candidates and,
(c) Who were sanctioned as official Liberal Democrat candidates by the D.N.O. and
(d) Secondly; it has Standing Orders that comply with the Party Constitution and,
(e) Provide that group offices should be filled by open and democratic election by the members of the Group.

It isn't all over if a Group does not fulfil all of these criteria, however. The Regional Party may recognise as a Group if it is considered unlikely to bring the Party into disrepute - Suffolk's Liberal Democrat and Independent Group would be approved, for example.

So, if you are a councillor at County, Unitary, Borough or District level, do check to see if your Group has been recognised by your Region. And if you have any questions, contact your Regional Secretary. We know everything...

When silence is not golden - reasons why you still don't know what Party committees are up to (part 1)

More than three months ago, in the midst of the expenses crisis, I took a self-denying ordnance not to comment on matters pertaining to the Party President or to internal Party committees. At the time, I was seriously irritated and, having taken some flak, decided that I saw no reason why I should continue to do so.

The summer has passed, and I have for the most part kept to my word, and I am minded to continue doing so. However, I have been giving the question of how the various Federal and State committees report back some thought...

Oh wouldn't it be nice...

If only we could find out what the Federal Executive were discussing, or could communicate with members of the English Candidates Committee? Many of us in the blogosphere are interested in knowing what might happen, what might be discussed. We conjecture about policy, criticise our leaders, opine about strategy. It would be great if we could have a voice around the table.

Naturally, as a Party which talks a good game in terms of openness and transparency, the idea that reports should be published is a laudable one. And, of course, the internet is free, immediate and simple to use. There is a forum, in the shape of Liberal Democrat Voice, which exists as a place where such debates can occur. In the Members' Forum, it can even be done behind closed doors.

Besides, we're members, we're entitled to know what's being done behind closed doors, aren't we?

Next, I'll look at the history of 'committee blogging' from a personal perspective...