Macdonald Report goes back for a rethink – a member of the English Appeals Panel reflects

The news that the Macdonald Report, and its allied recommendations, had been narrowly referred back came as something of a surprise, as least to this observer. The ground is normally pretty well prepared for changes like this, and whilst the debate about the Party’s internal disciplinary procedures has been going on for some time now, there appeared to be agreement that something needed to be done. And whilst that possibility isn’t ruled out – yet – there must be some doubt as to whether the proposals will, even if amended, be accepted by a Federal Conference at some future date.

Having read the report, it seems to me that it contains much to recommend it. The suggestion that a statement should be agreed to be used by all those in positions of leadership within the Party, if asked to comment on a disciplinary issue, is essential for justice to be done. Too often, there has been a sense that senior figures influence such decisions, regardless of whether or not that is true. If a process exists, it should be trusted to deliver appropriate outcomes. And yes, the verdicts may be flawed occasionally, but no system of justice is perfect, and an appeals system should hopefully take care of most of those issues.

On that point, the right of the Party President to appeal on behalf of the Party at large troubles me somewhat. It is a power vulnerable to pressure from external sources – would an appeal be submitted following negative coverage by the media, for example? It seems to me to contradict the suggestion that the Party’s leadership should refrain from comment.

The possible grounds for a successful appeal are logical – failure of process, perversity of initial findings, emergence of new evidence – all act to protect individual members from possible miscarriage of justice, and expand the scope of the current English Appeals Panel somewhat (currently, it does not rehear a case).

Training for the newly designated adjudicators is, as is noted in the Report, critical, given the responsibilities they will have. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that offers a challenge to the Party, requiring as it does proper resourcing. And the question of how adjudicators and Appeals Panel members are appointed needs to be looked at. The example of my appointment to the English Appeals Panel may enlighten.

I received an e-mail from my Regional Chair, asking me if I would be willing to serve, following the creation of a vacancy by the promotion of the incumbent to the Federal Appeals Panel. I was happy to do so, given my background in the Party’s administrative ‘undergrowth’ and my professional expertise in the field of compliance. But there was no training offered, and I rely to some extent on my knowledge of the Party’s rules and the training offered by my employer. Not everyone has those advantages.

The question of anonymity for complainants is a difficult one. On the one hand, I can see that raising one’s head above the parapets is difficult, particularly in a Party which can be a bit like a family sometimes, prone to circle the wagons against threats rather than consider whether or not the complaints are justified. On the other hand, it is difficult to defend oneself when you aren’t certain who is accusing you. The Party will have to decide whose interests are best served by whatever decision it takes on that, and live with the consequences.

Finally, the Report addresses one of the major bugbears of our current disciplinary system, the time taken to reach a final outcome. In my experience, one of the major problems is that bringing together a disciplinary panel and arranging for everyone to be in the right place at the right time is far more difficult than it sounds. I’m a volunteer, with a job and a family, and most of the key players in any Party body have similar commitments. And, unless you have a large body of potential participants, you are reliant on the goodwill and ease of availability of a very small number of key individuals. You may meet the proposed timetable, but it doesn’t take much to extend the timeline. There is, however, no harm in setting a goal for reaching an outcome, as long as the timetable doesn’t drive the final outcome.

One assumes that the Federal Board will now be tasked with going away to seek ways of addressing the concerns stated in Southport. I will be interested to see if there is an effort made to talk to those of us who work with, and within, the current system, rather than those who merely set the framework and make the appointments.

* Mark Valladares is the East of England’s nominated member of the English Appeals Panel.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and Party policy and internal matters.
Advert

7 Comments

  • Laurence Cox 12th Mar '18 - 2:25pm

    I am rather concerned that the decision to refer back was made when so few Party members voted. Caron, posting yesterday, said it was 102-100, which is surely a small minority even of those attending Conference. When we had Conference representatives it was understandable that votes might be carried on small numbers, but now we have OMOV there is a real danger that the Party may make changes that do not reflect the views of the membership as a whole. Perhaps the FB also needs to look at whether there should be a threshold for a Conference vote to mandate action. After all, even the House of Commons requires 40 MPs to be present for a quorum.

  • OnceALibDem 12th Mar '18 - 4:08pm

    When Lord MacDonald posted his proposals on here no members raised any reservations. So it is worth a tentative question about how representative the audience for LDV is in terms of the membership.

  • ” I will be interested to see if there is an effort made to talk to those of us who work with, and within, the current system, rather than those who merely set the framework and make the appointments.”

    Yes, me too.

    Lorennzo: if the party put in place a threshold, surely the presumption of the threshold failing to be reached would be “we do not make the change if the threshold is not reached” so I don’t see how having a threshold would have resulted in the report being passed?

    And of course there IS a threshold of a type: a two-thirds majority of those in the room would have had to have voted for the constitutional change. Given the (almost) 50/50 result of the reference back, that was never going to happen in that hall and on that day.

  • Laurence Cox 13th Mar '18 - 1:20pm

    @Jennie

    A 2/3 majority of those present and voting is NOT a threshold. You could have had three people in the conference hall with two voting in favour and one against and that would have complied with the rules for passing a Constitutional Amendment, but I hope that you would not consider that appropriate. Not being quorate would simply mean that the motion would have had to come back to a later quorate meeting.

    To quote Shackleton on The Law and Practice of Meetings: “It is a generally accepted principle that business transacted at a meeting at which a quorum is not present is invalid.”

    By the way, my name is Laurence, not Lorennzo.

  • Gosh Lawrence sorry I got you mixed up with Lorenzo C, who is a regular in these parts

    “Not being quorate would simply mean that the motion would have had to come back to a later quorate meeting.”

    Yes, exactly, the motion would have fallen for lack of a quorum, and still not been passed.

  • On anonymity, I can’t see how a case can be fair if a person accused does not know who they’re supposed to have harrassed/bullied/assaulted. However, the identity of the accuser could be hidden from all but the “judges”, the accused and his/her representatives, with heavy penalties for leaking. That’s what happens in court cases of blackmail, I believe.

    On the poor attendance, I remember looking at the vast amount of text in the motion and thinking, “How can I engage with that, on top of all the other things I need to do at conference?”. Conference motions in general have got very wordy, with maybe a page explaining why we ought to be a bit worried about things followed by the many actual recommendations. A short, punchy summary plus highlighting of key points in the motion ought to be possible.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarRob Parker 23rd Jun - 11:55pm
    I hate to break this to you Caron but it is absolutely a done deal and we cannot get out of it. The referendum result...
  • User AvatarDavid Evans 23rd Jun - 11:52pm
    I do think that once again some of us are looking with rose coloured spectacles at those we choose to look on as our personal...
  • User AvatarTim Hill 23rd Jun - 11:00pm
    And TonyH shows the other reason for standing. 9 votes by a paper candidate contributes 9 votes more to a national tally. Not standing, doesn't.
  • User AvatarTim Hill 23rd Jun - 10:58pm
    We should always stand a candidate. We have a duty as a party to give people the chance to vote Liberal Democrat. Those who argue...
  • User Avatarfrankie 23rd Jun - 10:45pm
    Bless are we playing be nice to Brexiteers again. Don't challenge there rants it upsets them.
  • User AvatarGlenn 23rd Jun - 8:33pm
    I don't think the country has become meaner. IMO, the version of Britain sold to the world from the Blair years up to the referendum...