![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosmolinguistWhat's your name, where are you from, and which committee(s) are you standing for?
Zoe O'Connell - I am originally "from" Essex but Ihve lived in Cambridge for nine years, where I am also a City Councillor. I am re-standing for Federal Conference Committee.
Are you standing for the first time or restanding? If first time what new thing do you bring that nobody else could; if restanding, what about your record are you most proud of that you think should make us vote you back in?
I am re-standing. The thing I'm most proud of is definitely the detailed reporting back of the motions and amendments selection processes, something which had not previously happened. You can find a list of all my reports at http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/federal-conference-committee/
LibDemVoice have been very nice in publishing these, particularly Mary Reid who is on the LDV team. I hope you'll also give her a high preference vote!
Are you standing for any other committees, if so which ones; and if elected to more than one how do you plan to divide your time?
I am only standing for Federal Conference Committee. (Under the new rules, it's not possible for someone to be elected to multiple committees, although they can be appointed to them as a representative of other committees/bodies within the party)
Are you an active member of any SAOs, and if so which ones?
Yes, I have been on the executive of LGBT+ Liberal Democrats since 2011 and I am currently the SAO's secretary. I'm standing down as secretary at the end of my current term, which is 31st December 2016, but I am remaining on the executive.
I'm also a member of Humanist and Secularist LibDems, and although I have previously been on their exec I have not been active for some time.
If someone asked you on the doorstep, the hustings or on TV to sum up in one or two sentences what the Lib Dems, uniquely, stand for – and then why anyone should vote for us – what are your answers?
We believe in a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
I know that quoting the preamble to the constitution is considered cheesy in many circles - but it's quoted often because it does a very good job of summing up what we believe. In this era of Brexit and Trump, the commitment to liberty and equality are especially pertinent.
What is your view on diversity quotas for committees? Should they be extended to
cover more than just gender, scrapped totally, kept as is or something else?
Despite being likely to benefit from them, I am sceptical about the new rules on LGBT+, Disability, BAME etc as they feel very much like "we should do something, and this is something". We'll have to see how they work in practice, but it's likely that someone with a very diverse background will tick so many boxes that a committee will be less diverse than if they had not stood.
On the flip side, I do believe that the gender rules are vital and must not be scrapped.
Secrecy rules prevent the party knowing what committees are doing. What will you do to communicate with members; and in what circumstances is confidentiality justified?
Secrecy isn't required for everything that committees do, something I have demonstrated with my reporting of FCC's discussions on motion and amendment selection. (Which, as a reminder, you find at http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/federal-conference-committee/)
In the case of FCC, the main items where some degree of secrecy is required are financial/commercial details and discussion of future venues. We've seen in the past where the venue of a future conference has leaked early, commercial interests have snapped up accommodation before the party was able to secure good rates, and then sold it on for an inflated amount.
How would you make Conference more accessible for people who currently cannot attend?
We've introduced the Access Fund recently to support those who need financial assistance to attend, and this has worked well - time and finances are by far the biggest barrier to people attending, and we recognise that we can't do much to give people extra time!
For those that really can't attend no matter what support we put in place, we certainly need to try to ensure that the remote conference feed is as robust as possible. We've come a long way with that (Major credit to fellow FCC member Jon Ball for ensuring we had a good YouTube feed for at Autumn Conference this year) and preserving that in the face of budget pressures has been and remains important to me.
What do you think needs to be done to improve the process of selecting the agendas for Conference?
Publication of contact details for more of FCC, so that it's easier for people to get in contact with us and lobby us - it's one of the items I have on my list to raise for the first FCC meeting of the new committee in January if re-elected.
The list of all candidates who have answered can be found here.
Zoe O'Connell - I am originally "from" Essex but Ihve lived in Cambridge for nine years, where I am also a City Councillor. I am re-standing for Federal Conference Committee.
Are you standing for the first time or restanding? If first time what new thing do you bring that nobody else could; if restanding, what about your record are you most proud of that you think should make us vote you back in?
I am re-standing. The thing I'm most proud of is definitely the detailed reporting back of the motions and amendments selection processes, something which had not previously happened. You can find a list of all my reports at http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/federal-conference-committee/
LibDemVoice have been very nice in publishing these, particularly Mary Reid who is on the LDV team. I hope you'll also give her a high preference vote!
Are you standing for any other committees, if so which ones; and if elected to more than one how do you plan to divide your time?
I am only standing for Federal Conference Committee. (Under the new rules, it's not possible for someone to be elected to multiple committees, although they can be appointed to them as a representative of other committees/bodies within the party)
Are you an active member of any SAOs, and if so which ones?
Yes, I have been on the executive of LGBT+ Liberal Democrats since 2011 and I am currently the SAO's secretary. I'm standing down as secretary at the end of my current term, which is 31st December 2016, but I am remaining on the executive.
I'm also a member of Humanist and Secularist LibDems, and although I have previously been on their exec I have not been active for some time.
If someone asked you on the doorstep, the hustings or on TV to sum up in one or two sentences what the Lib Dems, uniquely, stand for – and then why anyone should vote for us – what are your answers?
We believe in a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
I know that quoting the preamble to the constitution is considered cheesy in many circles - but it's quoted often because it does a very good job of summing up what we believe. In this era of Brexit and Trump, the commitment to liberty and equality are especially pertinent.
What is your view on diversity quotas for committees? Should they be extended to
cover more than just gender, scrapped totally, kept as is or something else?
Despite being likely to benefit from them, I am sceptical about the new rules on LGBT+, Disability, BAME etc as they feel very much like "we should do something, and this is something". We'll have to see how they work in practice, but it's likely that someone with a very diverse background will tick so many boxes that a committee will be less diverse than if they had not stood.
On the flip side, I do believe that the gender rules are vital and must not be scrapped.
Secrecy rules prevent the party knowing what committees are doing. What will you do to communicate with members; and in what circumstances is confidentiality justified?
Secrecy isn't required for everything that committees do, something I have demonstrated with my reporting of FCC's discussions on motion and amendment selection. (Which, as a reminder, you find at http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/federal-conference-committee/)
In the case of FCC, the main items where some degree of secrecy is required are financial/commercial details and discussion of future venues. We've seen in the past where the venue of a future conference has leaked early, commercial interests have snapped up accommodation before the party was able to secure good rates, and then sold it on for an inflated amount.
How would you make Conference more accessible for people who currently cannot attend?
We've introduced the Access Fund recently to support those who need financial assistance to attend, and this has worked well - time and finances are by far the biggest barrier to people attending, and we recognise that we can't do much to give people extra time!
For those that really can't attend no matter what support we put in place, we certainly need to try to ensure that the remote conference feed is as robust as possible. We've come a long way with that (Major credit to fellow FCC member Jon Ball for ensuring we had a good YouTube feed for at Autumn Conference this year) and preserving that in the face of budget pressures has been and remains important to me.
What do you think needs to be done to improve the process of selecting the agendas for Conference?
Publication of contact details for more of FCC, so that it's easier for people to get in contact with us and lobby us - it's one of the items I have on my list to raise for the first FCC meeting of the new committee in January if re-elected.
The list of all candidates who have answered can be found here.