Amnesty International: Reform 2004

Candidates' Forum - Questions and Answers, page 4

This page last updated: April 16, 2004

Question:
Your platform states a goal to ensure that economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) include work on behalf of individual victims. I am very concerned that the new mission for social justice and ESCR work will (a) wind up supporting socialist and welfare state ideals, which are ultimately antithetical to the rights to physical and mental integrity, and freedom of conscience and expression, and (b) drive away libertarian and conservative supporters of AI, thereby further weakening the primary mission. Do you have plans for dealing with this, or do you agree with the idea of restricting AI to a liberal viewpoint?

Paul answers:
ESCR (economic, social, and cultural rights) issues are not as clear cut in terms of whose human rights are violated, who is doing the human rights violating, what the remedy is, and whether the remedy does not cause more problems. For example, it is very difficult to contradict a statement like, "torture" is bad. However, what about something like, not paying a living wage? What is a living wage, is a living wage actually enough, what happens if everyone gets a living wage, etc.

Govind answers:
I am actually in favor, strongly of ESCR rights, and actually study it for a living, but Amnesty International does not have the expertise to launch into this type of very difficult analysis. If Amnesty International were to spend its resources on gaining a through grounding in this, what work are they going to give up? There are a number of excellent organizations working on ESCR issues that dedicate themselves to social justice. We should be supportive of their efforts and not try to co-opt or duplicate that work.

Question:
I have belonged to AI for many years. I just received a ballot. I have read your statements, but they are pretty vague. I guess you want more transparency, etc. It would help me in deciding how to vote if you could give me some concrete examples of what you did not like about Board procedures and how you would like to change them.

Paul answers:
A couple of examples:
* The Board has relied on more conference calls vs. face-to-face meetings. An unintended consequence of conference call meetings is that no average member can join the conference call to listen to the Board. In essence, these become closed meetings. And these conference call meetings were not announced, further reducing the opportunities for input and oversight from members.
* Over-use of executive session to decide important policy matters. This again takes the decision-making away from the light of day. Frequently the decisions made do not hold up to scrutiny.
As a reputable 501(c)(3) non-profit, we must not allow these excesses to become the norm.

Govind answers:
Emails to the Board of Directors simply go unanswered. Not even a simple acknowledgement. As the organization has gotten larger, it has clearly become more bureacratic with time. The reform candidates aim at making sure that the roots part of the grassroots is taken into consideration with shared leadership and a sense of openness and transparency that this organization was once proud of.

Question:
How will you as a reform slate work with those continuing on the Board if your philosophy and direction differ from the traditional. I am a little cautious to vote for 1/3 of the board who wants to overturn what is good about AI.

Paul answers: I have worked often with people that may not share my philosophy and ideals. (Partisan politics teaches one the art of compromise.) Our actual philosophy is probably more "traditional" than most candidates for this Board. By that, I mean our slate shares the desire not to "throw out the baby with the bath water." The "baby" in this instance is our long term traditional work for the individual, forgotten prisoner. We believe that what is good about AI has been this focus on the individual, forgotten prisoner.

Govind answers: Ah, actually, we are not overturning what is good about AI, our aim is to bring it back-- to strengthen what is good about AI-- its determination of focusing on individuals cannot be forgotten. That's why it is more important than ever for us to have a say in the future of the organization. In a way, the reform slate is misnamed-- it is ironic that it is "reform" to be going to a model of shared leadership and openness that AI actually once had!

Magdaleno answers: We believe that accountability and transparency are goals that every non-profit Board should endorse. We think that AIUSA members should be informed about AIUSA decision-making. In the past, the AIUSA Board has been accountable and transparent--again, that was a tradition of which members were justly proud. The recent Board, however, has not been accountable or transparent, and reform is needed.

Steve answers: I was struck by your assumption that because we are a REFORM slate that we want "to overturn what is good in Amnesty." Firstly, since you don't define what is "good" there is no possible way to answer your question. Secondly, I believe that we would unanimously agree that we wish to preserve and strengthen what is good in Amnesty such as individual casework and urgent actions. Your question about how as 1/3 of the board we could work with the remaining 2/3 is based on an assumption that we are opposed to everybody presently on the Board. I believe that if the REFORM slate were elected our views would probably be representative of a majority of the Board as it would then be constituted.

Rick answers: We haven't forgotten the "forgotten prisioner" and we believe the current leadership has. We don't want to overturn the good that AIUSA is doing, we just think it's important to continue doing what made AI effective: focusing on the safety and freedom of individual prisoners as an end unto itself, and not mostly as a means of campaigning. Other board candidates may be well qualified to serve, but they are not part of the reform slate that has come together in an attempt to address needs which recent board configurations have either neglected, or created. A change in very much in need, and it will take like-minded individuals working as a team to effect that change.

Phyllis answers: We believe that AIUSA's greatest strength are its members and the vision that we as an organization can empower each person to change the world for the better. We also believe that AIUSA is at it's best when members and staff share in decision-making and responsibilty. We are concerned that AIUSA's leadership is responding to a changing world by expecting the staff to handle everything, rather than relying on our successful model of shared leadership.

Question: I appreciate your effort to set up Candidate Question Time and I am wondering why this couldn't be part of the elections process in general. There are only a few minutes to ask questions of candidates at the AGM, and their panel is scheduled inevitably at the same time as three or four others. Do you think a web question site is a workable idea for future elections?

Answer: This question can only be answered by the Officer of the Election, Nancy Galib (she is also General Secretary of the Board). We think it would be a very good idea to have an online forum where all Board candidates could answer questions.

Read last week's questions ->

Acronyms explained:

IEC = International Executive Committee [in essence, the "International Board"]
UDHR = Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1948 [forms the basis of our work]
CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
FSA = Full Spectrum Approach [to our human rights work]
ICM = International Council Meeting [held every 2 years to make decisions for our movement]
ISP = Integrated Strategic Plan
NGO = Non-Governmental Organization [not just an AI acronym]


		Candidate Question Time
	Candidates' Forum - Questions and Answers, page 4 This page last updated: April 16, 2004 Question: Your platform states a goal to ensure that economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) include work on behalf of individual victims. I am very concerned that the new mission for social justice and ESCR work will (a) wind up supporting socialist and welfare state ideals, which are ultimately antithetical to the rights to physical and mental integrity, and freedom of conscience and expression, and (b) drive away libertarian and conservative supporters of AI, thereby further weakening the primary mission. Do you have plans for dealing with this, or do you agree with the idea of restricting AI to a liberal viewpoint? Paul answers: ESCR (economic, social, and cultural rights) issues are not as clear cut in terms of whose human rights are violated, who is doing the human rights violating, what the remedy is, and whether the remedy does not cause more problems. For example, it is very difficult to contradict a statement like, "torture" is bad. However, what about something like, not paying a living wage? What is a living wage, is a living wage actually enough, what happens if everyone gets a living wage, etc. Govind answers: I am actually in favor, strongly of ESCR rights, and actually study it for a living, but Amnesty International does not have the expertise to launch into this type of very difficult analysis. If Amnesty International were to spend its resources on gaining a through grounding in this, what work are they going to give up? There are a number of excellent organizations working on ESCR issues that dedicate themselves to social justice. We should be supportive of their efforts and not try to co-opt or duplicate that work. Question: I have belonged to AI for many years. I just received a ballot. I have read your statements, but they are pretty vague. I guess you want more transparency, etc. It would help me in deciding how to vote if you could give me some concrete examples of what you did not like about Board procedures and how you would like to change them. Paul answers: A couple of examples: * The Board has relied on more conference calls vs. face-to-face meetings. An unintended consequence of conference call meetings is that no average member can join the conference call to listen to the Board. In essence, these become closed meetings. And these conference call meetings were not announced, further reducing the opportunities for input and oversight from members. * Over-use of executive session to decide important policy matters. This again takes the decision-making away from the light of day. Frequently the decisions made do not hold up to scrutiny. As a reputable 501(c)(3) non-profit, we must not allow these excesses to become the norm. Govind answers: Emails to the Board of Directors simply go unanswered. Not even a simple acknowledgement. As the organization has gotten larger, it has clearly become more bureacratic with time. The reform candidates aim at making sure that the roots part of the grassroots is taken into consideration with shared leadership and a sense of openness and transparency that this organization was once proud of. Question: How will you as a reform slate work with those continuing on the Board if your philosophy and direction differ from the traditional. I am a little cautious to vote for 1/3 of the board who wants to overturn what is good about AI. Paul answers: I have worked often with people that may not share my philosophy and ideals. (Partisan politics teaches one the art of compromise.) Our actual philosophy is probably more "traditional" than most candidates for this Board. By that, I mean our slate shares the desire not to "throw out the baby with the bath water." The "baby" in this instance is our long term traditional work for the individual, forgotten prisoner. We believe that what is good about AI has been this focus on the individual, forgotten prisoner. Govind answers: Ah, actually, we are not overturning what is good about AI, our aim is to bring it back-- to strengthen what is good about AI-- its determination of focusing on individuals cannot be forgotten. That's why it is more important than ever for us to have a say in the future of the organization. In a way, the reform slate is misnamed-- it is ironic that it is "reform" to be going to a model of shared leadership and openness that AI actually once had! Magdaleno answers: We believe that accountability and transparency are goals that every non-profit Board should endorse. We think that AIUSA members should be informed about AIUSA decision-making. In the past, the AIUSA Board has been accountable and transparent--again, that was a tradition of which members were justly proud. The recent Board, however, has not been accountable or transparent, and reform is needed. Steve answers: I was struck by your assumption that because we are a REFORM slate that we want "to overturn what is good in Amnesty." Firstly, since you don't define what is "good" there is no possible way to answer your question. Secondly, I believe that we would unanimously agree that we wish to preserve and strengthen what is good in Amnesty such as individual casework and urgent actions. Your question about how as 1/3 of the board we could work with the remaining 2/3 is based on an assumption that we are opposed to everybody presently on the Board. I believe that if the REFORM slate were elected our views would probably be representative of a majority of the Board as it would then be constituted. Rick answers: We haven't forgotten the "forgotten prisioner" and we believe the current leadership has. We don't want to overturn the good that AIUSA is doing, we just think it's important to continue doing what made AI effective: focusing on the safety and freedom of individual prisoners as an end unto itself, and not mostly as a means of campaigning. Other board candidates may be well qualified to serve, but they are not part of the reform slate that has come together in an attempt to address needs which recent board configurations have either neglected, or created. A change in very much in need, and it will take like-minded individuals working as a team to effect that change. Phyllis answers: We believe that AIUSA's greatest strength are its members and the vision that we as an organization can empower each person to change the world for the better. We also believe that AIUSA is at it's best when members and staff share in decision-making and responsibilty. We are concerned that AIUSA's leadership is responding to a changing world by expecting the staff to handle everything, rather than relying on our successful model of shared leadership. Question: I appreciate your effort to set up Candidate Question Time and I am wondering why this couldn't be part of the elections process in general. There are only a few minutes to ask questions of candidates at the AGM, and their panel is scheduled inevitably at the same time as three or four others. Do you think a web question site is a workable idea for future elections? Answer: This question can only be answered by the Officer of the Election, Nancy Galib (she is also General Secretary of the Board). We think it would be a very good idea to have an online forum where all Board candidates could answer questions. Read last week's questions -> Acronyms explained: IEC = International Executive Committee [in essence, the "International Board"] UDHR = Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1948 [forms the basis of our work] CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women FSA = Full Spectrum Approach [to our human rights work] ICM = International Council Meeting [held every 2 years to make decisions for our movement] ISP = Integrated Strategic Plan NGO = Non-Governmental Organization [not just an AI acronym]