- Skriv ut
- Uppdaterad 19 Sep 2013
DAWG-rapport (ej fullständig) Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 december 2000
Dear Friends,
I am pleased to send you the report of the Decision-Making and Accountability Working Group (DAWG). The IEC considered this report at its retreat meeting in September 2000, and I have been given responsibility for the consultation process which is now beginning.
As you may recall, DAWG was created by the IEC as requested in Decision 36 of the 1997 ICM, and there was a further detailed resolution about its work at the 1999 ICM (Decision 37).
It is important to emphasize the significance for the future of Amnesty International of the issues covered by this report, and therefore of the consultation that will now take place. You will find that the report deals with issues relating to decision-making and accountability in two ways:
• by making recommendations on specific changes that can be made now about various bodies, functions and processes;
• by suggesting that AI begin a more fundamental review of what sort of organizational layout it should have in the future.
The specific changes are important in that they would significantly and immediately alter the way we see our institutions and relationships. However, the fundamental review will be even more important because it will lead to us agreeing on our organizational identity for long into the future.
The recommendations about specific changes will be considered at the next ICM in August 2001; the fundamental review of what sort of organization AI should be is also beginning now, but will take longer to complete.
The IEC has noted that some issues referred to in Decision 37 of the 1999 ICM have not been adequately covered in the report. They are:
• Youth Networks;
• Decentralized Units;
• Statutory Bodies;
• Voting Rights
However, the IEC has decided that it is important that the report should now be available to the movement, as otherwise it would not be possible for there to be adequate consideration of the issues and recommendations before the 2001 ICM.
To assist sections and structures to understand the report and the issues it raises, the IEC is appointing a panel of facilitators who are willing to make themselves available to conduct workshops for sections and structures (either individually or collectively) during the time between now and the next ICM. An outline of the workshop will be issued shortly. Sections and structures wishing to arrange for a facilitator to conduct a workshop may contact OLU at the IS for details.
In addition, a database will be established, on which will be posted all comments received on the report. You will shortly receive more detailed information about how to access and use this database.
The schedule for this consultation is detailed below:
• November/December 2000: Start of movement consultation on DAWG’s proposals for reform of decision-making in AI
• 15 February 2001: Deadline for submission of comments to the IEC [c/o OLU: <[email protected]> ] on the DAWG proposal
• March 2001: IEC meeting to discuss the DAWG report and the substance of the enabling resolution to facilitate the discussion of the DAWG proposals at the 2001 as well as related statutory amendments
• Until August 2001 ICM: Sections and structures may continue to discuss the DAWG proposals using the workshop outline in preparation for the discussion at the 2001 ICM
The recommendations in the report will require decisions by the 2001 ICM, including any statute amendments. The IEC will try to ensure that resolutions are submitted by the required dates to enable the ICM to approve the recommendations, if it so chooses.
As you will appreciate, it has been a considerable challenge to the members of DAWG to develop and present discussion and proposals across such a sweep of issues, and on behalf of the movement I express our deep thanks for their work. Our thanks will best be expressed, however, through the quality of our participation in the consideration of the recommendations and of the larger issues concerning the future identity of our movement.
With best wishes,
Jaap R. Jacobson
International Executive Committee
ORG 21/11/00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
of ORG 21/10/00
CHANGING THE WAY WE CHANGE
DAWG’S report on options for reforming AI’s decision-making structures & processes
The Background
The Decision-Making and Accountability Working Group (DAWG) was established by Decision 36 of the 1997 ICM. The resolution directed DAWG to propose options for reform of the international decision-making process in AI, reflecting the ICM’s belief that fundamental changes in the decision- making structures and procedures were required to help prepare AI for the challenges of the future. DAWG submitted an Interim Report to the 1999 ICM (ORG 21/01/99) proposing the seven principles that distinguish legitimate decision-making and that should be met by any reform of AI’s decision- making. The principles which were endorsed by the ICM are:
• Empowerment
• Participation and Inclusion
• Effectiveness
• Transparency
• Accountability
• Cohesion
• Direction and Prioritization
Following the 1999 ICM, DAWG completed an evaluation of key elements of AI’s international decision-making and accountability system measured against the above principles (ORG 21/05/00 and ORG 21/06/00), and in April this year DAWG convened a “Stakeholders” meeting which brought together people from large and small sections and structures across the movement to discuss the present system’s strengths and weaknesses (see ORG 21/04/00 for a report of that meeting).
To further assist its work to prepare options for reform of AI’s decision-making structures and processes DAWG contracted the services of experts to prepare background briefings on some of the major issues identified in the ICM resolution, including:
• Democracy
• Consultation
• Information Technology
• Decision-making in other organizations
• Accountability
The Challenge
The weaknesses in AI’s current decision-making systems, identified by DAWG, were not primarily that the wrong decisions were being taken by and on behalf of the organization, rather the challenges included:
• the decision-making process is too slow: Some issues come back to successive ICMs before a decision can be reached and action taken;
• it is also too technical: many in our movement are unable to participate in the decision-making process in a meaningful way due to language, financial or other constraints;
• our agendas are too crowded leaving little or no time for ‘big picture’ discussions, e.g. on important issues such as the future of our organization and its role in the human rights movement;
• we undertake evaluations but fail to learn the lessons for the future;
• that we engage in a large number of consultations which only a small proportion of our sections and structures respond to leaving the outcome of the consultation less than representative;
• we fail to hold those accountable to whom we delegate responsibility;
• the roles of the participants in the decision-making process are unclear; and finally
• we burden our leaders and decision-makers with too many rules and regulations as well as a prohibitive workload.
The Way Forward
This means that AI has to change: We must
• become more responsive and flexible
• simplify our decision-making processes
• assign clear authority to our decision-takers
• ensure strong accountability; and importantly
• we must create open spaces for debate, exchange and wider participation.
Over the next period, we need to engage in a process of reflection on where, as an organization, we want to position ourselves in the human rights movement. In its report, DAWG is suggesting a conceptual framework for such a review by using four models for organizational change each emphasizing a different trend. However, in order to facilitate this debate, DAWG is proposing a set of transitional changes to our decision-making processes and structures that it believes will enable the organization to engage in a more meaningful and productive discussion about our future.
DAWG is also offering an overall vision for a new decision-making system, which the specific reform proposals are intended to exemplify:
• The ICM must be inclusive, participatory and forward-looking: we must ensure broad, inclusive participation through our ICMs, with fewer but longer-term decisions (e.g. a strategic plan for the movement, our vision and mission, statute, mandate, etc.)
• We must separate our Statute from our Mandate to further ensure that our decision-making becomes responsive and flexible
• We will replace the IEC with an International Governance Committee (IGC) to represent the voluntary membership and provide global leadership. We will resource the IGC adequately and charge its members with the responsibility of leadership and stewardship
• By focussing the ICM on bigger and longer-term issues, by confining the role of the IGC to the most strategic international questions, by delegating categories of decisions to IGC Sub- Committees, we will leave a range of decisions that can be taken at “lower levels”, either by specialist staff or by sections and other structures
• We will build a stronger approach to accountability by using systematic and regular reporting, and
• We will provide open spaces for debate and information exchange
The transitional proposals
Specifically, DAWG is proposing the following adjustments to the existing decision-making structures and processes:
• The ICM: The agenda of the ICM will be proactively set and contain only issues of strategic importance for the whole movement; there will be more time to discuss and make decisions on those issues. The ICM will be structured in a way that encourages meaningful and productive participation.
• The IEC (IGC): The IEC will become the “International Governance Committee”, to reflect its move from an executive function to governance. Changes in how it functions will enable it to fulfill its primary role: providing leadership and stewardship for the whole movement. To keep its agenda focussed on core business, the IGC will delegate a range of international decisions to its Sub-Committees and delegate all operational issues to the IS and Sections.
• IGC Sub-Committees: The current IEC Sub-Committees, Standing Committees and decision-making committees such as the Section Development Committee (SDC), will evolve into a number of IGC Sub-Committees. To ease the IGC’s workload these structures will have delegated decision-making authority, but will also prepare issues for decision by the IGC. This will significantly increase the speed and flexibility of the international decision-making process.
• The ISP: We will retain the ISP since it has provided a useful framework and has simplified decision-making. However, the new ISP will be less detailed and not nearly so operational. Its function will be to provide the basis for the operational plans of all structures, including the IS. The ISP will be developed bottom-up rather than top-down, so that it is owned by the movement as a whole. Preparation of the plan will be initiated by the IGC through one of its Sub-Committees, and the IGC will steward the synthesis of ideas into the ISP and present it for discussion at the ICM. More time will be spent at ICMs discussing the performance of our movement against the ISP’s goals and the Chairs and Directors Fora will have key roles in following-up and evaluating implementation.
• Chairs Forum: A new structure will be established consisting of Section Chairs. It will provide a sounding board for the IGC on movement-wide issues e.g. to prepare for the ICM, increase membership input into the international decision-making process and build cohesion among sections through exchange of information and lateral relationships. The Chairs Forum will have a specific function in relation to the ISP using it as a tool for sharing what we are planning to do and deciding on new directions.
• Directors Forum: The role of the Directors Forum will be strengthened and clarified to focus on the building of lateral relations between sections in order to share experience and ‘best practice’ in areas of ISP implementation, good management, effective advice giving to decision-makers, fundraising etc. The Directors Forum is an important tool in preparing the ground for international decision-making in the movement to ensure well-informed and timely decisions. It will work in partnership with the Chairs Forum.
• Audit Committee: The function of the Financial Control Committee (FCC) will be extended to include verfication on human resources development and implementation of the strategic plan for the movement. Given its wider mandate, the Committee membership will be enlarged to five members.
• The Groupings will be abolished.
The Next Steps
The issuing of this document and the accompanying workshop outline [ORG21/12/00] marks the start of the movement consultation on DAWG’s proposals. Sections are strongly encouraged to arrange consultation and discussion among their membership on the issues presented in this report, and to send their comments to the IEC [c/o OLU: <[email protected]>] by 15 February 2001 at the latest in order for these to be considered by the IEC at their meeting in March 2001.
The IEC will be submitting the necessary resolutions to the ICM to enable the Council to adopt the proposed reforms if it so chooses. These will include an enabling resolution reflecting reactions to the proposals from sections and structures as well as the IEC itself, and possibly the necessary statute amendments.
The IS will manage a discussion database where we will post all the comments received from sections and structures. We will shortly be sending you the exact details of this database including information about how to access it.