Draft minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2016
at the Human Rights Action Centre, London
In attendance
Tom Sparks (Chair)
Rachel Bradley
Peter Pack
Ruth Breddal
Staff attending
Tim Hancock (Minutes)
1 / Welcome and apologies for absence
At 10.35, Tom Sparks took the Chair and welcomed participants to the meeting. He noted that following Hugh Whitby’s resignation, he had agreed to Chair this meeting pending the appointment of a new IISC Chair at the Board meeting in February.
Apologies had been received from Gillian Melville and Fiona Anderson.
2 / Minutes and matters arising
Minutes
The minutes were accepted with the amendments set out in paper I-1849.
Matters arising
The Chair noted that the Sub-Committee’s Terms of reference will be addressed at the March meeting once a new Chair is in place.
Peter noted that the system for posting documents in the members area was working well
Tim noted that the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee had announced an inquiry into prostitution. AIUK will not be contributing to this, not least because the final policy has yet to be agreed by the International Board. / Chair
3 / International Governance Reform
A paper on international governance reform had been received from the International Board’s Vice-Chair, Rune Arctander. The Sub-Committee commenced its review with members sharing broad impressions before turning to the specific questions set out in the consultation paper.
Broad comments
Sub-committee members felt that consideration of the proposals would be easier if the paper had set out the current system of international governance and the shown how the new proposals differ from it. The proposals appear to resemble the current system but with the International Council Meeting (ICM) removed. It would be worthwhile to consider the pros and cons of the current model.
It was noted that removing the ICM might yield a significant financial saving but the movement-building aspect of the ICM would be missed.
Sub-committee members expressed concern that one delegate per section for the Global Assembly might not be adequate but that if delegation sizes were increased then any financial savings would be less significant.
It was noted that for the Global Assembly to be effective, there would need to be a broad sense of continuity amongst its members. Concern was expressed that this had not necessarily been the case with the Chairs Assembly and there might be fairly intense requirements for one delegate to manage; one delegate per section might impede diversity, as might the time and workload demands. Furthermore, with the loss of the ICM, there would not be an easy way into the movement’s governance and succession planning might be impeded.
Turning to the proposal to establish regional assemblies, sub-committee members noted that these might create a risk of regional blocs developing and voting together at the Global Assembly. An alternative (or supplement) might be to create ‘groupings’ (perhaps thematic or featuring a mix of sections from different regions), which would also help to maintain the sense of global identity.
The IISC considered the reasons for reforming international governance, noting that a desire to save money, to avoid non-strategic resolutions and improve accountability might all be reasons, although this is not spelt out in the document.
It was also suggested that there could be more and different thinking around the use of money for international meetings. What useful alternatives might there be to the proposed movement building meeting? Given the emphasis on diversity would a global youth meeting or women’s meeting be more useful (positive reports of European youth meetings were noted). What experiences do we want people to have and how can they be realised through other means?
The sub-committee noted that reporting had been agreed at the last ICM and wondered whether the decision would be carried forward into the new model.
It was noted that the International Board was omitted from consideration.
Continuing to maintain an elected Nominations Committee was questioned but it was also noted that this seemed to be quite a culturally specific issue – with some traditions suggesting that the Board should have its own committee as it best knows its requirements, whilst others felt it necessary for an elected committee to have authority for electing the Board.
The IISC then turned to the fifteen questions set out in the paper.
1) How does the way we currently do governance create exclusion at the national and global level? What are the barriers to the way we currently do governance?
IISC members noted:
- A limited number of people participate in governance;
- If the membership as a whole lack diversity then this will be reflected elsewhere; Governance in AI (nationally and internationally) requires a lot of time from individuals, which acts as a barrier;
- There is a culture of producing too many papers that are too long – which (amongst other things) creates problems for translation;
- When we consult, we are able to reach the ‘nearest and dearest’ but the language we use, including ‘terms of art’ can be off-putting.
It was noted that:
- In AIUK there is gender diversity at governance level, reflecting the make-up of the Section’s members and perhaps also reflecting social attitudes in the UK.
- Youth were also comparatively well represented at governance level. It was suggested that bodies like the Youth Advisory Group, the Student Action Network (STAN) Committee and both a youth and a student representative on the Activism Sub-Committee had created a pipeline for people who went on to assume governance roles.
- AIUK was less successful in achieving socio-economic or racial diversity, also reflecting our membership. It was felt that this might only be achieved through the relevance of our work. It would be useful to understand if other sections have been more successful and it would also be useful to understand the extent to which local groups engage more widely within their communities – IISC members have different experience.
If was noted that the Nominations Committee could provide more support in bringing diverse candidates through to governance level. However, it was also noted that the international governing bodies could also take forward initiatives like the International Youth Advisory Board and European Youth Meeting, creating women only events, drawing on relevant international networks to provide pipelines.
4) The document outlines the proposed division of roles and responsibilities between the International Board and the Global Assembly; would this proposed division ensure an efficient and democratic governance? What needs to change?
From the table provided in the document, it was noticeable that the Global Assembly members appeared to have no power of initiative in areas like statute amendment.
The International Board’s intentions regarding amendments to resolutions (currently spelt out in a footnote) could also benefit from clarification. Changes to the way in which resolutions are amended is not necessarily a bad thing and might be necessary in meetings that are shorter than the ICM. Nevertheless, further explanation is required.
5) The model proposes that each entity appoints one delegate to the Global Assembly. In your opinion, what is the maximum number of delegates each entity should be able to appoint? Please explain. Please note that any change to the number of delegates appointed to the Global Assembly will require a change to the other parts of the model.
The IISC felt it would be challenging for the Global Assembly to fulfil its remit with only one delegate per section given the range of issues that might be discussed and the preparation required. It would be important to consider the workload that is being demanded and the implications of this. It was noted that the Chairs Forum in 2006 focussed on “use of force” policy and invited each Chair to be supported by a relevant person from their section. This might be worth considering.
Assuming that a Director’s Forum is being held simultaneously (and that Section Structure Directors would therefore also be available to Chairs/delegates), IISC members felt that there should be a maximum of three delegates (plus the Director) per section. However it was also suggested that these need not be delegates – there could be a single delegate with additional advisers.
It was also noted that this question also relates to the need to ensure continuity of participation. Without continuity of participation it would be less likely that members of the Global Assembly would have the ability or confidence to fulfil their responsibility of holding the International Board to account.
During the conversation about the proposed Global Assembly, members of the IISC noted the document’s statement that “the whole movement has a collective accountability to our primary stakeholders, the rights holders”. IISC members did not dissent from this statement but expressed concern that there was little reference to the accountability of international governance to individual members. There was concern that the proposed arrangements risked diminishing the links between the global movement and the grass-roots.
6) How can we enhance our capability to discuss and decide on financial issues?
The sub-committee noted the role of the International Finance Meeting. It is an advisory body but it was felt that this advisory function was strong and that it had played an important part in helping to prepare financial decisions taken at the ICM in 2015.
Again, the sub-committee expressed concern that one delegate per section would undermine the movement’s ability to make financial decisions at the Global Assembly.
7) In the proposed model the International Board’s accountability is enhanced through additional reporting requirements to the Global Assembly, the need for the Global Assembly to vote on the reports and the ability of the Global Assembly to elect and dismiss the International Board. Would this be sufficient to enhance the International Board’s accountability? What other measures would you propose?
IISC members that the quality of accountability would relate to the quality of the reports. It was noted that a “strategic report” marking the movement’s progress against strategy should be expected (but it was felt that this might be implicit within the reporting that is prescribed).
8) Based on the experience in your own entity and what you have observed in other organizations, through what mechanisms would you propose that entities are made accountable to the movement (i.e. for delivery of the Strategic Goals; for compliance with Global Assembly decisions, etc.)
The Sub-Committee explored the issue of “naming and shaming” but felt that this should not be routine practice. However, this was distinguished from providing transparency over reporting, so that (for example) the ICM could receive not only aggregate reporting on performance against AI’s Core Standards but also the section-specific data that fed into the aggregate report. Similarly, the IISC noted that it might be appropriate to report on entity investment in fundraising.
However, sub-committee members noted that an improvement in reporting would be necessary to enhance accountability.
9) The document outlines the proposed decision-making process; would this process allow us to develop an agenda which is truly linked to our human rights mission? What changes are needed?
The Committee noted that the role of the Preparatory Committee will restrict the ability of sections to bring forward new issues or areas of work. Although there are clear positive aspects to such a proposal (not least that the movement’s policies and priorities are likely to be better focused), the Committee also noted that the proposal may restrict flexibility. See further Q10.
10) Will the revised role of the Preparatory Committee ensure a more strategic focus for the Global Assembly? Are there other changes that should be implemented to achieve this?
IISC members noted that the proposals will give a lot more decision-making authority to the Preparatory Committee and that this was clearly intended to ensure a strategic focus. However, it was questioned whether the Preparatory Committee should have the power to rule resolutions out of order if an appropriately high threshold were also introduced for the tabling of resolutions. For example, if ten sections from two different regions did agree that a particular resolution were an appropriate topic for discussion by the Global Assembly does it make sense for the Preparatory Committee to then decide it is not an appropriate issue for discussion?
If the higher thresholds are introduced as a requirement for the tabling of motions then there needed to be a cultural shift and means of support for communications between sections. IISC members again expressed a hope that structures and communications channels would support communications between regions, as well as within them.
As currently proposed, the Preparatory Committee may accept or reject a resolution proposed by a section, which may then appeal if it considers that the resolution should not have been ruled out. The Committee felt that it would be more appropriate to invert this system, so that resolutions that gained the support of a threshold number of sections would automatically be placed on the agenda, and the Preparatory Committee would then have the option to “save” any resolutions which did not meet the threshold but which it nevertheless considered would be beneficial to discuss.
During the discussion a question was also raised about the necessity of having a Preparatory Committee. Was the proposal due to a desire to ease the International Board’s workload? Was it felt necessary to preserve a current feature of the ICM system?
11) The document outlines the functions of the Regional Forums. What changes are needed?
The IISC felt that there should be more than one person (the Chair) in attendance. The IISC reiterated its point that the International Board should be considering ways to facilitate inter- (as well as intra-) regional contact.
More people than just the chair should attend. Think about more exchanges beyond regions – perhaps thematic groupings, or meetings of randomly grouped sections from different regions.
12) Would a meeting of the movement help us in achieving our mission? In what ways? What should be the functions of a Meeting of the Movement?
IISC members suggested that the suggested purpose of a meeting of the movement is important but that there may be other ways of achieving it. Moreover, there is a need to be doing this kind of work more than once every four years. The key thing about the “Meeting of the Movement” is the opportunity that it presents to see and participate in the movement as a whole. However, this can also be done through smaller and different meetings. It was also noted that while a meeting of the movement may be valuable, need not be a governance function.
13) How does (or doesn’t) our current voting system enhance fairness and equality?
It was noted a small number of sections provide the overwhelming majority of AI’s global income. Some recognition of this within voting systems would be useful in avoiding dysfunctional governance where major financial decisions are made behind closed doors.
The idea of dual voting systems was discussed (where on form of weighting is used for certain types of decisions and another form for other type). However, committee members felt that this might not be easily understood.
IISC members concluded that no voting system would be perceived as completely fair. With most global decisions being achieved by consensus, they also wondered whether this would be a distraction.
15) Which entities should be entitled to vote? Will only full members (sections) have full voting rights? How flexible should our governance be to include new ways of organizing?
IISC felt that the contribution of new forms of presence should be welcomed. However, they concluded that within a formal governance model it did feel appropriate to have structures that are (ultimately) managed by the Secretary General participating in governance decisions.
They believed that Sections and Structures should continue to be the entities enjoying voting rights.
4 / IISC Annual Report
The IISC’s annual report for 2015-16 was approved. This will be forwarded to the Board and placed on the website. / Chair/TH
5 / Abortion
Tim outlined the results of the recent survey of members’ attitudes on abortion. He noted that the survey had asked one question that had clearly confused respondents (by asking if they agreed with the current policy) but that the main question, to establish whether members felt AI should move to a more pro-choice position had yielded a significant majority (67%) in favour of change. All of the major AIUK membership constituencies appeared to indicate support for change, although the lowest majority (55%) was within local groups.
Tim noted that the Board had decided to table a resolution at this year’s Annual General Meeting to establish whether the AGM wished the Section to seek policy change within the international movement. The current wording did not call for an ICM Resolution in 2017 as it was felt necessary to learn lessons from the past and avoid throwing the movement into a difficult debate. Instead, there might be other ways of building and developing support before an ICM decision.
IISC members noted that there might be a question about the resolution’s fit with the international strategic goals, so the more discussion that could be had beforehand the better.
Having been invited to review the wording of the Board’s resolution, the Sub-Committee noted that use of the word “reasonable” could do with more explanation. A typographical error was also noted.
Tim informed the IISC that a write up of the survey would be placed in the members’ area of the website before the AGM. / TH
TH
6 / Draft Priorities for 2016
The draft workplan was approved. This will now be forwarded to the Board. / TH
7 / Suggested items for next meeting
Two agenda items were advanced: a review of relevant AGM resolutions and a review of the sub-Committee’s terms of reference.
Rachel and Peter noted that they would not be available for the meeting.
Given these apologies and the possibility of sharing views on the terms of reference and relevant AGM resolutions by email, it was suggested that the 5 March meeting should not go ahead unless there was good cause.
The Chair noted that this would be a decision for the next Chair. / Chair
8 / AOB
Ruth asked to be placed on the IISC mailing. Tim agreed to arrange this.
Tim agreed to circulate the codes for IISC members to use when booking as members of governance at this year’s AGM.
Expenses should be sent to Tim and Donna Driscoll, who will request sign-off from the Chair.
At 14:00, the Chair drew the meeting to a conclusion. / TH
TH
All/TH
1