General Meetings are a pivotal moment for the governance of our movement. The General Meeting of an Amnesty entity is a formal meeting of members which provides an opportunity to review the performance of the organization in the previous year, including the organization’s finances and progress towards human rights change goals. In many countries where Amnesty has a national entity, General Meetings are a legal duty to comply with national laws. At the movement level, Amnesty International’s General Meeting is the Meeting of the Global Assembly, in the past it was the International Council Meeting. The General Meeting is a key moment to discuss and examine the entity’s strategy and plans for the future and it is also the occasion on which new board members are elected.

Within Amnesty entities, General Meetings occur every one or two years. This important event in the institutional life of an Amnesty entity is central to our values as a democratic, mission-focussed, people’s movement. Involving and engaging members in the General Meeting is crucial so that Amnesty International as a global movement can be accountable to and receive strategic direction from our members.

Our movement is rich with different ways of organizing and running General Meetings. But what is common about all Amnesty General Meetings is that they are guided by the Core Standards. While keeping the diversity of how General Meetings are run in our movement, the Core Standards below refer to the minimum criteria all General Meetings should meet:

 
 

With the Core Standards as the foundation, Amnesty entities build General Meetings in many different ways considering their organizational culture and cultural norms of group conversation and decision-making. To plan for the logistics of the General Meeting, many Amnesty entities consider the questions below in order to run the event as smoothly as possible:

These logistics questions are as important to organizing a quality General Meeting as the questions to ask in building the agenda. Below are four dimensions to consider when setting the agenda. We can achieve some change by addressing only one dimension, but change is greater if all four are thought through in relation to each other.

First Dimension: Who is in the room?

We need to make sure that the right people and perspectives are present in the General Meeting to discuss issues thoroughly within an open and well-informed debate. With Amnesty’s commitment to diversity we have a responsibility to ensure that the people and voices in our General Meetings represent the richness of our constituencies, and in particular those for whom we work and those with direct knowledge of and/or impacted by the issues under discussion at the General Meeting. Some categories of participants to consider are:

It is not enough simply to bring representatives of key constituencies together. It is very important to invest planning time and effort, and appropriate resources, in ways to actively engage all participants during the meeting so that their voices and views can truly be heard. This is closely linked with the third and fourth dimensions below.

Second Dimension: What is being discussed?

In short, what is on the agenda? Developing and crafting a General Meeting agenda is more than just a list of standing items and moving through a long list of approvals. The agenda must, of course, include space to review the entity’s performance and plan, and to elect governance positions, but General Meetings play other significant roles beyond a fiduciary function. These are also meetings of people with a shared passion and commitment for human rights impact. Guided by our Strategic Goals, General Meetings are an opportunity to focus on the future, on what we can change or address to fight for human rights. Learning from the review of the previous year, General Meetings are strategic thinking space to move the entity forward to do our work and remain relevant and responsive. For this, it is important to engage with members and key stakeholders to develop an agenda that reflects both the accountability and strategic aspect of the meeting.

In our movement, both at the global and national level, we have created Preparatory Committees to help develop the General Meeting agenda. Preparatory Committee are comprised of a number of members elected by the General Meeting, the General Meeting Chair, a representative of the board and the director or representative. The Committee is responsible for developing of the General Meeting’s strategic objectives and agenda, and ensuring inclusive methodologies for democratic and participatory decision-making during the meeting itself.

Third Dimension: How is it being discussed?

How we discuss the important issues in our General Meetings matters because we must make sure the rich mix of voices and different perspectives can be heard. Efforts to engage the right people in the meeting come to nothing if we don’t have inclusive ways of working that encourage and assist their participation. Realizing our commitment to foster inclusion in our democratic governance structures starts with thinking about how the agenda can be developed, and how the issues are discussed and decisions made in a participatory manner.

There are many different ways to organize and facilitate group discussion and decision-making, from simple to complex, fun to formal. The list below summarises areas our movement has explored before.

Innovations in approach might meet some resistance. A Preparatory Committee should discuss new approaches with attendees in advance of the meeting to understand any concerns and build understanding of new ways of working. Consulting with participants, and taking the time to introduce and explain the value and process of new approaches to discussion and decisions making, is important to minimize confusion that may impede your efforts to make the meeting more interesting, dynamic and inclusive.

Fourth Dimension: Time and timing

When is the General Meeting taking place? Is it in April because it has always been in April? There are sometimes regulations in local law or the organization’s statute regarding the timing of a General Meeting but often it is flexible within a specified time period (for example within 6 months of the end of the financial year). It is important that the General Meeting is held at a time that makes sense organizationally so that full and relevant information can be presented and so that the decisions taken can have real effect. This will mean aligning with the global movement (e.g. global budget setting deadlines, Global Assembly meeting, Regional Meetings) as well as with national rhythms of planning, activities and evaluation. Availability of people is also very important, for example avoiding exam times, holiday seasons, working days etc.

How much time to allocate to the meeting should be based on the time needed to complete the strategic agenda, rather than fitting the agenda to the time available. Across the Amnesty movement, General Meetings range from 2 hours to multiple days. Having shorter or longer meetings should be the result of careful planning and reflection about the objectives and outcomes of the General Meeting. Could you encourage more participation and make needed cost-savings by reducing the General Meeting it from two days to one day? Could you expand the role and function of the General Meeting, incorporating training sessions or activism opportunities, by increasing it from two hours to one day? These are the sort of questions that might be useful thinking.

General Meetings as Strategic Spaces

General Meetings should be a space for vision-driven and future-oriented conversations that move the organization forwards while reflecting and learning from the previous year. As the world changes rapidly, Amnesty as a global movement needs to adapt to remain relevant in the fight for human rights. General Meetings are the strategic space to have these discussions about the issues on which we work and the ways in which we work to be more impactful for human rights change.

Within the limited time of a General Meeting, focusing on the most urgent and relevant issues for the entity is key. Most importantly, items brought to the General Meeting must be within the General Meeting’s remit and scope for decision making. The General Meeting should not be discussing issues that should be decided in other parts of the movement (like the Global Assembly) or by a different body (for example on personnel issues should as recruitment and performance which are the remit of the Director and Board). To help prioritize which issues should the General Meeting consider, it is helpful to develop a prioritization matrix to develop the agenda (below is the example from the Global Assembly)

For topics that are not within the remit of the General Meeting, or that are not the most urgent or relevant, alternative channels can be available at or outside the General Meeting. For example, an ‘open house’ board meeting before the General Meeting begins; a commitment by the Director to take up the matter with interested parties within an agreed period after the General Meeting; a clear and effective process for receiving and responding to membership queries through the year etc.

Managing Conflict in General Meetings: Seeking a Win-Win solution

Among a group of passionate and committed activists, discussions about the future of human rights and Amnesty’s role can become energetic, fiery and challenging to manage and facilitate. As a campaigning organization we have a tendency to look for the problems, and then to adopt a ‘problem solving’ approach. As a membership-movement we rightly expect the opportunity to hold to account those responsible for making decisions, taking action and allocating resources in pursuit of our strategic goals This encourages us to filter for what is not working, to identify who or what is to blame and to set about trying to put it right. While this might happen in Amnesty, we have the potential to tackle issues from a collaborative point of view where different approaches to human rights issues and organisational development can be welcomed, analysed and made sense of to get a richer outcome to solve our challenges. Our General Meetings should prioritize dialogue, exchange of ideas and participatory methods to include diverse points of view. As a result, the Board should welcome the scrutiny from members and facilitate a process to make the most of the General Meeting. For this, Boards should consider and be prepared to:

We are reminded by the Conflict Management Advisory Group that the underlying factor in conflict is difference. Yet difference should not be avoided, it is from a rich mix of different viewpoints and experiences that we build more robust and relevant strategies and generate ideas and innovation. Key to resolving conflict is to understand the differences involved, so that a solution can be reached.

One of the biggest barriers to reaping the positive, generative potential of disagreement is to confuse the problem (what you disagree about) with the person (who you are disagreeing with), which can result in:  

Because of this, it is important to take positive action to prevent the conflict from escalating further. Some ways you can do this are:

As a General Meeting facilitator:

If you become involved in a conflict:

For Board members faced with questions and challenges from the membership, The Certified General Accountants of Ontario offer some advice in their report Governance and the Non-Profit Sector (2008):