There is a controversy here at Rights & Democracy — an organization created by Parliament to encourage and support human rights and the promotion of democratic institutions and practices around the world — but what about? Endless articles and interviews have stated that the subject of debate is the Middle East or the government’s right-wing agenda. This claim is based on appointments to the board of directors, the granting of Rights & Democracy funds to NGOs in the Middle East with a history of one-sided criticism of Israel, and their subsequent repudiation by the board.
In fact the real story here is a board doing its duty. We on the board found the problems; we did not create them. The current “crisis” has been produced by a staff misled by its leadership and prone to periodic eruptions. The board is acting to preserve the organization in the face of a torrent of abuse from those who do not know, or simply do not care about, the realities.
First some facts, which seem to have eluded critics of the Rights & Democracy board. Every Canadian member of the board was appointed by the current government, including those who are vociferously supporting the late former president, Rémy M. Beauregard, and who are openly hostile to the rest of the board. The government appointed Mr. Beauregard as well. Most members of the board have no prior political affiliation; a recently appointed board member is a well-known Liberal. Clearly, the board wasn’t “stacked.” The only discernible pattern is that board members were appointed to bring governance to Rights & Democracy. There is no imposition of a right-wing agenda, no interference in autonomy.
Accountability and transparency are the true issues. A December 2007 report by the Department of Foreign Affairs’ Office of the Inspector‑General discovered “persistent ... accountability ... problems” with Rights & Democracy, which regrettably remain. Whether it was the finance and audit committee requesting timely and adequate information; members seeking proper clarification of the operations of the Geneva office; explanations about a $100,000 expenditure which raised questions; or information about how $300,000 a year in discretionary funds was spent, we on the board have been stymied.
Neither the government nor anyone appointed to the board until recently, including its chair, even knew that grants had been made to suspect organizations out of discretionary funds under the president’s control. The board discovered the information only by diligently pursuing the facts. At the meeting of the board in January 2010 the grants were repudiated unanimously, with one abstention. The former president voted and spoke in favour of the repudiation, finally admitting that they were a mistake.
Many critics seem to have focused their ire on a board evaluation of the former president, but even that is a diversion from the heart of the matter. That evaluation, which presented a mixed review of the president’s leadership, was written with great care and submitted as required by the organization’s constitution and normal procedures. And contrary to prevailing myth, the committee gave the former president repeated opportunities to meet and discuss the evaluation in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal. He chose not to avail himself of those opportunities. The report was 16 pages long. Only one paragraph of it dealt with Mideast grants.
The former president rejected the criticism of his presidency found in the presidential performance report. That was not surprising. But his response was misguided: He tried to mobilize the staff and board to counter it. Even informing the staff of the contents of his personnel report was a gross violation, given his authority as their superior. In any case, the performance review report was advisory only and not constitutive. The review was advice to the Privy Council which the Privy Council could accept or reject as it saw fit. Instead of rallying the troops internally to support him, the former president could have just written to the Privy Council, expressing his disagreement with the review and asking the Privy Council to ignore it, which it was free to do. He did not take that path.
Senior managers failed to protect the former president from damaging behaviour over a personnel dispute with the board, and failed to protect their staff from the distortions, disruptions, insubordination and poisoning of the atmosphere which ensued, and which were amplified when the former president died. CEOs and senior managers in Canada are not entitled to pressure boards over personnel matters, nor abuse their authority over subordinates, nor declare independence from the board of directors. Staff cannot use tax dollars without oversight. This organization cannot engage in politics at home instead of doing its job of promoting human rights overseas.
The former president’s death was a gateway to surreality. Conflict entrepreneurs in the Canadian and Middle East political trenches could not resist interfering. Instead of determining how to resolve a real battle between those supportive of accountability and those who opposed it, Canadians have ended up debating the imaginary impact of the government’s Middle East agenda on Rights & Democracy.
Those of us responsible for the governance of the organization do not have the luxury of fighting national or Middle Eastern fantasy battles. Ensuring accountability and transparency is far less exciting than debating Canadian and Middle East politics. Yet, that is our task. That is why we are working hard, collectively, to safeguard Rights & Democracy so it can fulfill its mandate to enhance human rights and promote democracy worldwide. We welcome the intent of the government to appoint a permanent president, as we requested, to assist in this task.
