Only a few days ago Amnesty International members were shocked to find out that the organisation paid out over UK £850,000/ US $1.37million to two former employees in 2009. Yet, rather than just be fully transparent about the matter, AI’s senior management released an internal document with weasling instructions on how to “handle the matter” (see below). Why an organisation supposedly committed to truth and accountability couldn’t just be open and direct is an issue AI’s board is going to have to wrestle with for some time.

Of course serious questions must now be raised as to the culture of accountability of Amnesty International. Already letters are being sent to the AI Security General asking why details of the pay-off were not released sooner.  The Luxembourg AI chapter asked “about the credibility of a movement that claims to fight poverty while giving” such huge sums away. It should also be pointed out that at the moment human rights are being trampled on in quite spectacular fashion all over the planet.

Obviously hard working and committed local members of AI, particularly in the developing world, do not expect funds to be spent on providing luxury lifestyles to former AI board members. And still the reasons as to why the two previous members of AI had to be paid off in this manner remains obscured.

What is galling to most is the dysfunctional culture of secrecy that has now emerged at AI.

I have blogged previously, here and here,  about their complete failure to deal with Thailand’s draconian lese majeste laws and AI Thailand’s links to the PAD. I have repeatedly emailed AI’s UK offices questions regarding both matters yet they completely refuse to even acknowledge the issue, never mind answer any queries.

I have also heard from reliable sources that Amnesty members at AI Thailand board meetings referred to me, personally, as a “troublemaker” (no idea where they get that from).

In addition, I have seen credible documentary evidence that points directly to collusion between AI’s International Secretariat’s Thai-based researcher, Ben Zawacki, and Thailand’s notoriously conservative Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the question of Daranee Charncherngsilpakul aka Da Torpedo.

Where AI goes from here is a matter for their members. Yet, it is clear something is badly wrong. And not just with their Thailand operation.

Questions and Answers on remuneration paid to former SG Irene Khan and former EDSG Kate Gilmore when they left AI at the end of December 2009.

This document is not to be distributed as an official Amnesty International statement. It is distributed to enable press officers to give verbal briefings to media.

1. AI’s published accounts show that more than half a-million pounds [£533,103.00] was paid to one of your company directors. Is this the amount IK was paid?

Irene Khan, then Secretary General, was the highest paid employee, and the amount shown does refer indeed refer to payments to the former SG.

2. Why was she paid this amount?

The payment was made as part of a confidential agreement agreed with IK on her departure from AI. The amount paid to Ms Khan is made up of several elements – for example, salary, salary increases, relocation expenses, etc. – some of which dated back several years. It also includes statutory payments she was entitled to under UK employment law for having been in continuous employment with AI for longer than four years.

{If asked about bonuses: it does include a small bonus element (less than 4% of the total)}

2.1 Do all AI employees receive a bonus or is it just its senior management?

No current employees, senior or otherwise, receive bonuses.

2.2 Were you contractually bound to pay the outgoing SG a bonus?

Yes.

2.3 Was this an out- of- court settlement. Was Ms Khan suing Amnesty International?

This is wrong information. Ms Khan was not suing Amnesty International. The agreement indicates there was no suggestion of impropriety by either party and there is no ‘gagging clause’ as it were on Ms Khan – she is free to speak about her time as AI’s SG.

3. How much was Kate Gilmore paid?

Kate Gilmore was paid between £320,000 – £330,000.

4. Are all AI employees on the same terms and conditions?

None of the current employees, including the new Secretary General, is on the terms that applied to Ms Khan.

5. Do you think this [‘golden handshake’/ pay-out] is good use of the money members of the public give to AI?

This was a unique situation. The contracts signed with Ms Khan and Ms Gilmore dated back to many years ago and a previous governing body. Before committing to the agreement we signed with Ms.Khan, the IEC took detailed, expert legal advice and considered the matter very carefully. But our options were limited. We firmly believe we took the course of action that was in the best interest of Amnesty’s work. None of the current employees, including the new Secretary General, is on the terms that applied to Ms Khan.

The new Secretary General, with the full support of the IEC, has initiated a process to review our employment policies and procedures to ensure that such a situation does not happen again.

We are fully committed to applying all the resources that we receive from our millions of supporters to the fight for human rights.

6. You say you want to ensure that such a situation does not happen again – does this mean that you admit that Amnesty made a mistake in paying such a large amount of money?

The contract signed with Ms Khan dated back many years and to a previous governing body. We are very aware of our obligation to our members and supporters to use our resources responsibly and transparently.Amnesty International has a thorough independent audit of its accounts that are published annually, and we exercise due diligence on all aspects of the organisation’s work. At the same time, we were bound to honour contractual obligations and internal policies.

The new Secretary General, with the full support of the IEC [International Executive Committee] has initiated a review of our employment policies and procedures so that we can be confident such a situation will not happen again. None of our senior employees, including the current Secretary General, is on the same terms as Ms Khan was.

7. How much does your current SG earn? Is he under the same terms and conditions?

As with comparable NGOs, we pay competitive salaries – not only to senior managers but across the range of the roles we have – to ensure we get the best people out there to work on human rights.

The current SG earns a salary comparable to the average salary for a comparable position in a comparable not-for-profit organisation, and concomitant with his skills and experiences.

8. Are you concerned that you will lose the support of your members and supporters?

We have followed due process with regard to the terms and conditions that applied o Ms Khan’s contract. Since then, we have initiated a review of our employment policies and procedures to ensure it does not happen again.

We are confident that our members and supporters will continue to support our human rights work because they understand the importance of this work as I mentioned for example in the context of the current situation in the Middle East and North Africa region, where our researchers are on the ground, documenting the abuses so that we can ensure justice for the victims and their families.

9. It this ironic that IK made a big splash of launching an anti-poverty campaign/launched a book on Human Rights and poverty while SG and yet walked away with half a-million?

The fact is that poverty is a grave issue that affects nearly a third of the world’s population. AI is committed to fighting the human rights abuses that drive and fuel poverty. AI paid Ms Khan a negotiated payment taking into account statutory and contractual obligations. Any questions you have on how she reconciles her stance on poverty with her settlement should be put directly to her –there is no ‘gagging’ clause on Ms Khan.