Amnesty International: Reform 2004

Phyllis Pautrat, LCSW
Mt. Laurel, NJ
Profession: Psychotherapist/
Capital Homicide Mitigation Specialist

My experiences coming face-to-face with the victims of human rights abuses, whether in a refugee camp in Nicaragua or countless times on Pennsylvania’s death row, have changed my life profoundly: they have created within me a life-long commitment to ending human rights violations.

You have twice elected me to the AIUSA Board, and I again request your vote. AIUSA needs Board members who know our organization thoroughly, who have credibility with our grassroots activists, and who will commit the time and energy necessary to lead AIUSA. Please vote also for the other REFORM candidates: Govind Acharya, Steve Abrams, Rick Halperin, Magdaleno Rose-Avila, and Paul Schulte (our platform is at http://www.amnesty-volunteer/usa/reform/platform.html).

My father endured human rights abuse in his native Russia, and he taught me that with freedom came the obligation to work against repression. AIUSA uniquely allows ordinary Americans to fulfill that obligation, to "write a letter and save a life." Upon election, the REFORM slate will take immediate action to ensure organizational focus on individual victims of human rights abuses and to strengthen AIUSA's grassroots activism. I ask for your support. Thank you.

I welcome your questions.
Email:
Phone: (856) 273-1978

With respect to the statement: "The Board should carefully consider (a) the balance between work on domestic (USA) human rights abuses and work on international abuses and (b) the effect of AI-USA coalitions with other non-governmental organizations, to ensure that work on domestic abuses and coalitions does not inadvertently cloud AI-USA's credibility." I am concerned that this group would turn back the clock. As an example, for over 25 years I wrote letters on behalf of Leonard Peltier to officials here in the U.S. and abroad. Unfortunately, AIUSA simply refused for years to even consider Mr. Peltier's plight. The main reason for their position that I could discern was because of the policy of prohibiting in-country activism because of AI policy. While there are other issues in your platform that bear consideration on their own merits, the larger issue for me is the ability of AI to speak the truth even if the New York Times thinks the opposite.

A major reason that a group of us, all long-time AI activists, formed this reform slate, was not to turn back the clock, but to maintain the integrity of the organization as a whole, while it moves forward nationally and internationally away from our original mandate, and towards a full-spectrum approach.

Ironically, while I've been active with AIUSA over twenty years, it is the past fourteen or so that I've done domestic work almost exclusively. When AI first waved the WOOC (Work on Own Country) rule for AIUSA, so we could work on legislation, the death penalty and on behalf of refugees in the US, I was thrilled, but didn't feel we went far enough. We still couldn't co-sponsor events with organizations that were deemed to have a "political" stance, which thankfully we long ago dispensed with, didn't adopt Peltier as a POC, or even investigate sufficiently to my satisfaction. I thought we needed (and still do) to work on indigenous peoples' rights in the US not just in 1992 because it was a landmark date, but because it needed to be done.

In the eighties I worked mainly on hr abuses in Latin America, but that led me to be concerned about the US government's treatment of refugees, as well as my concern about which countries the US was associating with and supporting. From there, because of my professional work as a forensic social worker, I became more and more familiar with the abuses within the criminal justice system here, and of course that led me to working actively against the death penalty and through awareness, Leonard Peltier's situation, and to write on his behalf as well.

I was constantly frustrated that not only were we not adopting Peltier as a POC, we also would not condemn apartheid and adopt Nelson Mandela.

Now it seems that AI is moving full steam ahead in the other direction. With the debates among all the Amnesty sections world-wide on whether to go ahead and go full-spectrum and work on ESCR (economic, social and cultural rights), and to move towards "thematic" work, I and my colleagues began to worry that we would be abandoning the "individual prisoner" work. When the AGM two years ago could not come to an agreement on which position to take with this to the next ICM (International Council Meeting), specifically to vote for full-spectrum or stay mandate specific, the AIUSA board went ahead and supported full-spectrum.
As an organization we remain split.

I fall somewhere in the middle, supporting the ESCR work, but believing that we need to stay true to the individual prisoner, while continuing to work in conjunction with other organizations to work on ESCR, such as working on welfare rights, or on juvenile justice issues beyond the use of the death penalty, and police brutality, etc., etc.

I have spent six years as a member of the board and know how difficult it is to fund programs adequately. So I believe that while we may want to be all things to all people, the reality is that we can't afford to do this, and do it well. Which in turn may hurt all our efforts, whatever the area, or more importantly, the individual.

I hope that dispels some of your concerns re the platform. None of us want to see work on behalf of individuals, here or abroad, to be in jeopardy. We are already seeing some of this happening in the first Operational Plan of the ISP (Integrated Strategic Plan) of AI world wide. Seventeen CAPS (Country Action Programs) have been identified for this first planning cycle, and no one is quite clear, even researchers we've checked with at the IS (International Secretariat) on what happens to countries not included in the seventeen. It seems all the planning and decision making is top-down, with operationalizing the work (and how to pay for it) coming later. The SG (Secretary General) Irene Kahn, recently responded by letter to the activist members to these concerns, but spoke in generalities only.

I have supported freedom for Peltier, the end to the death penalty, and certainly believe that the human rights situation, especially with the so called "War on Terror" (which I'm glad AIUSA is taking up as a priority for the next two year cycle) in the US needs a lot of attention. If I am elected to the board, I will continue to push for domestic concerns to be highlighted, along with POC work, world-wide.

Member, National Board of Directors, 1995-2001
Chair, Board of Directors Program Committee, 1996-97
Member since 1983:
Group 112, Center City Philadelphia, 1983-89
Group 41, Cherry Hill, NJ, 1989-present
Coordinator, Group 112, 1986-89
Coordinator, Group 41, 1989-91
Volunteer Director, Philadelphia Satellite Office Pilot Project 1988-1990
Charter member, Philadelphia Area Cluster, 1988-97
Co-Coordinator, Philippines/Indonesia/East Timor Co-Group 1984-86
Co-Coordinator, Central America Special Action Regional Action Network, Central America Co-Group, 1986-1990
Pennsylvania State Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator, 1991-present
Mid-Atlantic Regional Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator, 1994-present
Member, National Death Penalty Abolition Advisory/Steering Committee, 1995-2002
Member, Board subcommittee on Guidelines for Appointment and Removal of Volunteer Leaders (pushed for and obtained language in guidelines recognizing mutual dependency between volunteers and staff)
AIUSA Board representative, AI-UK Annual General Meeting (AGM) (Belfast) April 1997
Board Liaison to National Consultation on Membership Task Force (subcommittee of Strategic Planning Committee)
AIUSA representative to several death penalty related conferences since 1990
AIUSA speaker and trainer since 1988.
Attended every MidAtlantic regional conference since 1989.
Attended 14 AIUSA Annual General Meetings since 1986.

Member, Board of Directors, National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, 2003
National Secretary of Journey of Hope <www.journeyofhope.org>, a national death penalty abolition organization
Advisory Committee, New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium
Advisory Committee, Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
Member, Wisconsin Interfaith Committee on Central America delegation to Nicaragua, met with Salvadoran refugees, Nicaraguan government officials, and members of UN High Commission on Refugees, 1991
Member, Central America Pledge of Resistance, 1989-1991
Member, Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, 1989-1991
Attended all NCADP conferences since 1995
Member, Pennsylvania Council to Abolish the Death Penalty, 1991-97
Member, Pennsylvanians United Against the Death Penalty, 1997-present