What are the mandate and working methods of a Ngo board member?
They participate fully in all meetings of the Board (including study all relevant documents in order to provide input in the decision-making process). Many NGOs Board Members are also expected to participate in teleconferences and other virtual means of communications among Board members, the NGO community, networks and with the other NGO Board members – especially due to their work schedules etc. NGO Board Members advocate the participation of community representatives in the design, implementation, and evaluation of policies and programs at all levels.
They provide input into the equitable and appropriate allocation of resources and maintain a focus on issues of importance to the community and movements in general. Board members also seek input from the community on key issues related to relevant documents and consult with and report to the broader community of NGOs and CBOs and people and communities, as well as appoint advisers for the NGO’s programs and projects.
There is one key benchmark in evaluating the working methods of the Special Rapporteur. It is the injunction by the Commission and the Council to the Special Rapporteur to “respond effectively to information that comes before him”. This injunction was first issued in 1984 and continues to be the key element in defining the procedures used by the mandate. Within that framework, the Commission has given the Special Rapporteur considerable discretion to develop suitable and effective working methods.
working methods for ngo registration
1 Over the years, numerous innovations have been attempted and, depending on their effectiveness in practice, each has either earned a permanent place among the mandate’s core working methods or has been abandoned. The motivation for continual innovation may be readily perceived: No set of working methods has proven fully adequate to the task of responding effectively to allegations of extrajudicial executions.
The mandate to be effective is significantly undermined by the extent to which States in which there would appear to be serious problems of extrajudicial executions can systematically ignore requests to visit, in some cases for over a decade. The information below indicates that almost 70 percent of the 52 countries requested have either not responded at all to requests, or have failed to approve a visit. From the perspective of the individual State, the decision to respond to a mission request is a matter for its sovereign discretion. There may be a number of legitimate reasons why a visit would not be appropriate at a given time, and why different mandates might be accorded priority. Avail your 80g and 12 a registration with the help of ngo consultancy. But as the years pass, these reasons become less plausible. From the perspective of the Council, there comes a point when the mechanism it has established to monitor and report on extrajudicial executions is effectively disabled from doing its job properly in respect to the States concerned. This should be a matter of grave concern to the Council in view of its mandated responsibility in relation to the prevention of human rights violations
