Public Trust Depends on Public Accountability
Without public trust in authorities, society doesn’t work properly.
The argument for requiring full and fair public explanation by authorities on how they are carrying out their responsibilities is straight-forward: If authorities are required to explain publicly, fully and fairly, before taking their decisions:
- what specific outcomes they intend to bring about, for whom, and why,
- the performance standards they intend for themselves and those they oversee,
their decision-making will be fairer for all those who would be significantly affected by their decisions.
This is because authorities’ explanations required before the fact can be publicly evaluated by knowledgeable organizations for their fairness and completeness. This public assessment will lead to greater or lower public trust in the authority. Thus the requirement for public explanation produces a self-regulating influence that increases decision fairness and raises valid citizen trust in the authority.
But it will take citizens themselves to bring about public accounting to a standard of explanation that citizens are entitled to see met. Since the obligation of authorities to give full and fair public accountings is unassailable, there is no barrier to citizens forming accountability groups on important issues and holding their elected representatives publicly to account for making the explanation requirement the law.
The Harper Government Intention to Make the Long Form Census Voluntary
Posted by Henry McCandless in Authorities' Accountabilities on July 26, 2010
A Toronto Globe and Mail article 30 June 2010 attributed to The Canadian Press was headed: “Don’t Count on Census Detail: Tories Scrub Mandatory Long Form.” The article stated “The move (to make the long form voluntary) is a response to protests from some Canadians who resented the personal questions in the long form.”
The article centered on the executive government’s portrayal of the policy change, citing objections from “some Canadians” — the source presumably being the Ministry who could cherry-pick. A StatsCan official said, “We do acknowledge that (in making responses voluntary) that we may not get the same level of detail as that of a census.”
Insiders speaking to the Canadian Press on condition of anonymity “decry a new world order within the agency since the Conservatives came to power in 2006”, with commendable analyses being dropped and total information reduced for “dozens of provincial governments, community groups and other organizations that depend on the data for developing policy.” Said one StatsCan source: “It will be a disaster. A lot of policy across Canada has been based on that long form.” As well, the voluntary aspect, through bias in who answers and is saying what, can be expected to skew the results. Read the rest of this entry »
Municipal Accountability: a city council’s refusal to account
Posted by Henry McCandless in Accountability of Public Administration Academics, Authorities' Accountabilities, Governance Accountabilities on June 30, 2010
In the August 19 2009 edition of a Victoria BC local newspaper, the Oak Bay News, I had set out the problem of the mushrooming and unfettered deer population in Victoria and what I saw as the Oak Bay municipal council’s responsibility. In that op-ed I stated:
“If Council members say they can do nothing because removal (of the deer) is a provincial matter, they can be expected to meet with other municipal councillors, the deer-housing golf clubs and responsible provincial ministry and wildlife protection officials and come up with an effective action plan within four months. This would be exposed to the public for challenge and would include options such as removal or culling and the reasons for it. Oak Bay Council owes homeowners a public explanation of its intentions and reasons with respect to the deer.”
Seeing no public response from the council members, I wrote on April 16 2010 to each of the seven Oak Bay councillors specifically asking them to publicly explain to Oak Bay residents their action plan to deal with the problem.
My August 2009 op-ed, April 2010 letter to the Councillors and the response are set out below.
Parliament Prorogation vs. Accountability
Posted by Henry McCandless in Governance Accountabilities on February 1, 2010
We need more than rallies objecting to prorogation as “undemocratic.” Rallies won’t change a government’s underlying agendas. A huge banner at the Victoria rally proclaimed: “Canadians Wake Up.” Wake up, indeed, but then to do what? Rules against prorogation won’t change a government’s intentions. Nor is it the issue of when the Prime Minister is to be “let out of the penalty box” on his prorogation decision. We have prorogation because citizens have never set performance and public explanation standards for their elected representatives.
Having the House work properly and earning citizens’ respect for its MPs doesn’t require rules as much as a self-regulating influence on those making governance decisions that will serve the public good. The missing influence is public accountability, which means the obligation of government to give full, fair and public explanation before the fact of its intentions, for whom, and its reasons. This allows knowledgeable public challenge of them, which can lead to loss of public trust.
Causing self-destruction of an authority’s intentions through loss of citizen trust is more powerful than oppositions trying to build up restraining public “pressure.” Authorities with more power can simply crank up their driving forces. Intentions tend to self destruct if enough informed citizens see the underlying real intentions as leading to harm or injustice.
The Public Accountability of a Government Board
Posted by Henry McCandless in Governance Accountabilities on October 22, 2009
This posting is to illustrate first steps taken by citizens holding to account members of a governing board. In this example it is the board members of a major Canadian provincial government agency, the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). VIHA is charged with healthcare on Vancouver Island and running the facilities for it, under the direction of the provincial Health Minister. The Minister has ultimate responsibility and public accountability for how the province’s several health authorities carry out their tasks. Each authority is the face of the Minister for that area of the province. What health authority board members intend and do, or fail to do in their duty, affects citizens in important ways.
Below is the third-stage letter from the Citizens’ Accountability Group formed on VIHA to each individual member of the board, again asking for their view of their own public accountability. Each earlier asking was rebuffed. The letter exchange below shows that the Board members feel accountable only to the Minister, which means that they do not feel publicly accountable to the citizens they affect — only to the official who appointed them.
The Public Accountability of Governing Boards
Posted by Henry McCandless in Governance Accountabilities on October 10, 2009
Boards of governors are responsible for running their organizations. Yet they are not taught what public accountability means and what the board’s own public accountability is.
A board’s public accountability means the obligation of board members to
- state publicly before the fact what they intend the organization to bring about, for whom, and why they intend it
- what performance standards they have in place for the people running the various key operations critical to solid achievement and gaining public trust
- how they control performance, which means causing to happen that which should and causing not to happen that which shouldn’t
- what came from what they did or failed to do, and how they applied the available learning.
Recent Comments