Skip to main content

Accountability: getting information about public things...to the public

When it comes to democracy one term that gets floated around often is the notion of accountability. But what does accountability actually mean? What does it look like?

Further, in the context of government bodies, elected representatives, and the myriad different organizations that provide civil services in our communities, how does accountability happen? And what's required for a community institution to be able to say it is accountable?

The answer is different, for different institutions. For example, we often focus on the accountability of elected officials and government representatives. But what about Crown corporations, or state companies? In Canada, Crown corporations are publicly held entities that provide a public service, but that are not directly managed or overseen by any elected official. The first federal Crown Corporation was the Canadian National Railway, established in 1922, and there are now a diverse array of publicly owned autonomous public entities in diverse sectors such as transportation, power generation, culture, and communications.

A report from the Treasury Board of Canada in 2005 highlights the importance of legitimacy, accountability, and transparency in order to ensure control by the Government and Canadians over Crown corporations. So there's that word again...but what does it mean?

Well, the same report notes that accountability for Canadians means that government will:
  • spend taxpayers’ money as though it were their own;
  • provide better and more accessible information on how public funds are being used;
  • keep the promises that they make; 
  • provide independent, non-political oversight to monitor; and
  • provide citizens with trustworthy information especially with respect to health, safety, the environment and the sound management of resources.
The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance defines accountability as "the relationship between the local population and their representatives, and the mechanisms through which citizens can ensure that decision-makers are answerable for decisions made." 

So it looks like: 1) being able to understand and monitor decisions that are made, and 2) access to trustworthy information, are key elements of accountability. Unfortunately, in the case of #1, this is no small feat when it comes to Crown corporations. Most of them are directly overseen by an appointed board, which reports to a Minister, which reports to Parliament...which is theoretically accountable to Canadians. This is where accountability, in the context of state owned entities, starts to look a bit murky.

Which is why, at a minimum, open and transparent access to information is critical. This is a concern in British Columbia at the moment, with several agencies requesting the government to do much better when it comes to Freedom of Information requests. When it comes to public entities - we should expect nothing less than complete transparency over decision-making.

What are the public organizations in your community, and how do they provide you with oversight over their decision making? How important is transparent decision-making to the organizations you are involved with? 

And a question for a future post: if we do get transparent access to information about decision-making, what can we do with it to ensure accountability? What if the decisions we see do not align with the purposes, promises, or priorities of our public institutions? 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Including rational thought in decision-making: novel idea?

The post last week brought up the idea that we need to think about what concepts and ideas are put forward in the public realm. From pop music to sports to local community events, our approach to decision-making is influenced by commonly understood cultural practices. Meaningful democratic decision-making requires that we think about the practices, ideas, and values that percolate throughout society. More specifically, when it comes to engaging a group of people to get together and go through a democratic decision-making process, practitioners need to think about how participants are being, or have been, educated. By definition, democratic decision-making is not limited to specialists. "Rule by the people" means everyone gets to participate in decision-making, even about issues where we are not experts. This does not mean, however, that democratic decision-making should be approached from a place of ignorance.  Robert Dahl  emphasized the importance of  enlight
1 comment
Read more

Freedom to do stuff vs. freedom from stuff

As our children grow up we typically give them more freedom and discretion over the activities they will pursue, and increasing freedom of choice when it comes to who they will associate with and the type of education they want. It's commonly accepted that freedom from tyranny, oppression, and control is a hallmark of a democratic society; we should be free to lead and build a life of our choosing. Leading and guiding one another to a life of freedom is a great privilege that many communities are still fighting and striving towards.  However, when our children are young, we're a bit more directive. When I wake up my daughters in the morning, whether they get dressed, eat breakfast, and get ready for school is not up for discussion or deliberation. At first, commanding them when to put on their shoes might seem to contravene their freedom of choice. Am I restraining their liberty? Obstructing their progress as free individuals? In directing them through these activities,
Post a Comment
Read more

State government: not necessary for democracy

Got your attention? This statement may seem counter-intuitive, but it may very well be true. Democracy can mean a whole lot of things, but it does not necessarily require or imply state government. A state can be thought of as a political entity, typically with perceived sovereignty over some geographic territory, a single unified government, and a monopoly on the legal deployment of an army or other enforcement agency. If we understand democracy as structures and processes for people to make decisions about their communities, then are any of the above items necessary? You might think the answer is yes - that at the least we need some kind of unified government. But what if we define government more holistically as systems and structures that govern some kind of organized community? Is this possible without the additional features of a state : geographic sovereignty, a single unitary government, and a monopoly on organized force? I would suggest that yes, it might be possible
Post a Comment
Read more