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? 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who gets to decide when it comes to Community Amenity Contributions?

This week we're approaching candidates in the upcoming Vancouver municipal election to get their feedback on the city's approach to Community Amenity Contributions (CACs). The Evoke team undertook a case study and research project in this area, and believes these could be better approached. Candidate responses will be posted on this site, meanwhile, here's some background on our perspective. 
The City of Vancouver has a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) policy, officially established in 2004 with their Financing Growth strategy, where all new development and rezoning applications contribute, financially or in-kind, to community amenities. The CACs are extracted from new development and spent upon Council approval in a number of valuable areas such as: affordable housing, child care, amenities, green spaces, community infrastructure and other public goods.
Our research focuses on a key dimension related to CACs; although they are derived from value created within a neighb…

Collaborative Governance in Action

Government: one participant amongst many

In a previous post we highlighted the need to go beyond voting for robust democratic participation. But if that's the case then the question becomes - how? Where do we create places for collaboration, discussion, and dialogue surrounding key issues facing our communities?

One possibility is to set up opportunities for collaborative governance. Now remember, governance is distinct from government; governance refers to decision-making practices and structures, and alsothe broader systems in which decisions about our communities are made. A government is a specific entity endowed with decision-making authority over something.

Collaborative governance simply refers to decision-making where multiple different organizations are involved. In these forums, governments are one of the participants amongst many, as opposed to being the sole arbiter over final decisions. Decision-making takes place between both state and non-state entities, and authori…

Does an efficient public service destroy community accountability?

New Public Management is an approach to running public service organizations (government services), and civil service generally, focused on service delivery that is efficient, business-like, and that incorporates market based principles. It includes management techniques and practices drawn from the private sector, allowing public servants to contract out services through competitive contracting, and focused on the professionalized delivery of public services.

The problem is...this approach may result in a loss to democratic accountability.

In a previous post we outlined two key dimensions to accountability; 1) understanding and monitoring decisions that are made, and 2) access to trustworthy information. Public administration, and the notion of public service, was traditionally focused on accountability to constituents via centralized control, and reporting to, defined government ministries and departments. This model is far from perfect; centralized bureaucracies are problematic in …