PLEASE NOTE: The Citizens’ Circle
for Accountability has launched two new websites. The first is
the Centre
for Public Accountability (www.centreforpublicaccountability.org),
which contains accountability standards, definitions, steps in
holding to account, and the Journal
of Public Accountability. The
Centre is intended as a primer and resource on public accountability
for citizens and activist citizens concerned with how specific
authorities are carrying out their responsibilities. But it is
also for civil servants, legislators, academics and students concerned
with government operations.
The second site, a blog, is called Forging
Civic Trust (www.forgingcivictrust.org).
Its purpose is to be a resource for all those wishing to bring
about public accountability to a standard of public explanation
from authorities that citizens are entitled to see met. The blog
is also intended to be useful to the public accounting of civil
servants, elected representatives and corporate officials who claim
for their intentions that they default to the public good. The
blog will also be useful to the media in interviewing officials
and commenting on officials’ statements.
As a result, content on this site is no longer being updated.
All content (and much more) is now available on the new sites.
Content left here is intended as a placeholder until the search
engines have found all content and ranked pages accordingly.
Please update your links and bookmarks.
I. A government's definition of accountability
One of the Journal's aims is to give examples of public statements
and writing that obscure the concept of public accountability rather
than help citizens and those in authority understand the concept
and its importance.
We can reasonably expect the Canadian federal executive government
to have a useful definition of accountability as a guide for its
300,000 civil servants and to serve as well for Members of Parliament
in holding the executive government to account.
Within the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the central government
agency responsible for government-wide management and accountability
directives, the Information Management Resource Centre of the Chief
Information Officer Branch offers this definition of accountability
in its Glossary:
"Accountability is the obligation to demonstrate and take responsibility
for performance in the light of commitments and expected outcomes."
Given the rigour in thinking that Canadians used to see in the
Treasury Board and still have the right to see, this definition
of accountability is inexcusable.
First, as our website makes clear, accountability is NOT responsibility.
"Demonstrating performance" is not accounting to legitimate
stakeholders for intended performance and reporting whether a reasonable
performance standard has been met. Moreover, "in the light
of commitments and expected outcomes" are simply fog-words
that duck the obligation of those accountable to assert their specific
responsibilities, as they see them, and their intended performance
and outcomes.
In short, the Treasury Board definition of accountability is no
help at all for civil servants trying to serve the public interest
and accept personal accountability.
A simple test of the definition is that the Public Accounts of
the Government of Canada (the annual public accounting of the executive
government's spending and financial position) would not be covered
by the definition.
The government's statement obscures the meaning of accountability.
As explained in the JPA critique of a 2004 national journal article
[link] and in the article Keeping the Meaning of Accountability
Clear (Journal of Accountability Issue 2)[link], the meaning of
public accountability for Canadian governments' responsibilities
has been clear since the mid-1970s.
The Treasury Board's definition may have been based on a December
2002 report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons
on government accountability. (See Journal of Accountability Issue
2)[link] That report obscured the meaning of accountability by defining
it as "a relationship based on obligations to demonstrate,
review, and take responsibility for performance, both the results
achieved in light of agreed expectations and the means used."
|
