Equity statements: a new approach to public accountability.

• Author: McCandless, Henry E.

Henry E. McCandless is a writer and consultant in accountability. A principal in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (1978-1996), he served as the governance and accountability research associate for the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation from 1994-1996.

Public accountability is not just about enhancing standards of public answering; it is about installing them. This article assumes that elected representatives want to make a difference in fairness outcomes for people; that they can see how holding to account is key; and can overcome partisan tendencies and set about installing standards for public accountability. Elected representatives will make fair trade-off decisions when they have time to think, are adequately informed and put the public interest first. Their own answering to citizens means elected representatives must be well informed, which requires them to have sound processes for informing themselves.

The personal initiative of each elected representative at every level of government is needed to bring about a standard of public accountability in Canada. It is often easier for people simply to hope for the best and then look for someone to blame when things go wrong. To the extent citizens abdicate their civic duty to hold to account, yet successfully ignore it as fact, elected representatives are free to do the same.

Consider some obvious examples of lack of public answering in safety protection. An important common denominator in lethally contaminated blood distribution, sub-standard drug testing, the U.S. Challenger disaster and Westray mine operations is the failure, by those having the responsibilities, to apply the precautionary principle. It says, "Don't go ahead unless there is reasonable assurance that it's safe." The principle has long been embodied, for example, in the drugs safety intention of the federal Food and Drugs Act, and is only now being applied to responsibilities such as environmental protection and fish stocks. We allowed practice to be the opposite, which is, "Proceed unless some `loose cannon' publicly and conclusively proves it's unsafe."

The Meaning of Accountability

Academics will say that accountability is some combination of responsibility and answering needed to prevent abuse of power. They will usually be thinking at the macro level of governments and legislatures. Public interest groups will say that accountability is synonymous with government's and corporate executives' responsibility to make fairer decisions affecting citizens that the interest groups are most concerned about.

In the campaign for the 1997 federal election, the brief accountability segment of the party leaders' televised debate showed a lack of common understanding of accountability and the lack of norms for public answering.

Some elected representatives may understand that accountability implies reporting of some kind by somebody. But realizing when they take office that they had less influence than they thought they were going to have, many tend to view government accountability as something that can be left to legislative auditors. Yet auditors stand outside the accountability relationship. Rank and file public servants, trying unsuccessfully to serve both the wants of those in power and the public interest and perceiving themselves led by superiors who don't "walk the talk," know they are no longer expected simply to comply with spending directives. But they are not sure what public and organization accountability should mean, or for whom. Their superiors are not answering for their own performance. The problem for citizens concerned about equity is that people in all these groups bandy about the term "accountability" pretending that everyone already understands what it means. Some propositions about accountability can help:

* Responsibility is the obligation to act.

* For every important responsibility there is accountability, the obligation to answer for responsibilities. Confusing accountability with responsibility obscures the obligation to report on the discharge of responsibilities.

* Public accountability is the obligation to answer publicly for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the public in important ways. The answering is both before and after the fact. "Transparency" simply means that something is readily visible; it does not mean answering for responsibilities.

* Reciprocal accountability is the obligation of people in senior posts in organizations to answer to members of the organizations for what they intend to bring about, for whom, and what they contribute.

* Holding fairly to account means getting the needed answering at the time it is needed, and using the answering fairly. It does not mean voting in elections. Election campaigns have narrow aims of...