This is a summary explanation of public accountability for the South Island Health Coalition in Victoria, B.C.

Public accountability regulates fairness in society. But to achieve fairness, citizens must change their relationship with authorities. The question is whether citizens have the courage. Citizens must not trust an authority that does not explain publicly, fully and fairly what it intends and why it intends it, the performance standards it intends for itself and those it oversees, what the authority thinks resulted from its actions, and who will publicly, fully and fairly explain how it is carrying out its responsibilities. The precautionary principle says that citizens must hold authorities fairly to account, not simply supplicate or protest.

The moment an authority responds publicly to a fair question asked by citizens on how it is carrying out its responsibilities, the authority risks losing credibility if it does not explain fully and fairly. This is because people and organizations who are knowledgeable can publicly audit the fairness and completeness of the response. Public accountability means the obligation of authorities to explain publicly how they are carrying out responsibilities that affect citizens in important ways. They must explain what they intend and their reasons, the performance standards they intend, for whom, and what resulted from their decisions. Responsibility, the obligation to act, creates accountability, which is fused to responsibility but is a separate obligation. Public explanation raises trust in officials who explain fully and fairly. Those who do not can expect to lose public trust.

George Washington spoke for all societies when he said in 1796, “I am sure the mass of Citizens in these United States mean well, and I firmly believe they will always act well, whenever they can obtain a right understanding of matters….” Holding to account means extracting needed public explanation from authorities, validating it for its fairness and completeness, and doing something fair and sensible with explanations given in good faith.

Citizens may not know the ins and outs of authorities’ operations, but they know good and bad conduct when they see it. Knowledgeable people know who is fairly responsible for what and they know the basic performance standards that citizens are entitled to see the responsible officials meet.

Legislators have thus far refused to install in law the simple requirement for public, full and fair explanation that allows citizens to obtain a right understanding of intentions and reasons before the fact. We get instead “checks and balances,” monitoring and after-the-fact audits that will not give citizens the information they need to make timely trust decisions. Thus citizens themselves must hold to account the decision-makers in governments and their agencies, large corporations and institutions.

Every authority has the obligation both in fairness and common sense to state what it intends to bring about, and for whom: who would benefit, how, and why, and who would bear what costs and risks, and why they should. Authorities resist explaining publicly, fully and fairly because it forces them to share power. It forces them to disclose their aims and responsibilities.

Holding effectively to account identifies authorities’ action intentions, their underlying agendas and the performance standards they intend for themselves and those they oversee. Requiring authorities to state their intentions and reasons publicly, fully and fairly allows citizens to assess the implications. Then, if enough citizens see the intentions as leading to harm or unfairness, the intentions will tend to self-destruct. After-the-fact public reporting and audits of performance are too late to prevent harm and injustice, and authorities learn how to withstand embarrassment from audit. The trick is to know authorities’ true intentions before the fact, so that citizens can act sensibly and fairly to commend, alter or halt the intentions.

Citizens must therefore organize themselves into issue groups to hold authorities fairly to account, and build their capability to extract full and fair public explanation. The first task is to lay out what we think are basic and commonsense performance standards for those we see as responsible for fairness in the issues we are concerned about, whether in safety, health care, justice, jobs, education, the environment or government spending. We don’t have to be carpenters to tell if a door jamb is crooked.

Next, we ask the responsible authorities whether they think their own task and control standards match those that citizens are entitled to see met. Then we publicly state whether the evidence available to citizens shows that good performance standards are being met. If we see that they are not met, we ask the authority to tell us why, and what stands in the way of meeting them.

So long as public explanation is required, authorities will want to say and do something praiseworthy, or at least credible. Refusal to account, or false or inadequate explanation can be publicly exposed, leading to loss of trust.Thus the requirement to explain publicly produces a self-regulating influence on authorities’ intentions and actions that acts in the public interest.

Citizens forming performance accountability groups for key responsibilities can fairly ask the ultimate directing minds in authority key questions:

“Do you agree with the following statements and, if not, how would you state the issue and risks?” (State the concern, such as in safety, health care, justice, jobs, education, the environment or value for public money. As well, state who in common sense has what major responsibilities)

“Do you agree that the following are basic performance standards that citizens are entitled to see the responsible persons meet, and, if not, what would you say are the right performance standards?” (State the standards)

“Do you agree with the following as the standards for public explanation that those with the responsibilities must meet?” (State the basic standards)

“What action do you intend to take to help produce the needed public explanations, and what, if anything, stands in your way of taking the action you could?” (Note that the answers help to identify motivation, ability to act, and external constraints fairly beyond the decision-maker’s control.)

Such questions can be fairly put to municipal councillors, members of executive governments, legislators, regulating and audit bodies, corporate and institutional governing bodies, and the leaders of countries whose intentions would affect the lives of citizens in other countries. Putting such questions publicly and publicly assessing the responses can expose authorities’ motivations if from whim, political ideology or self-interest.

Holding decision-makers publicly and fairly to account does not tell them how to do their jobs. It is nonpartisan and seeks only public explanation that cannot be refused in a democracy. Holding fairly and relentlessly to account applies across all legal and cultural jurisdictions and is likely the best single way to help the work of citizens and elected representatives trying to increase fairness in their societies the world over.

Henry E. McCandless,
General Convenor, Citizens’ Circle for Accountability
www.accountabilitycircle.org