An interesting set of ideas. Sally >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:17:26 -0700 >Reply-To: Caspar Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sender: The Other Economic Summit USA 1997 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Caspar Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: 10 Principles of Accountability >X-cc: Terry Cottam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Terry Cottam was kind enough to answetr my request for the text of the 10 >Principles. In his amazingly prompt reply,he also asked the following >questions: > >>Do they make sense? Are any points not clear? I would like to help adapt >>these into popular education materials that everyone can use. >> > >I am quite impressede by the general tenor of the "Principles" and have >taken the liberty of trying to maske them more readily comprehensible. For >me, the mandatory form is easier to grasp than simple statements, and I >have converted them to that form. I have also massaged the diction here and >there in ways which seem to me to make them easier to read. In some cases, >I have had to add a few words, but for me the added words speed >comprehension much more than they slow reading. > >Please let me know what you think. > > (Revised) Principles of Public Accountability > >Principles guide conduct. If we can agree on general principles of >accountability, we have the basis for developing the basic standards for >answering to the public. Here are ten illustrative principles: > >1. Disclosure of intentions. People in authority who are intending action >that would affect others in important ways must tell those others the >results or outcomes they seek to bring about. They must state why they >think the outcomes they intend are desirable and fair. > >2. Performance visibility. Actual performance must be disclosed through >adequate public answering by those who have the performance >responsibilities. Those in authority must answer publicly and promptly for >the results of their actions and for any learning they have applied from >them. > >3. Identifying the directing mind. In every government, corporation or >other organization there is a "directing mind and will" which must be >identified as the body publicly accountable for what people in the >organization or set of organizations intend to do, actually do, or fail to >do. > >4. Responsibility for taking precautions. Decision-makers in authority have >a duty to inform themselves adequately about significant risks to people's >safety, to the environment, and to social and legal justice. They must meet >the intent of the precautionary principle in their decision-making. They >must answer publicly for any failure to obtain reasonable assurance that it >is safe to proceed or, if in doubt, for failure to err on the side of >safety. (The U.S. Challenger space shuttle disaster is a well-known >example of directing minds waiving the precautionary principle). > >5. The citizens' precautionary principle. Citizens must apply the >precautionary principle to justice, equity, and the preservation of >community as well as to safety and environmental protection. They must, in >appropriate forums, set the standards for decision-makers-in-authority to >meet in publicly answering for their intentions, and they must hold them >fairly and publicly to account. > >6. Audit. Important answering must be validated by knowledgeable public >interest groups or by professional practitioners, or both. > >[I can't really fault this but I have considerable reservations about >professional practitioners as watchdogs.] > >7. Right-roles. Those who are actually accountable must answer publicly for >their intentions and results. The answering obligation is not to be shifted >to external inspectors, commissioners, auditors, ombudsmen or other >examiners. > >8. Corporate fairness. The directing minds of corporations must answer >publicly for serving the public interest when, in decision-making within >their power, a significant difference is likely to exist between serving >the public interest and serving the wants of corporation owners and >management. Reporting by those who are responsible for the oversight of >corporations must include the extent to which their supervision meets the >intent of the precautionary principle. > >9. Governing body and citizen responsibility. To ensure continued >answering, those legitimately holding responsible parties to account must >themselves act fairly and responsibly on answerings given in good faith. >This applies to both governing bodies and public interest groups. > >10. The wages-of-abdication principle. To the extent that citizens >abdicate their responsibility to decide standards for public answering and >fail to hold responsible parties fairly to account, they create civic >incompetence and give tacit authorization of the abuse of power. > > *** >I find 10 a little scary, because it assumes the existence of appropriate >forums for people to set standards in, adequate information about what must >be answered for, and effective citizenship. In real life, it could well >provide a loophole through which responsible parties rush in droves. > >Caspar > >Caspar Davis- > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Victoria, British Columbia > > > 'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful > committed citizens can change the world, > indeed it's the only thing that ever has.' > - Margaret Mead >
