----------
> From: S. Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FW-L Re: 10 Principles of Accountability (fwd)
Date: September 28, 1997 4:36 AM
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 answer 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 make 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.
Thomas Lunde replies:
The only way I think this would ever come about is through a device such as
was advertised several years ago that claimed to be able to tell when
someone was lying by an analysis through minute variations of sound by the
larnyx under stress. It is interesting to speculate that the Native
Indians had a concept of the "pipe" in which the men, while sitting around
the tent discussing the problems of the tribe, would take the pipe when
they
were going to speak as a testimonial that what they were about to say was
the truth according to spirit which was represented by the sacred tobacco
smoke. The idea was you could tell fibs except when you prefaced your
remarks by smoking the pipe. It was considered necessary for tribal
survival that the highest quality of information was used when discussing
solutions to the tribes problems. The white man did not agree, smoked the
pipe and told lies which were believed by the Natives. Perhaps, we the
citizens are in the same relationship to our political and economic
masters.
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.
The ancient Hawaiians had a principle; "Effectiveness is the measure of
truth." This is a high statement of accountability in which the speaker
and the effect of his actions are evaluated. Western Civilization has not
seen fit to strive for such accountability.
In fact our political system, which advocates "terms" in office, eliminates
long
term accountability. As does the concept of a CEO of a firm. The
responsibility
of long term effects is transferred to the voter and shareholder even
though
they had no control over the person in power after his election. This is
akin to
my daughters asking, "Dad, will you do me a favor?" This is asking me to
commit
to the request before I have heard the request and sets me up to break my
word
if the request is not grantable.
It might be interesting to note that in the Iroquois Confederation,
decisions taken by
leaders were evaluated on their effects for seven future generations.
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.
You are postulating the elimination of Western Civilization. How can you
make a profit or gain political power if you remove the veils of secrecy
and deceit which has been our hallmark since the ancient Greeks. I suggest
you read Bertrant Gross's book Friendly Fascism for a touch of reality.
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).
It has been asked, why the Inca's never discovered the wheel. Well, they
were not stupid, they apparently thought about the wheel, the road, draft
animals and traffic congestion and decided that local communities had to be
self sufficient and that communications were best carried on by "runners"
on trails rather than roads and that their was no profit to their society
in the transportation of goods. It has been postulated that this was a
conscious choice and a precautionary decision because they did not like the
effects that the wheel would bring into their civilization.
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.
If you read accounts of how the Mohawks chose their Chiefs, you will find
that this authority was given to women, based on their ability in watching
the personalities of children as they grew up. From the basis of this
personality assessment, different leaders were chosen for their ability to
meet the needs of the time, whether that was war, diplomacy or hard times.
Citizens, in our Western culture choose leaders on the promises they make
that will reward the majority of the population. Voting is a self interest
activity. For the Mohawks, choosing was the asking of the most talented to
serve the tribe, not reward the majority or favor the most congruent liars.
Though we give lip service to the concept of service, the only one in the
Canadian government at the present time who reflects this principle is
Michael
Sharpe, an elderly statesman who works for $1 per year as an ethics advisor
to the current Liberal government.
6. Audit. Important answering must be validated by knowledgeable public
interest groups or by professional practitioners, or both.
I cannot think of two more useless groups. Public interest groups are just
lobby's for their particular viewpoint of reality. Their viewpoint may
have
high ideals such as Greenpeace or hidden intentions such as (forget the
acronym)
Business Council something. Professional practitioners such as the Medical
Association
is in the business of protecting Dr's interests re income and status, not
the general
publics interest re affordable treatment and preventative medicine. That
the two may
have some commonality does not invalidate my observation.
The two groups I would choose are those who are at the negative effect of
the decisions
and the elders of the community who have historical and life experiences
that provide the
largest viewpoint and the minimum self interest - they are going to die
soon. Public
interest groups may have some validity in some cases, but academics are
careerists and
given a choice between advancing their career and compensation, 99 out of
100 will chose their career as it represents their survival and the result
of years of work. Self interest is the dominant motivator of our society.
[I can't really fault this but I have considerable reservations about
professional practitioners as watchdogs.] (Sally's comment)
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.
I agree that they should answer or justify their intentions. No one except
God, and I'm not to sure about him, can answer for the results. The
community that allowed the intentions to proceed must share equally in the
results. However in our system, which may be the root of your question,
those with intentions often profit even when the results do not live up to
their intentions.
To a degree, we must trust external inspectors, of complaints of the
effects,
for bringing forth the questions that those accountable should answer. It
is too much to ask someone to commit to a policy or path and then to shoot
themselves in the foot by critiquing it. However when questions are
brought
forth, a complete and documented answer should be the minimal response.
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.
Corporations cannot be fair. The system is set up to reward the holders of
capital - the investor. It is an oxymoron to use fairness (to all) and
corporation together. A corporation does not exist to serve the public
interest, it exists to serve the special needs of a group within the
public, the consumer of their product. As long as corporations and profit
exist as operating principles, the concept of fairness cannot co-exist.
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.
"Good faith", presupposes interest in the welfare of others - all others.
However, capitalism is set up to reward a few excessively and punish many
excessively - the others. Government, in democracies are set up to reward
majorities and deny the needs of minorities. That there has been efforts
on race, for example, doesn't mitigate the fact that the inequalities still
exist and are perpetuated by those in power when it suits them. "Those
legitimately holding responsible parties to account" have no standard by
which to judge except the law. The law is not value free. It's basic
tenants support the concept of "private property" which is the interests of
individuals to invest in actions to protect what is theirs even if it
conflicts with the human rights of others. The law is not timely in that
it reacts after the fact. The law operates not on fairness, but on force,
as it is backed by the force of the state which controls the armed
individuals of police, army and penal systems who have given up their right
to act fairly and left it in the hands of those who control them. The law
is not based on reality, but on precedent which was reality at a previous
time and place. The law does not adequately take into account
externalities and tries to focus each question put before it to a
definitive statement which can then be evaluated against the alleged
activity. The law is the law and has within it injustice, unfairness and
untimeliness. To those that would argue that it may be bad but it is the
best we have, I would ask them to find penal systems, police and soldiers
that act against their own people in the so called primitive societies.
You can't fix a bad system with good intentions. You can only work to
finding a good system. We as a society are not doing that, we are tacitly
accepting that ours is the best, no matter what historical evidence may
suggest in terms of other experiments and alternatives.
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.
All the forces of government and business seek to make the citizen abdicate
their responsibilities. As long as leaders of government seek power and
businesses seek profit, then any citizen accountability is seen as an
obstacle to those goals. Forget the lip service to democracy. You can't
make the system accountable when the main players have different goals than
the citizen.
However let us not hold the citizen up as a paragon of virtue. He too is
the result
of generations of brainwashing to put his own self interest, profit and
pleasure ahead
of others. In truth, I think the only individuals who can escape the trap
of self interest
are those who know that death is close. Therefore, in Native societies,
the wisdom of
the Elders to some degree is the wisdom of those who cannot profit from
telling falsehoods
and who have no vested interest in perpetuating a destructive system.
It is interesting to note that this idea is invalid when we come to
inheritance. If you can pass your wealth and titles to your children or
chosen beneficiaries, then the dying will lie. In most native cultures,
the idea of hereditary succession was not chosen because the effect of this
practice nullifies the disinterest of the Elders. The same with the notion
of "private property", that great invention of brigands who killed and
exploited others so they could have something to pass down and as a tool to
use to keep those around them in line with the promise that they too would
benefit by supporting the accumulation of others resources.
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
As to the pithy saying expressed here, the "small group" has never been
thoughtful except to change the system to benefit them. All groups work to
their own perceived self interest. That Margaret Mead, held up as one of
the most influential anthropologists ( some one who studies societies and
their customs), could utter such
stupidity confirms my disrespect for a good education supplementing a good
mind. Her ex
husband, Gregory Bateson, was such a good mind. He at least devoted his
intellectual energy to the studies of systems in the form of cybernetics
(the study of communications and automatic control systems in both machines
and living things.) The systems we operate under are dysfunctional. There
is no corrective thermostat we can invent that will change a bad system to
a good system. The most we can do is alleviate some of its more
undesirable side effects. However, our systems are so bad that it takes
the best minds of our system to find ways to continue the negative cycle.
My proof, tax accountants. (Thanks to Linda McQuaig)
>
