Suchergebnisse

This Article argues that efforts to square the administrative state with the constitutional structure have become too fixated on the concern for political accountability. As a result, those efforts have overlooked an important obstacle to agency legitimacy: the concern for administrative arbitrariness. Such thinking is evident in the prevailing model of the administrative state, which seeks to legitimate agencies by placing their policy decisions firmly under the control of the one elected official responsive to the entire nation-the President. This Article contends that the "presidential control" model cannot legitimate agencies because the model rests on a mistaken assumption about the sufficiency of political accountability for that purpose. The assumption resonates with the premise, familiar in constitutional theory, that majoritarianism is the hallmark of legitimate government. This premise, brought to the fore by Alexander Bickel, now is questioned among constitutional theorists. Moreover, majoritarianism is not enough to legitimate administrative decisionmaking under our constitutional structure for the reason that it does not reliably address the concern for arbitrariness. This Article argues for a more direct focus on the concern for arbitrariness-ana pproach that has at its core a concern for good government, not simply "accountable" government in the post-Bickel, majoritarian sense of that word. The Article demonstrates how a more direct approach suggests new possibilities for resolving the time-honored problem of agency legitimacy and new ways of understanding the perennial puzzles of administrative lawar.

This paper, to appear in revised form in the third volume of the series on governance in Australia editied by Glyn Davis, Michael Keading, John Wanna and Patrick Weller, examines the place of accountability in the emerging framework of Australian national governance. The aim is not to map the institutional configuration of accountability agencies in government but to examine a number of basic tensions surrounding accountability and the role of accountability agencies. Although the term 'accountability' is fundamental to governance discourse, expectations of accountability vary quite markedly with different institutional and community perspectives. This paper attempts to sort through some of the more basic tensions associated with the mixed expectations of accountability by identifying how the one term of 'accountability' is often attached to mechanisms that operate at cross-purposes, to the detriment of national governance. The paper begins with a review of the conventional forms of accountability in Australian national governance and then examines three challenging arenas of accountability. First, the arena of open government associated with the agenda of the so-called new administrative law. This is a model of process-accountability which is frequently criticised as having become (i) too costly given the meagre range of benefits it has generated, and (ii) too burdensome on government decision-making given the rights of interested parties to stay the hand of government through round after round of administrative review. The second model is the new public management one of results-oriented accountability, which is frequently criticised as detrimental to due-process safeguards of accountability. The third line of inquiry concerns changing public expectations of accountable government. In the Conclusion, we place these accountability developments in the increasingly international context of Australian governance. Emerging international practices, such as those involving United Nations committees with monitoring responsibilities in relation to Australian government compliance with treaty obligations, highlight growing 'accountability gaps'. We use this term to refer to gaps between the nature of information required by demanders and suppliers of accountability. We note that increasingly public officials who appear before some accountability agencies find themselves in 'accountability traps', where no amount of performance reporting can ever satisfy the demands made of their accountability obligations. We acknowledge that accountability requires more than simply the provision of information from decision-makers, but debates over the qualities of information provide us with a focus for analysing wider trends. Our basic argument is that Australian governance suffers from an increasing number of 'accountability gaps'. We are not original in drawing attention to the messy state of accountability in Australian governance. We conclude that it is unrealistic to expect anything much in the way of an 'accountability accord' until some of the more fundamental accountability gaps are bridged, on the basis of a new appreciation of the information requirements required by each set of demanders and suppliers of accountability.

This paper, to appear in revised form in the third volume of the series on governance in Australia editied by Glyn Davis, Michael Keading, John Wanna and Patrick Weller, examines the place of accountability in the emerging framework of Australian national governance. The aim is not to map the institutional configuration of accountability agencies in government but to examine a number of basic tensions surrounding accountability and the role of accountability agencies. Although the term 'accountability' is fundamental to governance discourse, expectations of accountability vary quite markedly with different institutional and community perspectives. This paper attempts to sort through some of the more basic tensions associated with the mixed expectations of accountability by identifying how the one term of 'accountability' is often attached to mechanisms that operate at cross-purposes, to the detriment of national governance. The paper begins with a review of the conventional forms of accountability in Australian national governance and then examines three challenging arenas of accountability. First, the arena of open government associated with the agenda of the so-called new administrative law. This is a model of process-accountability which is frequently criticised as having become (i) too costly given the meagre range of benefits it has generated, and (ii) too burdensome on government decision-making given the rights of interested parties to stay the hand of government through round after round of administrative review. The second model is the new public management one of results-oriented accountability, which is frequently criticised as detrimental to due-process safeguards of accountability. The third line of inquiry concerns changing public expectations of accountable government. In the Conclusion, we place these accountability developments in the increasingly international context of Australian governance. Emerging international practices, such as those involving United Nations committees with monitoring responsibilities in relation to Australian government compliance with treaty obligations, highlight growing 'accountability gaps'. We use this term to refer to gaps between the nature of information required by demanders and suppliers of accountability. We note that increasingly public officials who appear before some accountability agencies find themselves in 'accountability traps', where no amount of performance reporting can ever satisfy the demands made of their accountability obligations. We acknowledge that accountability requires more than simply the provision of information from decision-makers, but debates over the qualities of information provide us with a focus for analysing wider trends. Our basic argument is that Australian governance suffers from an increasing number of 'accountability gaps'. We are not original in drawing attention to the messy state of accountability in Australian governance. We conclude that it is unrealistic to expect anything much in the way of an 'accountability accord' until some of the more fundamental accountability gaps are bridged, on the basis of a new appreciation of the information requirements required by each set of demanders and suppliers of accountability.

Charter schools involve a trading of autonomy for accountability. This accountability comes through two forces—markets through the choices of parents and students, and accountability to government through the writing of contracts that must be renewed for schools to continue to operate. Charter schools are supposed to be more accountable for educational performance than traditional public schools because authorizers have the ability to revoke charter contracts. Here, I focus on one central component of accountability to government: performance accountability or accountability for educational outcomes to charter school authorizers through the revocation or non-renewal of charter contracts. In this paper, I suggest that contract-based accountability for educational performance in charter schools may not be working as proponents argued it would. This article explores some explanations for why there are very few examples of charter schools that have been closed primarily because of failure to demonstrate educational performance or improvement. Future work will need to test if these challenges for authorizers hold in a variety of contexts. The conclusion examines the implications of these findings for the future of charter school accountability.

Title from cover. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Vols. for FY 1997-FY 1999 prepared by: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Chief Financial Officer. ; Combines six separate HUD financial reports, mainly internal office documents issued in looseleaf form: Chief Financial Officer's annual report; Report on compliance with the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act; Secretary's semiannual report to Congress; Report on compliance with the Prompt Payment Act; Report on civil monetary penalties; and: Debt collection performance report (some are available in U.S. Government depository libraries on microfiche, under slightly variant titles). ; Latest issue consulted: FY 1997. ; UPDATED

Alberta has actively increased accountability for educational performance since the early 1980s through introduction of the student achievement and diploma examination programs, five evaluation policies, and public reporting requirements. In 1994, the government moved to province-wide planning for more and better reporting of infor- mation to enhance public accountability. Accountability focuses attention on performance, communicates how successful the performance is, and proposes strategies for improve- ment. In this article I describe accountability for K-12 education in Alberta, identifying policies, programs, and strategies that help ensure public accountability for educational results. I also describe Alberta Education's 1994 Three-Year Business Plan, which increases accountability for school jurisdictions and schools. L'Alberta s'emploie à mettre davantage l'accent sur la responsabilité eu égard au rendement scolaire depuis le début des années 90. C'est dans cet esprit qu'elle a mis sur pied des programmes d'évaluation des élèves et d'examen des diplômes, implanté cinq politiques d'évaluation et formulé des exigences pour ce qui est des rapports publics. En 1994, le gouvernement a opté pour une planification à la grandeur de la province afin d'améliorer qualitativement et quantitativement les informations communiquées. Parler de responsabilité, c'est mettre l'accent sur la performance, déterminer le niveau de réussite à cet égard et proposer des stratégies en vue d'apporter des améliorations. Dans cet article, l'auteure décrit la responsabilité face au public de la maternelle à la fin du secondaire en Alberta en identifiant les politiques, programmes et stratégies qui aident à assurer une responsabilité eu égard aux résultats scolaires. L'auteure décrit également le plan d'action global de trois ans mis sur pied en 1994 en Alberta, lequel augmente la responsabilité des juridictions scolaires et des écoles.

This is the annual accountability report for the South Carolina Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations at the Budget & Control Board. The report gives the mission statement, budget, program descriptions, and performance measures for the office.

Each year the Office of Local Government of the South Carolina Budget and Control Board produces an annual accountability report for the South Carolina General Assembly. Included is a mission statement, program description, program goals and performance measures.

Each year the Office of Local Government of the South Carolina Budget and Control Board produces an annual accountability report for the South Carolina General Assembly. Included is a mission statement, program description, program goals and performance measures.

Contracting out raises important issues of accountability, as recognised by the inquiry being conducted by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee. The claim made by the Industry Commission that contracting out does not reduce government accountability for public services is mistaken. Contracting out involves a trade-off of political accountability for efficiency. Contracting out inevitably involves some reduction in accountability through the removal of direct departmental and ministerial control over the day-to-day actions of contractors and their staff. Indeed, the removal of such control is essential to the rationale for contracting out because the main increases in efficiency come from the greater freedom allowed to contracting providers. Accountability is also likely to be reduced through the reduced availability of citizen redress under such instruments as the Ombudsman and FOI. At the same time, accountability may on occasion be increased through improved departmental and ministerial control following from greater clarification of objectives and specification of standards. Providers may also become more responsive to public needs through the forces of market competition. Potential losses (and gains) in accountability need to be balanced against potential efficiency gains in each case.

Each year the Commission on Prosecution Coordination reports to the Office of State Budget its annual accountability report that includes the mission, objectives, and performance measures.

Each year the Commission on Prosecution Coordination reports to the Office of State Budget its annual accountability report that includes the mission, objectives, and performance measures.

Each year the Education Oversight Committee produces an annual accountability report for the South Carolina General Assembly and the governor. This report presents an executive summary, major achievements of the past year, key strategic challenges, and budget expenditures, and The report uses the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria (The Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence) elements for the structure of evaluation.

The scope and meaning of 'accountability' has been extended in a number of directions well beyond its core sense of being called to account for one's actions. It has been applied to internal aspects of official behaviour, beyond the external focus implied by being called to account; to institutions that control official behaviour other than through calling officials to account; to means of making officials responsive to public wishes other than through calling them to account; and to democratic dialogue between citizens where no one is being called to account. In each case the extension is readily intelligible because it is into an area of activity closely relevant to the practice of core accountability. However, in each case the extension of meaning may be challenged as weakening the importance of external scrutiny.

The scope and meaning of 'accountability' has been extended in a number of directions well beyond its core sense of being called to account for one's actions. It has been applied to internal aspects of official behaviour, beyond the external focus implied by being called to account; to institutions that control official behaviour other than through calling officials to account; to means of making officials responsive to public wishes other than through calling them to account; and to democratic dialogue between citizens where no one is being called to account. In each case the extension is readily intelligible because it is into an area of activity closely relevant to the practice of core accountability. However, in each case the extension of meaning may be challenged as weakening the importance of external scrutiny.