accountability legislation
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

9
(FIVE YEARS 0)

H-INDEX

2
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Sara A. Snyder ◽  
Saeed Rahman ◽  
Jamie K. Hamilton ◽  
Hana T. Hamdi ◽  
Anjoli Anand ◽  
...  


2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-35
Author(s):  
Daphne Rixon

The purpose of this case study is to first examine the implications of accountability legislation on the financial and performance reporting of a public sector agency in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador and secondly, to compare the level of accountability with Stewart’s (1984) ladder of accountability. This paper is based on the first phase of a two-phase study. The first phase focuses on the initial impacts of accountability legislation on agencies and the challenges created by the legislation’s ‘one size fits all’ approach. The second phase of this study will examine the impact of the legislation on stakeholders after it has been in operation for five years. The second phase will include interviews with stakeholders to ascertain the level of satisfaction with the new legislation. The first phase of the study is significant since it highlights how governments could consider stakeholder needs when drafting such legislation. This research contributes to the body of literature on stakeholder accountability since there is a paucity of research focused specifically on the impact of accountability legislation on public sector agencies. An important contribution of this paper is the introduction of a framework for legislated accountability reporting. The main theoretical frameworks used to analyse the findings are Stewart’s (1984) ladder of accountability in conjunction with Friedman and Miles (2006) ladder of stakeholder management and engagement.



2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laverne Jacobs

In December 2009, the Ontario Legislative Assembly enacted the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009 [ATAGAA]. This new legislation offers a unique approach to ensuring that adjudicative tribunals in the province are transparent, accountable and efficient in their operations while preserving their decision-making independence. This approach aims to bring the executive branch of government and tribunals together in achieving effective and accountable internal tribunal governance. Through the use of illustrative cases, the author argues, however, that the statute does not address many of the contemporary concerns about administrative independence and accountability that tribunals experience on the ground. She argues further that the legislation is inconsistent in its underlying commitment to the concept of accountability itself as it fails to contemplate the importance of government accountability to tribunals and overlooks opportunities to foster sustained internal cultures of accountability. Finally, the approach taken by the legislation must be channeled properly to avoid disintegrating from one of collaborative governance to one of command and control.En décembre 2009, l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario a adopté la Loi de 2009 sur la responsabilisation et la gouvernance des tribunaux décisionnels et les nominations à ces tribunaux. Cette nouvelle loi présente une approche tout à fait particulière pour assurer que les tribunaux décisionnels de la province sont transparents, tenus de rendre compte et efficaces dans leur fonctionnement tout en préservant leur indépendance décisionnelle. Cette approche vise à rapprocher l’autorité exécutive du gouvernement et les tribunaux pour en arriver à une gouvernance interne efficace et responsable des tribunaux. En utilisant des cas pour l’illustrer, l’auteure soutient, toutefois, que la loi n’aborde pas plusieurs des préoccupations contemporaines au sujet de l’indépendance administrative et l’obligation de rendre compte dont les tribunaux font l’expérience sur le terrain. Elle soutient de plus que la loi est inconsistante dans son engagement sous-jacent envers le concept lui-même de l’obligation de rendre compte puisqu’elle ne contemple pas l’importance de tenir le gouvernement responsable envers les tribunaux et néglige les occasions de favoriser des cultures internes soutenues de rendre compte. Finalement, l’approche que prend la loi doit être dirigée convenablement pour éviter de se  désintégrer d’une approche de gouvernance collaborative en une de commandement et de contrôle.



2001 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 264-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia J. Reed ◽  
Frances K. Kochan

Schools and education in general face intense scrutiny, particularly as states enact high stakes accountability legislation that measures and judges performance. This has led to increased stress for school administrators who have typically had little voice in framing these policies but who are responsible for meeting state mandated standards. This article describes the steps taken in a university educational leadership program to foster the proactive engagement of educational leaders in the policy arena.





Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document