On your website it says that scrutiny’s purpose is ‘holding decision makers to account’. But is it clear to you what this actually means? If you were writing an annual report, could you confidently say scrutiny 'held the executive to account’ or ‘ensured accountability’? And how might you back that up?

OK, so perhaps it doesn’t worry you too much. After all, everyone knows what accountability means, right?

Well, maybe.

Let’s unpack it a little and see if we are on a similar page.

We can start with the Mark Bovens’ definition that many academics will reach for.

Accountability is:

‘a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgment, and the actor may face consequences’

For ‘actor’ think executive member and for ‘forum’ think scrutiny committee.

This relationship can be broken down into three describable elements.

First, there is giving account. The executive member comes to scrutiny and presents a report or provides an update and answers questions. This ‘getting things on the record’ supports transparency and it provides the foundation for what comes next.

Second, there is holding to account (perhaps better to say ‘responding to an account’, but I’ll let it go). The committee considers what’s been said, perhaps they deliberate, and then give feedback, perhaps in the meeting, perhaps in the form of a letter, that highlights areas of support, concerns and suggestions.

Third, there is taking account. The expectation is that the executive member will take on board the feedback they have received and decide to do something differently as a result. This might also be captured in a letter to the committee.

The scrutiny committee may also respond in turn with something of a dialogue then taking place.

So, if you want to ‘demonstrate accountability’, you might, then, tell the story of those interactions. You might mention when executive members have given account, when scrutiny has responded and when this response has been responded to. Perhaps there are also changes that you can point to that demonstrate some impact.

And, of course, if any of the three elements of the accountability relationship are weak or broken then it’s hard to claim that accountability is taking place.

I’ll leave it there. There is more to say about accountability, I think, but I'll reflect on that another time.

​
​

Bovens , M. 2006 . ‘ Analysing and Assessing Public accountability: A Conceptual Model ’ , European Governance Papers (EUROGOV)