Summary of Analysis

Bovens’ framework is used to evaluate the effectiveness of three key accountability arrangements that are present in Auckland’s governance structure.  Two of these arrangements – statement of intent, and six-monthly and annual reporting – are required under existing local government legislation. The third arrangement – public meetings – has been introduced through the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2010.  

Summary of Analysis[1]

 

Criteria[2]	Accountability Arrangements
	Statement of Intent	Reporting	Public Meetings
Democratic Control	Strong Adequate forums Adequate information Sanctions not applicable Open discussion of draft provides for early adjustment of behaviour Communication of council priorities provides no room for mis-understanding of agenda	Strong Adequate forums Adequate information Inadequate sanctions Interim reporting provides opportunity to adjust behaviour Scrutiny through public meeting  will encourage commitment to agenda	Strong Adequate forums Adequate information Sanctions through public’s ability to speak Scrutiny through public meetings will result in adjustments to the CCO’s behaviour and a commitment to the council’s agenda
Checks and Balances	Medium Public debate on expectations reduces risk of mis-management Iterative development process demonstrates proactive account holding Sanctions not applicable Public target setting may result in lowering of the bar which could be construed as improper governance	Strong Adequate account holding Adequate account giving Inadequate sanctions Adequate protection from improper governance	Medium Potential to prevent abuse of powers Limited influence on account holding Strong incentive for CCO to engage in proactive account giving Public target setting may result in lowering of the bar which could be construed as improper governance
Improvement and Learning	Weak Public debate of draft will stimulate internal reflection Limited influence on institutional change	Weak Public debate of draft will stimulate internal reflection Limited influence on institutional change	Strong High level of internal reflection will result Strong catalyst for institutional change

 

---

[1] Tabled adapted from Mintrom, pp. 135.

[2] Bovens, pp. 28.