Just a comment on the accountability paper.
Does it do enough to say what accounatbility actually is and why some people struggle with it particularly in terms of scrutiny and also partnership working.
Our community strategy tries to address both issue and includes the following (widely used I think) definition:
5.9 Generally accountability can be defined in three ways :
- Taking into Account - Drawing on all the information needed including listening and responding to all the right people and relevant sources
- Giving Account - Informing and explaining why something needs to be done, how it will be done and what happened. This may also mean being clear about what has been 'discounted' - in other words explaining decisions about what is not going to be done or what is not going to be considered.
- Holding to Account - A formal requirement to explain performance to someone who can ultimately put sanctions in place or demand changes
Apologies if I have missed this / misread.