INTRODUCTION

The term "governance" means different things to different people. Among the many definitions of "governance" that exist, the one that appears the most appropriate from ACAG's viewpoint is "the manner in which power is exercised in the management of the State's affairs". Accountability is a concept in ethics and governance with several meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as responsibility, answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in the public sector, non profit and private (corporate) worlds. Government accountability defines as the duty of public officials to report their actions to the citizens and the rights of the citizens to take action against those officials, whose conduct the citizens consider unsatisfactory. This concept accountability represents the responsibility to comply, for instance required by laws, systems and regulations. It is also to ensure good and proper public financial management. Accountability carries the means by which public agencies and their workers answer to the citizens directly and indirectly for the use of their powers, authority and resources. Accountability should reflect the efficient and effective use of public resources. There are some objectives to achieve accountability in the public sector that are create an effective control to ensure management of public moneys is in accordance with applicable laws and regulation, set up an effective system for public officials to execute the responsibilities entrusted to them and utilize public moneys in accordance with authorized purposes and relevant activities are carried out in an orderly and efficient manner without any wastage. Basically, accountability can be divided into three types that are financial accountability, programme accountability and management accountability.

DESCRIBE

WITH

EXAMPLES

AT

LEAST

TEN

INDICATORS

OF

EFFECTIVE

ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC SECTOR. Clarify of roles and responsibilities. The roles and responsibilities of the parties in the accountability relationship should be well understood and agreed upon. Such an understanding provides the context within which both parties will respond and perform. Without this understanding and the required clarification, the basic underpinnings of an effective relationship would be absent. There is a need for a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities, the duties, obligations, and related authorities of parties in an accountability relationship. Responsibility can be delegated from superior to subordinate or, in a partnering relationship, delegated to a partner or assumed by the partner by mutual agreement. Arriving at this understanding includes setting out clearly what specific activities and tasks are expected of each party and how the relationship is to be managed. Some collaborative arrangements are managed and even delivered jointly by the partners. In those cases, the clarification of roles and responsibilities could focus on how the arrangement will be managed rather than what role each partner will play. Without a clear understanding, the basic underpinnings of an effective relationship are absent. This risks confusion when the arrangement is implemented and, if things go wrong, makes it more difficult to find out why. All managers and employees are trained and understand how policy instruments shape their respective duties and the operations of the entire department. The requirements set out in mandatory policy instruments are used in defining the responsibilities of deputy heads, managers and functional specialists, as deemed appropriate. In assigning responsibilities, deputy heads should strive to delegate decision-making authority to the most appropriate level to achieve results. In the theoretical Westminster model of government, for example, public sector accountability can be thought of as a linked chain of participants each with unique accountability functions. Under the "chain of accountability" structure, the principal is the community and it is represented by members elected to the Parliament. Thus the Parliament, not executive government and its Ministers, becomes the constitutional surrogate of the community as the principal. Responsibility is then assigned to the executive government as a trustee. Executive government, within the discretion allowed by the legislature, further assigns discretionary power and responsibility through regulation, policy and administrative arrangements to the managers of public sector agencies.

Clarify of Performance Expectation. Objectives and expected results set out in mandatory policy instruments are used to establish reasonable performance expectations for individuals and organizational units. Clear performance expectations the objectives being pursued, the accomplishments expected, this is, what each party is expected to contribute to the result, including the inputs and outputs to achieve the desired outcomes and the constraints to be expected should be explicit, understood and agreed upon. Without a clearly spelt out expected outcomes, it would be impossible to determine whether these outcomes have been realized. If expectations are unclear, accountability for performance is difficult to attain. Mutually understood and accepted expectations including what each party is expected to contribute to the end result and what means are appropriate to use will strengthen the accountability relationship. The operating constraints on the parties also need to be set out. Partners in the federal government have administrative rules and procedures to follow; if they have outside organizations as partners, the accountability framework needs to set out the basic operating principles and rules that are to be followed, including public sector values and ethics. An accountability relationship that is effective has expectations that are realistic. The absence of a reasonable balance between what is expected and what authorities and resources are available to apply will tend to undermine the effectiveness of the relationship. Expectations that are seen as unreasonable or unachievable with available resources and capacity will not be taken seriously. At the same time, meeting expectations with resources that are more than adequate would not garner much credit; meeting expectations should require some stretching. Accordingly, accountability is enhanced by a balance among resources, authorities, and expected results. Objectives are the basis for what has to be done. They determine the key activities which must be undertaken, how that should be organised and the allocation of resources to tasks. Objectives are a statement of expectation as to what should be achieved. Such a statement would exist for each level in the chain of accountability and is necessary in order to fully answer the question "Accountable for what?".Ideally the objectives would be both qualitative and quantitative and specified in a time frame. The specificity of the objectives would vary according to the level for which they are formulated, the general order being that at the highest level in the chain of accountability the objectives would tend to be broad and at the lowest level in the chain they would be quite specific.

Balanced expectations and capacities The performance expectations need to be clearly linked to and in balance with the capacity, that is, authorities, skills and resources of each party to deliver. The absence of a plausible link between what is expected and the authorities and resources supplied will tend to undermine the effectiveness of accountability. Consequently, expectations that are well beyond what is reasonable for the resources provided will not be believed. Accordingly effective accountability is enhanced by clarity of the links and balance, between resources and expected results. In addition to the requirement to train employees, general requirements help establish departmental capacity to deliver are sufficient resources are allocated and used efficiently to apply Treasury Board policy instruments, appropriate processes and systems are in place to organize and control activities and quality information on policy-related activities is collected and used to make decisions, monitor compliance with policy instrument requirements, evaluate results, continuously improve management practices, and provide a fair and reliable account through reports. Credibility of Reporting Reporting is one of the principle means through which departments fulfil their commitment to the public service value of transparency. Through reporting, a department's management successes and failures are opened to the scrutiny of Treasury Board, Parliament and the public. Reporting is also the means through which departments demonstrate compliance with policy and statute, allowing for appropriate monitoring and oversight. Although policy reporting requirements and mechanisms may vary from policy to policy, it is essential that the principles of effective accountability set out in this Framework are upheld. Policy reporting is developed in consultation with departments with a view of ensuring that it efficiently meets the needs of decision-makers and supports accountable government. To this end, policy centres will adhere to the following principles when designing reporting requirements:

Reporting requirements should respect the oversight responsibilities and accountabilities of deputy heads;

Reporting requirements should have a clear purpose; Reporting requirements should seek timely and meaningful information to meet the purpose; Reporting requirements should be efficient - the cost to create and submit information should be minimal; and

Reporting requirements should leverage existing data sources and should not duplicate other requirements.

Effective accountability requires reporting what has been accomplished to bodies to whom the parties are responsible (such as parliament) and to the other parties in the accountability relationship. For the report to be useful, it must be seen as credible and must be timely. It must describe results accomplished, resources and actions taken in light of the agreed expectations. The report must also attribute responsibility in some manner for shortcomings. Depending on the circumstances, reporting can be ongoing, periodic or both. In some situations, external audit can be used to enhance the credibility of performance information. The parties in an accountability relationship need to be clear about what information is to be reported by whom, to whom, and when. Being clear includes identifying the measurement strategy to be used, that is, how the required information is to be defined, collected, verified, and analyzed; by whom; and when. Information is central to effective accountability. The delegation of power and autonomy should be matched by an appropriate requirement to report and account for its use. Actual performance would be judged against the objectives which were set at the policy-formulation, interpretation and execution levels. The reporting requirements would cover such things as type of report, format, content and reporting timetable. Without the right to verify the information there can be no certainty as to the reliability or credibility of the information. Under the Westminster model of government there is usually an Auditor-General or equivalent that is responsible to Parliament for verifying the financial and related information which is presented to Parliament as part of the public sector reporting requirements. Those levels below Parliament in the accountability chain may choose to establish alternative verification arrangements, although in many instances they may choose to use the Auditor-General for that purpose so long as that does not conflict with the Auditor-General's independence and responsibility to Parliament.

Reasonableness of Review and Adjustment. A credible review and feedback on the performance achieved should be carried out by the accountable parties. Where achievements are below agreed levels, the causes of the underperformance are recognized and necessary corrective actions are taken and possible adjustments to the accountability arrangement made and lessons-learned noted. An accountability relationship without follow-ups is clearly incomplete and unlikely to be effective. Clarity is needed on just how and by whom performance will be reviewed and adjustments made how improvements will be made to performance and to the arrangement. The framework should lay out how the accountability process is to be completed. Accountability cannot be said to exist in situations where judgement and sanction do not operate. The need for sanction arises because it is in the general interest that useful actions be encouraged and their opposite discouraged. Application of sanction to acts of authority forms part of the conditions essential for accountability. At the highest level, the community exercises its judgement of Parliamentary representatives at the periodic elections. At the Parliamentary level there are a variety of ways in which the actions of Ministers, officials and public bodies can be scrutinised. These include the Parliamentary Question Time, the committee stage in debate on bills and the committee system itself. The latter would include public accounts and expenditure review committees.

Propose standards to enhance transparency of government financial statements The International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSAB) of the IFAC is working to ensure that governments are accountable for their budgets. For this reason, it has issued an exposure draft(ED) dealing with the reporting of budget and actual financial statements. The exposure draft, ED 27, presentation of budget information in financial statements, applies to entities that are required to make publicly available the approved budgets for which they are held accountable. It proposes the disclosure of the original and final approved budgets and actual financial information on a comparable basis to the budget.

Reporting against those budgets will enhance the transparency of general purpose of financial statements and is an important element in the discharge of accountability of public sector entities. Transparency, as used in the humanities and in a social context more generally, implies openness, communication, and accountability. It is a metaphorical extension of the meaning a "transparent" object is one that can be seen through. Transparent procedures include open meetings, financial disclosure statements, freedom of information legislation, budgetary review, audits and others. Leaders of accountancy bodies call for strengthening governmental accountability International profession must take a strong role in advocating that governments should follow standards in line with those to which they expect companies in the private sector to adhere and, in particular, to promote the use of IFACs International Public Sector Accountant Standards as a means to strengthen governmental financial accountability. Good communication Communication is important to ensure the effectiveness of accountability. If a client hasnt confirmed with their accountant that they are producing the iXBRL file for submission to HMRC, they may think that the accountant is going to produce the file for them. To avoid any confusion or a lastminute crisis, it is crucial that accountants contact their clients about the changes, telling them how they will be affected, as well as deciding who will be responsible for tagging the data. Miscommunication has direct correlation to morale, retention, and results. Accountability work package

It means that the development of guidance and good practices in accountability for stakeholders such as multilateral and nongovernmental aid organizations, governments, and private sector auditors. The working groups objective is to promote increased and improved accountability practices with the support of international standard-setting or coordinating bodies. To that end, the working group has developed the Integrated Financial Accountability Framework (IFAF), a model for a financial accountability information system. The theory underlying IFAF is that accountability will automatically increase if all the donors and the implementing organizations (which actually provide the aid to people in need) use its standard template to report their contributions, and activities in a summarized and transparent manner.

Furthermore, use of the template will diminish administrative burdens. Humanitarian aid operations typically involve different levels of actors, whereby intermediary bodies receive funds from donors and their own sources and can either implement operations themselves or work through other implementing agencies. At each level, financial and operational information needs to be provided to ensure transparency. The working group envisions that all major donors will report their contributions by recipients (which are the intermediaries or the implementing agencies) will report the corresponding amounts as their revenues. On the expenditure side, the implementing bodies will report on their expenditures publicly by activity. These reports would be verified only once and certified accordingly, following the single audit principle.

Accountability for results Traditionally, public managers were supposed to account for the expenditure against the approved budgets, explaining reasons for over-or-under-spending. However, there is now a greater emphasis on the achievement of results with the resources consumed. The results can be in terms of outputs produced as well as outcomes achieved. The outputs are usually means of achieving the outcomes, the latter being the effect of the public program on the society. It is relatively easy to measure outputs. However, outcomes are more complex and difficult to measure since they may involve several actors, making it difficult to delineate the contribution of each one of them. The accountability of the public managers for achieving outcomes should be to the extent they had control over the resources and could influence the outcome. One of the implications of accountability for results is that overload of rules and regulations should be reduced, providing greater flexibility to managers for achieving the results rather than adhering to the letter of the rules. It suggests that a robust accountability mechanism would not recommend a strait-jacket of controls. It would, rather, recommend a management culture that focuses more on achievement of results than literal adherence to rules. Accountability for results presumes that there would be a system of performance indicators to show whether the results have been achieved or not. This in turn requires a system of monitoring, performance information gathering throughout the year and evaluation of the performance. It is to be noted that the evaluation of programs for results is distinct from personal accountability of senior managers.

The senior managers are accountable for the manner in which they implemented the programs and discharged their responsibilities. They are responsible for implementing internal controls. However, it does not mean they are personally responsible for results. If, for example, it can be shown that there was no negligence on the part of the senior managers in implementing a program, yet there are shortfalls or damages beyond their control, they would not be held personally responsible for these losses. Accountability for financial considerations in decision-making Public managers make decisions for conducting the official business. A significant number of these decisions involve expenditure of financial resources in the form of procurement of goods and services. An essential aspect of accountability is that the public managers routinely take decisions with due regard for probity, prudence, and value for money. It means there should be a conscious analysis of economy and efficiency aspects of a proposal before a decision is taken. They should manage the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenditures to optimize cash flows and minimize capital costs. The public managers should issue timely, accurate and consistent financial reports. They should maintain all records in manner that an audit trail exists. Accountability for management of financial resources The usual process for allocation of public resources is through approved budgets by legislative bodies. The public managers get authority to spend these resources on specified programs. However, the nature of public business requires that the senior managers delegate some authority to spend these resources to lower echelons. Effective accountability requires that the limits of delegation of authority are defined clearly; communicated in writing to all levels; and exercised within the overall framework of internal controls. Delegation of authority does not absolve the delegating officers from their responsibility for proper spending of these resources. Besides, the public managers remain accountable for keeping an accurate record of all transactions, with proper audit trails. They should make all record available for periodic audit or evaluation. The public managers should be answerable for audit observations and implementing audit recommendations. Accountability for financial resources also requires that the public employees remain personally responsible for any loss to the public exchequer due to their gross negligence or by wilful violation of rules and regulations.

Readily available information and advice on financial management The managers handling public resources have to keep in view financial rules and regulation relating to collection of revenues and expenditure from the public exchequer. Over a period of time, the plethora of laws, rules and regulations and procedures grows. It becomes difficult for anyone to master all this information for use without reference to the applicable texts. Mistakes can be made in all honesty and sincerity. It is therefore, extremely important all laws, regulations, rules and procedures are made available to public managers in a readily useable format. They should get proper training and awareness courses for refreshing their memories about the applicable rules. There should also be a sort of help-desk facility in the ministry of finance or its equivalent body for public managers, to which they can look for clarifying their doubts and seeking guidance on newly emerging situations. In the absence of such an arrangement even honest and hard working public managers may be caught unaware in the rigmarole of rules and regulations. An integrated internal control framework to be in place The traditional concept of an internal control system revolved around a mechanism for following policies, rules, regulations and procedures, recording of transactions on a timely basis and in a reliable manner and safeguarding of assets. However, during the last decade the concept of internal control has undergone a significant change. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of Treadway Commission in USA issued a report on integrated concept of internal control in 1992. The concept has stood the test of time and has been widely accepted. The salient feature of the concept is that internal control system consists of five elements: tone at the top; risk assessment; control activities; information and

communication and monitoring. An integrated set of these elements generates a robust system of internal control. An effective framework of accountability would require that the integrated control system as defined by COSO is in place. It implies that managers at all levels should be aware of their financial management responsibilities, should have necessary training and resources to discharge those responsibilities.

10

Lead by the legislature Accountability is not a welcome idea with most of the people who have to render the account. It has a built-in disincentive. Public managers are apprehensive of criticism, blame taking or punishment that may ensue as a result of the account that they render. On one side they have the temptation of painting a rosier picture than what it is in reality, they have an outright aversion to avoid reporting until it has a payback to them in some sense. For making accountability work, the legislature should take the lead and make accountability a requirement for all levels of public management. Additional advantages to this approach are that the law would define the limits of accountability, would be more enduring than the departmental rules and would treat everyone at the same footing. Needless to say that merely passing an accountability law would not introduce a robust framework of accountability. It would only be a starting point. The accountability law has to be backed-up by appropriate structures for planning, monitoring, performance measurement mechanics, incentives for reporting, training of staff and enhancing legislative oversight on the entire mechanism.

Oversight by ministry of finance

In most of the countries, ministries of finance and economic affairs are responsible for overall public financial management. They issue guidelines for budget submissions, budget reappropriations, use of delegated authorities, preparation and reconciliation of receipts and payments accounts and internal controls for obtaining value for money. The ministry of finance, then, has an oversight function to ensure that the public managers complied with its guidelines and followed the rules and regulations. It can institute ad hoc inquiries about any matter relating to financial management to satisfy itself about compliance with its policies and guidelines. The ministry of finance can prescribe reports to be submitted to it by all departments and agencies relating to financial management. Besides, it can make an assessment of the internal controls in line ministries and departments. That is in line with the generally accepted concept that the executive government has the primary responsibility for proper public financial management.

11

Performance reports by ministries and departments

Public entities are engaged in utilizing public funds for delivering various goods and services. Simple financial statements do disclose the financial values. The public is interested in knowing the quality of the goods and services provided and the process through which they were provided. That is, they would like to know that they have received value for money and the public managers have adhered to the rules, especially ethical rules, in delivering those goods and services.

Although, public performance reporting seems to be a straight forward concept on the face of it, yet it has dimensions of subjectivity that blur accountability until the mechanism for performance reporting is robust. For example, the person reporting may use value-laden subjective opinions to cast his or her performance in a brighter shade than it actually is. Similarly, the person assessing performance may use a subjective yardstick to measure performance or the criteria being used may have become outdated with the passage of time or change of circumstances. There could be what has been aptly called preparer capture phenomenon that refers to the way the preparers of information chose to report the information. They may overwhelm the reader with too much of information, or use such jargons as are not easily intelligible or present information that cannot be compared over periods of time.

There is a growing body of literature on public performance reporting. Some of the generally accepted principles of public performance reporting are as follows. The performance report should Give a context to the whole program, explaining the environment in which the program was instituted and how the program was organized and implemented. Provide information on the mandate, objectives, targets, achievements and the working environment. While doing so, the report should focus on indicators of achievement described in the budget documents. Relate results achieved to the level of risks accepted. Put into perspective the strategy adopted by the organization due to its existing capacity considerations. Explain the factors other than the capacity considerations that are critical for its success such as social, economic, ethical, cultural, educational or ethnic. Explain the financial aspects and integrate them with the results achieved. Enlist the challenges that lay ahead and how the program would be implemented to meet those challenges.

12

Give the departments own assessment about the success and sustainability of the program in the light of post-project environment. Give additional assurance about the reliability of the data by explaining how the data were collected and compiled.

Internal audit

Internal audit is yet another institution for enforcing accountability. Internal auditors have the opportunity of reviewing the operations of the organization in depth. They are capable of pointing out shortfalls in performance as compared to the departmental approved plans and suggest improvements. Besides, they can pin-point any red flags indicating possibilities of corruption and fraud. All this is possible if the internal audit has a properly structured mandate, ensuring independence from those who are being audited, provision of human and financial resources and support for implementation of its recommendations. Ideally, internal audit sections in ministries and departments should be manned by an independent Chief Internal Auditor for the respective government. The rights and duties of the Chief Internal Auditors should be protected either by a law or by an administrative order issued by the head of the government with proper security of tenure and reporting independence. As a minimum, the internal audit staff should report to the head of each organization.

Government audit by Supreme Audit Institution

Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) play an important role in enforcing accountability. Traditionally, they were required to audit the financial statements of the government in light of approved legislated authority and applicable rules and regulations. However, recently, the scope of work of the SAIs has increased to include value for money audits in the broader framework of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. With increasing emphasis on value for money audits or performance audits, the role of SAIs in enforcing accountability has increased significantly. However, lot much depends upon the law and its implementation under which a SAI acts. Most of the countries in the world have some form of SAI. Some SAIs are completely independent of the executive governments.

13

In other countries, the independence of the SAI is partial or at least ambiguous. For effective enforcement of accountability, the SAI and its head should be completely independent of the executive branch of the government. Ideally, the SAI should be able to get its budget approved by a Committee of the legislature, hire staff for its work, and define its own scope and methods of work and report on results of audit and on its own performance to the legislature. As a minimum, the ministry of finance should not have the authority to decline funding requests from the SAI. Only legislature should have such an authority. Besides, the service conditions of the head of the SAI should provide him immunity from removal from his post except through a due judicial procedure.

Making audit reports accessible to public

One of the mechanisms for enhancing accountability of the public managers is to make the audit reports accessible to public. It would create added awareness both among the public managers as well public auditors to act in responsible manner. The traditional concept of treating the audit reports as official (or secret) documents should give way to a more open and transparent method of reporting. Already, a number of SAIs provides copies of their audit reports on their websites for free download.

CONCLUSION
14

Accountability is an important factor in sustainability. Accountability presents the delegation of responsibility and authority. Accountability is recognizes as a need of law, recorded in both the Federal and State Constitution. Public sector organizations need to improve the level of accountability because of increasing demand of the services provided by the public sector. Accountability reflects close correlation between goals and services rendered to the public. Framework of accountability indicates that Malaysian government continues to maintain effective and proper systems. The rational for holding public

managers accountable lies in the very nature of their relationship with the public resources. Public would like to know how did they discharge their responsibility with regard to this trust. The degree of trust varies with the level of the position.

15