see also:

the Frankfurt notes on accountability and legitimacy and
the starter list of accountability standards

We are considering using the INGO ACcountability Charter as a model for our movement to follow. We are also pursuing standards for specific parts of our movement (foundation, committees, chapters, other groups) that are more specific than the Charter overview.

Questions

based on input from Bishakha

1) Do or should the same standards apply to all entities in the movement, regardless of formal or informal status? Or should there be one set of standards for formal entities, some of which may not apply to informal (most will be common, but audited statements may not apply to informal)?

2) Since transparency cuts across four standards (and could be added to the fifth, which I have just done), maybe this is a core principle? And something that could be further specified as to what it translates into for each category? e.g., "We are committed to openness, transparency and honesty about our structures, mission, policies, activities, funding and finances."

Specific standards and principles

Participation

Participatory standards: transparency and reporting, openness, membership, activity

Communication: We will communicate actively and regularly with all stakeholders, making information available in an accessible and useful way.

Openness: How to define - openness in communication, information, participation, feedback? Active solicitation of and invitation to participate? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness

Is this a standard or a principle?

Membership: Don't know how to word it, but there should be members of an entity, or defined membership for it not to qualify as defunct, for it to be considered active or functioning. (how does this work for the WMF?) All eligible members (according to the formation rules of an entity will be accepted). No arbitrary selection of members. If membership is denied someone, reason to be given. Info flow, regular communication with, involvement of, and transparency to members. Mechanism for members to actively participate and be informed (eg list, wiki, website).

Non-discrimination: on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender?

Activity: There must be a minimum amount of activity (don't know how to define) for an entity to be considered functional, active, or non-defunct.

What happens if participation standards are not met?

Governance

Legitimacy standards: representation, transparency, community support, donor accountability? governance? (Call this legitimacy or accountability? What is the difference?)

Representation: Who does the entity represent? Members?

Community support: Entity is created/based on the implicit assumption that it represents the community, so the community is its constituency (in a broader sense). Nurturing volunteer spirit is key. How can this be gauged? What happens if an entity loses the support of the community? How will this be known? What will be done? What steps does the entity take to ensure it has the support of the community?

Donor accountability: Regular reports to donors as agreed, ensuring funding used for purposes for which it is given, maintaining donor privacy

Other accountability: Who else is the entity accountable to? How is this enshrined? Maybe through participation standards.

Governance conduct: Having clear governance structures including governing body, code of conduct including definition of conflict of interest. Also see the Good Governance section in [1]

What happens if legitimacy standards are not met?

Financials

Financial and auditing standards: transparency, reporting

Transparency: Putting up annual financial reports on the wiki or website? Making annual financial reports public?

Reporting: The annual financial report will conform to relevant laws and practices and be audited by a qualified independent public accountant whose statement will accompany the report.

What happens if financial standards are not met?

Review

Review standards: self review process, peer review process, support models, transparency

Self-review process: A simple annual self-review process in place, where an entity assesses itself against its own objectives, and makes recommendations to itself

Peer review process: Similar to above, but would an entity select its peers for review? Who would decide who are the peer reviewers?

Support models: ? ? ? (A support group is needed)

Transparency: Making a version of all reviews public (eg on website, wiki)

What happens if review standards are not met?

Transparency

Reporting: Overall compliance with relevant governance, financial accounting and reporting requirements in the countries where entity is based and operates. Report at least once a quarter (?) on activities and achievements. Quarterly reports to inform on a sub-set of the annual report.

Some updates each year on each organisation’s:

Mission and values;

Objectives, activities and outcomes achieved in programme and advocacy;

Governance structure and processes, and main office bearers;

Main sources of funding from corporations, foundations, governments, and individuals;

Financial performance;

Compliance with this Charter;

Contact details;

Public reviews; [there are normally also private reviews that are not published]

Layers of practical concerns

Accountable to whom?

To whom are entities accountable to, when developing projects?

Yourself [doing a good job, realizing your goals] (evaluation, future plans)
The Foundation [your work impacts the brand] (social pressure, trademark use)
Members [for membership orgs] (elections, referendums)
Peers [your work impacts them] (peer pressure)
The public [general interest] (through the media)

Have each group make a list of the groups they think they are acc. to

Contributing community [which one?]

Donors [which?]

To whom do they report?

Self, members, public: Have each group make a list of the groups they think they report to

How does accountability make itself felt?

Polite censure & peer pressure
Public censure & press pressure
Withholding resources
Change in status / assumed responsibility [expiry or active revokation]
Revoking or transferring exclusivity

Criminal action

Embezzlement of funds
Misuse of private data

Corruption

Nepotism
Self-dealing
Falsified reports

Waste of resources

Investment in non-mission work
Repeatedly poor choice of work
Duplication of effort and overhead
Not taking advantage of efficient alternatives

Lack of standards or good practice

Getting in someone else's way, causing friction
Not fulfulling reporting, transparency, legal requirements
Not engaging in auditing as appropriate
Ignoring the details of contracts

Movement roles project/Accountability

Contents