Adaptation and Accountabilityadmin / January 21, 2019
Measures taken to facilitate the accountability process in the Kerara local government
Accountability can be described as a state of responsibility. In this state, members are required to take responsibility of their actions and inactions by giving appropriate explanation. All public officers serving in pubic institutions must exercise accountability by accepting to take responsibility.
They have to account for their actions and inactions while discharging their duties. The only way to ensure accountability in local government is to set up mechanisms that will hold all local government actors accountable for their actions. Accountability ensures good governance (Levy, 2008).
To enhance accountability, the local government of Kerara has enforced and strengthened all its laws and regulations that relate to the governance of the local authorities. The laws require all public officials in the local government to account for their actions and inactions after a specified period of time.
With enhancement of these rules and regulations, all the local government agencies and other actors in the local government are expected to give an account of how they discharge their duties. This helps to avoid misappropriation of resources and holds all local government officials accountable for their actions. The laws also create an environment that renders all the law breakers on notice. This might lead to their dismissal or arraignment in court for failure to account for their actions (Levy, 2008).
The local government has also intensified its inspection, evaluation and monitoring of all local government work assigned to various departments and officials. Strengthening and intensifying the inspection, monitoring and evaluation structures enhances accountability by making sure that all public officials in the local government are inspected, monitored and evaluated. Any faults that are realized in the process of monitoring, inspection and evaluation must be accounted for by the actors in charge (Levy, 2008).
The local government has put measures in place that facilitate and encourage wider information dissemination. Any information regarding the operation and services rendered by the local government has been widely disseminated to the public. Wider dissemination of information to the public facilitates the feedback process and promotes traceability (follow up).
This mechanism holds the local government officials accountable to the public for their actions. Various suggestion boxes have been opened in various local government offices to be able to access grievances from the citizens and ensure that the grievances are appropriately addressed (Levy, 2008).
The local government has enhanced its auditing processes and periods. Auditing is now done on time by more that one auditing firm to enhance comparison of the outcomes and implementation of the best outcomes. A follow up structure has also been put in place to ensure that the recommendations are implemented for accountability facilitation (Levy, 2008).
Motivation has also been used by the local government to enhance accountability. The local government has set minimum accountability standards that have to be met by all public officials. Those who consistently meet the standards are rewarded to keep them motivated. However, those who fail to comply with the rules are subjected to various penalties. This helps to keep the actors on track towards enhancement of accountability (Levy, 2008).
The local government also trains its officials (especially the new officials) on their duties and responsibilities. The training enhances service delivery and accountability of the actors while delivering the services. The actors are trained on how to account for their actions in local governance.
Among the areas trained are public accountability and transparency measures. Civic education for citizens has also put them in a position where they can demand for local government actors to account for their actions (Levy, 2008).
Lastly, the local government has enhanced communication channels that allow free interaction between the public and the local government officials as a means to easily exercise accountability. The proper communication channels have ensured that all officers engaging in corruption or any form of office abuse are held accountable (Levy, 2008).
Levy, H. (2008). How the state of Kerara ensured accountability in local governance. Accountability Review journal, 6 (2), 46-59.