The Journal has two aims. The first is to identify important
responsibilities in society for which adequate public answering
is missing. The Citizen’s
Guide cites major examples. As the Guide
notes, every responsibility affecting the public in important
ways has attached to it the obligation to answer publicly for
the discharge of the responsibility. We ask readers to identify
and submit important types of responsibilities for which they
see inadequate or no answering, and for those responsibilities
to propose the public answering that they think citizens need
so as to have a "right understanding of matters." We
will try to organize these responsibilities and accountabilities
in a useful way. The map must ultimately be drawn globally.
The second aim is to be a forum for people to exchange ideas
and strategies for holding fairly to account. As Ursula Franklin
said in her Foreword to the Citizen’s
Guide, the first steps in achieving adequate public answering
must be "citizen to citizen." Those who wish to contribute
are encouraged to submit articles to the Journal. These can be
useful ideas about public accountability, strategy proposals for
holding fairly to account, or case studies of people’s work
in trying to hold to account. But the article must deal with the
answering (reporting) obligation, and not be just a writer’s
outrage at something happening. There are many journals and international
newspapers in which people can help each other build awareness
of harm and injustice.
To be printed, readers identifying authorities’ responsibilities
must propose the type of reasonable and specific public answering
for them. Those submitting articles for the Journal are expected
to have read and thought about the basic concepts and standards
for public answering that are proposed in this web site or expanded
on in the Citizen’s
Guide. If, when readers identify inadequate answering
from authorities and the authority wishes to respond in the Journal,
we will print their response unedited. But if we think the response
is "spin," we will say so. We will not print anonymous
articles, but we will carefully examine concerns about public
answering sent in by people who feel they must remain anonymous.
The Journal does not have the role of an ombudsman or an inspector
general -- it is to help citizens with strategy in holding fairly
to account.
Readers are also asked to submit examples they see of good public
answering. The reporting can be given on an authority’s own
initiative, or in response to an invitation or legal requirement
to publicly account. Examples of good answering practice can serve
as models for others’ answering.
We also wish to know and cite any organization’s surveys
done of the adequacy of public answering from different accountable
entities, where the answering is rated against the types of answering
standards in the Guide
or against the surveyor's own criteria.
As to public financial reporting, the Journal is interested in
noteworthy examples of good or inadequate reporting that focus
on stakeholders’ (not just shareholders’) rights to
be adequately informed so as to know better what to decide about
the accountable entity. Canada has had major corporate collapses,
as have other countries. The collapse of the huge American companies
Enron and WorldCom are the most recent major examples, the accountabilities
for which are the subjects of Dr. Ernie Pavlock’s article
in the first issue of this Journal, and CCA's proposal to the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in the March 2003 issue.
The Citizen's Guide went to press before the Enron disgrace
became public.
Also of interest are cases of missing, inadequate or deceptive
reporting that camouflage corporate boards’ intentions and
their reasoning when those intentions significantly affect not
just employees and shareholders but also the public at large.
An example would be the lack of public answering for drug companies’
actions designed to successfully "purchase" favourable
research findings.
Lastly, we encourage readers to submit articles challenging the
concepts, principles or standards proposed by the Circle.
Return to the main Journal page
