| dc.description.abstract | This paper explores the thesis that the policies, procedures and practices which form the basis of interaction between a quasi-independent agency and the executive and bureaucratic arms of government have been established in an ad hoc fashion. These “administrative relationships” are not based on an accurate and complete body of knowledge about agencies; therefore, accountability is not as effective as it could be. Case studies are presented of six agencies – a major revenue-generating corporation, a council established to deliver a grants program, a licensing body, a quasi-judicial board, an organization designed to hear appeals and a group with an advisory role. Interviews were conducted with the purpose of collecting enough data about how agencies operate, and the environment within which they function, so as to form general recommendations which could reasonably apply to other agencies. Eight recommendations have been developed, covering areas such as: annual reports, evaluation, accountability, administrative policies, legislative drafting, disestablishing agencies, orientation of appointees and on-going research activities. Finally, the paper provides an acknowledgement that it is individuals – politicians, bureaucrats, appointed members and members of the public – who really shape agencies. It is to these people whom we must look for an appropriate “set of relationships” rather than to exaggerate the attempt to find administrative relationships which cohere to all agencies. | en_US |
