The point of transparency, according to the theorists, is two-fold: You’ll be judged for what’s exposed and – only when effective sanctions or accountability mechanisms exist for bad behaviour – you won’t want to continue to act badly. Sounds easy, right?
The problem, in the real world at least, is the definitions in the concept above. Who constitutes the ‘judge’ of what’s exposed? Who decides what sanctions are appropriate? What’s riskier for an actor – attempting to hide behaviour or taking the punishment a ’judge’ hands out?
Looking at some news stories over the last few weeks, the FOI ‘expenses’ fad is more than a fad after all – FOI requests for expenses continue to be made, and in tandem with proactive publication, hundreds of column inches continue to be filled by stories about expenses.
And the reason this is still happening is that it continues to be unclear (and therefore newsworthy) about what any expenses system is ‘supposed’ to look like. The goal posts keep shifting – what was acceptable before the banking (or indeed the MPs’ expenses crises) isn’t necessarily ok now, though of course, it could one day be again. Where the real accountability lies is often not with the headlines in the media, but by the structures already in place in the system. Transparency’s two benefits are by no means a given.
In the context of increasing student fees and a decrease in the teaching budget, the expenses of university vice-chancellors this week, investigated by the Independent on Sunday, makes the perfect story. The expenses “cover worldwide travel and lavish entertaining” according to the paper, while the universities argue that “the expenses were largely run up on official business” and they insisted they had “robust mechanisms to weed out frivolous claims.”
Comments on the expenses by union and student leaders did not call for the resignation of any vice-chancellors. Usman Ali, vice president of the National Union of Students, argued “Universities must listen to students’ unions and make their expenses and pay structures transparent to stop abuses.” But without stronger sanctions, and keeping in mind the theory above, what can listening and more transparency do to actually instigate the kind of behaviour change students and unions want? In reality, the buck stops for many vice chancellors at their respective university councils.
Universities argue their expenses regimes are fit for purpose and by being exposed they are acting responsibly. A Housing Association has taken it upon itself to begin publishing details of their expenses. Being threatened with FOI-inclusion by Minister Grant Shapps, they have embraced the push towards transparency and opened themselves up to the scrutiny of others.
Is that a safe move, PR-wise? Even when efficiencies are made overall, exposure of expenses doesn’t always inspire trust: the total claims made by MPs’ are down by a fifth this year, but that hasn’t stopped the Daily Mail focussing on first class travel. Context is everything: “[MPs’ expenses claims] highlight the extent to which the system cossets MPs from the crippling rises in the cost of living that are squeezing the incomes of ordinary families.” Ouch.
The issue remains a touchstone across the public sector: this week examples come from the police, the British Council, the BBC, former MPs like Tony Blair (and less recently, Thatcher,) and even popping up in the Leveson Inquiry.
The most interesting piece of expenses news this week however, might be a small survey by YouGov, carried out for Concur, a firm which specialises in expenses software. 18 per cent of respondents said they would exaggerate expenses claims if they believed they were otherwise underpaid. Who’s fit to judge now?