Methodology

On every accountability page, the documented record lists only entries tied to a specific, checkable source: a filing or public document, dated correspondence, a recorded vote, an agency record, or a public statement. Each entry shows its source type and reference. If we can't source it, it doesn't go in the record.

Characterization — words like "failed to act" or "ignored the complaint" — is assessment, not record. We put it in a visually distinct, clearly-labeled block, tied to the documented entries it draws on, never blended into the factual timeline. This is the same line the law draws between protected opinion and fair comment on public conduct and an unsupported assertion of fact. We keep it visible so you can tell which is which.

When we contact an office, the outreach and its outcome go in a response log — including an explicit, dated "no response." Silence is recorded as what it is; we don't characterize an absence as a refusal.

Provider-level cases (a scheduling failure, a care-coordination breakdown) appear here as evidence of a specific regulatory or political failure — a rule that wasn't enforced, a bill that died, a complaint that went unanswered. The provider incident is the example; the oversight failure is the point. Provider-specific detail lives on dedicated case sites where one exists.

Uploaded correspondence and filings pass a personal-information review before they are published — names of non-public individuals, medical record numbers, and account numbers are redacted. A document is served on the site only after that review is recorded.

If a documented entry is wrong or a source doesn't support what we said, tell us and we'll correct it and note the correction. Accuracy is the entire value of a site like this. Send a correction →