Our Governance & Transparency

Common Ground exists to hold government accountable to the public will. That requires us to hold ourselves to the same standard.

The entire premise of this initiative is that citizens deserve straight, unbiased information about what they agree on — and a credible way to measure whether their representatives are delivering it. That credibility has to be earned structurally, not just asserted.

Here's how we're built.

Five principles

Unbiased. The Platform reveals what Americans actually want, documented by rigorous research. No political faction, funder, or individual shapes which policies qualify or how officials are scored. We reveal common ground; we do not create it.

Transparent.Every decision — what qualifies, what's selected, how officials are evaluated — is documented and published. The reasoning is available, not just the conclusion.

Independent.Common Ground's work cannot be purchased. The initiative is currently self-funded by its founder, and accepts no donations during the launch period. Our charter establishes funding independence from political parties, ideological organizations, and concentrated sources of money.

Accountable.We report publicly on our methodology and results on a defined cycle. Citizens can evaluate whether we're doing what we say we are.

Durable. We are built to outlast any founder or individual, with succession structures, term limits for Advisory Panel members, and conflict-of-interest policies in place.

How we're structured

The following describes Common Ground's intended governance structure. The Board and Advisory Panel are still being formed; see Where we are below for the current state.

The Board of Directors holds ultimate accountability — naming the executive team, approving the Advisory Panel, and ensuring the organization operates in accordance with its charter.

The Executive Team makes final decisions on the Platform and manages the Scorecard process. When executive decisions diverge from Advisory Panel recommendations, the rationale is documented and published.

The Advisory Panel is the research integrity layer — advising on which policies qualify, which belong in the Core Platform, and what criteria should govern Scorecard evaluation. Panel members are selected for methodological expertise and ideological breadth. Their role is analytical and editorial, not ideological.

How the Platform is built

The Common Ground Platform selects policies that meet three criteria:

Supermajority public support — a clear majority of Americans, well beyond a slim plurality, support the policy.
Cross-partisan agreement — that support holds across party lines, not just within one party.
Respect for individual constitutional rights — the policy operates within the limits the Bill of Rights places on government action.

The third criterion is not a caveat. It is a constitutional constraint. A policy with overwhelming public support that would abridge a right protected by the Bill of Rights has no place on the Platform — however large the majority. American democracy was built on two foundational commitments: democratic accountability and individual liberty. The Platform honors both.

What we publish

We document and publish:

The methodology used to qualify policies for the Platform
The source list and rationale for inclusion of each data source
Rationale for each plank's inclusion or exclusion from the Core Platform
Scoring methodology and the reasoning behind every Scorecard evaluation (once the Scorecard launches)
Funding sources, in accordance with applicable nonprofit reporting requirements
Significant governance decisions and the reasoning behind them

Where we have not yet built the mechanism for a given commitment, we name that openly. Where we have, we point to the documentation directly.

Where we are

Common Ground is in its founding stage. The Board is being established. The Advisory Panel is being recruited. We're describing the destination honestly — not claiming to have arrived.

A note on the inaugural Platform. The Common Ground Platform publishing August 1, 2026 is selected by the founder, working with informal advisors rather than a formal Advisory Panel. The Executive Team — currently the founder — holds final decision-making authority on Platform selection for both the inaugural Platform and every future iteration. The structural difference for the inaugural is twofold: the formal Advisory Panel is not yet constituted, and there are no Panel recommendations to publish. From the first revision cycle forward, a named Advisory Panel will advise on selection, and the Panel's recommendations will be published in full — including in cases where the Executive Team's final selection differs. The inaugural exception is named here, deliberately, because hiding it would itself be a transparency failure.

→ Full Governance Principles — Complete documentation of our structure, criteria, methodology, and commitments.