Full Governance Principles

The entire premise of Common Ground is that citizens are not getting straight information about what they agree on, or what their representatives are actually doing about it. Asking people to trust us requires that we earn it — structurally, not just rhetorically.

This document describes how Common Ground is governed: who makes decisions, on what basis, with what constraints, and how the process is made visible to the public.

Why governance is central to the mission

Common Ground's credibility depends on one thing above all others: that no one can reasonably argue the Platform or the Scorecard was shaped by ideology, partisan interest, or the preferences of funders. The governance structure is not bureaucratic scaffolding. It is mission-critical infrastructure.

Five principles guide our governance design.

Unbiased. The Platform reveals what Americans actually want, documented by rigorous research — not what any political faction, funder, or founder wants them to want. Mechanisms are in place to ensure this, not just to assert it.

Transparent. Every consequential decision — which policies qualify, which are selected, how officials are scored — is documented and published. The reasoning is available, not just the conclusion.

Independent.Common Ground's work cannot be purchased. We maintain funding independence from political parties, ideologically aligned organizations, and concentrated sources of money. This is a charter commitment, not a preference.

Accountable. We report publicly on our methodology, our decisions, and our results on a defined cycle. Citizens should be able to evaluate whether we are doing what we say we are.

Durable.Common Ground is built to outlast any founder or individual. Governance structures include succession protocols, term limits for Advisory Panel members, and conflict-of-interest policies. The organization's integrity should not depend on any one person's.

Governing structure

Common Ground operates under a three-tier governance structure.

The Board of Directors holds ultimate accountability. The Board names the executive team, approves the composition of the Advisory Panel, and ensures the organization operates in accordance with its charter. The Board's independence from day-to-day operations is a core design principle. As Common Ground grows, the Board will evolve to provide full structural separation from executive functions.

The Executive Teamholds final decision-making authority over the Common Ground Platform and manages the Scorecard process. The Executive Team sets and publishes the eligibility and selection criteria the Advisory Panel applies, incorporates the Panel's recommendations, and is responsible for all public-facing communications about methodology. When Executive Team decisions diverge from Advisory Panel recommendations, the rationale is documented and published.

The Advisory Panelis the research integrity layer. The Panel advises on which policies meet the eligibility criteria, which merit inclusion in the Core Platform, and what scoring criteria should govern the Scorecard. The Panel's role is editorial, analytical, and communicative — not ideological. Panel members are selected for methodological expertise and ideological breadth. Their work is documented and explained to a general audience.

The Panel does not determine what the public should want. It determines which well-supported policies best represent the clearest and most important areas of common ground, and presents them in a form the public can easily understand.

The Advisory Panel targets 5–7 members with staggered terms to ensure continuity. Members with conflicts of interest on specific platform issues recuse from those decisions.

How the Platform is built

The Common Ground Platform is a benchmark — a published, evidence-based representation of what Americans across party lines have demonstrated they want from their federal government.

Eligibility criteria define the candidate pool. A policy qualifies for consideration when it meets all three:

Supermajority support: ≥60% overall
Bipartisan support: ≥50% among both Republican and Democratic respondents
Constitutional rights compatibility: the policy operates within the limits the Bill of Rights places on government action

The first two thresholds are quantitative — published, fixed, and not adjusted to produce a desired outcome. The third is a constitutional constraint, not a caveat. 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.

Selection criteria narrow the candidate pool to the Core Platform. The Advisory Panel evaluates qualifying policies on:

Importance — salience to the public, frequency of mention across surveys
National scope — clear federal responsibility, broad recognition
Clarity — understandable in one sentence, specific enough to measure
Durability — stability of support across time and polling sources
Measurability — observable outcomes, assessable alignment with government action
Domain balance — avoiding overrepresentation of any single policy area

The Core Platform targets 10–15 planks — enough to be comprehensive, few enough to be memorable and actionable.

All qualifying policies — whether or not they appear in the Core Platform — are published in the Supporting Findings database, with documented rationale for inclusion or exclusion. Citizens can examine the full candidate pool, not just the final selection.

The Platform is reviewed on a two-year cycle, aligned with midterm elections, using the same published criteria. Any revision requires the same documented rationale as the original selection.

How the Scorecard works

The Common Ground Scorecard measures whether elected officials are delivering on the Platform.

Scoring criteria are developed by the Advisory Panel and approved by the Executive Team. The methodology — how votes, statements, and policy outcomes are weighted and evaluated — is published and explained in plain language. Scores are documented, not just reported; the reasoning behind each score is available for public review.

Funding independence

Common Ground is currently self-funded by its founder and accepts no donations during the launch period. As a matter of charter commitment, Common Ground does not accept contributions from political parties, party committees, or partisan political organizations. We do not accept contributions that create concentration risk — where a single source represents a disproportionate share of our funding. Donor information is disclosed in accordance with nonprofit reporting requirements. We do not accept restricted gifts that direct the content or conclusions of the Platform or Scorecard.

These are charter commitments, not preferences.

A note on where we are

Common Ground is currently in its founding stage. The governance structures described here represent both our current commitments and our intended evolution. The Board is being established. The Advisory Panel is being recruited. The founder serves in the executive role during this phase, with the intention — and the structural commitment — that full governance separation will develop as the organization grows.

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.

We are describing the destination honestly, not claiming to have arrived.