Basic Human Decency Scorecard
Evaluates conduct of public officials using pre-established, uniformly applied criteria. The score does not assess ideology, party affiliation, or policy positions.
Purpose
-
Turn abstract expectations for decency into something measurable and comparable, applying the same criteria to every official so conduct can be judged on evidence rather than impressions.
-
Educates citizens about what basic human decency in public life looks like, holds officials accountable through transparent evaluation
-
Shifts incentives so decent conduct is rewarded and indecency carries a visible cost.
Methodology:
-
Focus on observable conduct, documented actions, and verifiable public behavior over time.
-
Evaluate public officials based on their demonstrated good-faith effort to act and speak with basic human decency in public life.
-
90 - 100: A (Exemplary)
-
80-89: B (Strong)
-
65-79: C (Mixed)
-
50 - 64: D (Concerning)
-
<50: F (Fails Basic Decency)
Grading:
Behavioral Criteria
The following criteria are preliminary. ADG is developing a process for applying the criteria as well as validating their effectiveness and our ability to collect data consistently to support fair scoring across party lines.
A. Respect for All (25 points)
-
Positive Indicators: Civil, bipartisan public statements; Participation in cross-party dialogue or conflict resolution, Recognition for civility by credible third parties.
-
Negative Indicators: Major (Documented harassment, demeaning language, ethics findings); Moderate (Repeated inflammatory remarks, substantiated formal complaints); Minor (Isolated uncivil exchanges or uncorrected inappropriate statements)
B. Integrity and Honesty (25 points)
-
Positive Indicators: Voluntary corrections of public misstatements; Public support for impartial ethics investigations; Transparent reporting beyond legal requirement.
-
Negative Indicators: Major (Court/ethics finding of dishonesty, interference with investigations); Moderate (Repeated false statements, opportunistic reversals); Minor (Single verified misstatement or minor transparency failure)
C. Honor — Governance Conduct (20 points)
-
Positive Indicators: Successful bipartisan legislation sponsorship; Leadership in cross-party problem-solving; Recognized governance effectiveness
-
Negative Indicators: Major (Abuse of office, sustained obstruction without constituent justification); Moderate (Persistent procedural obstruction, chronic absenteeism); Minor (Missed votes or minor procedural misconduct)
D. Humility & Accountability (15 points)
-
Positive Indicators: Public acknowledgment of mistakes; Corrective action for errors; Proper credit to collaborators; Voluntary cooperation with ethics reviews
-
Negative Indicators: Major (Retaliation, refusal to comply with oversight, repeated blame-shifting); Moderate (Failure to acknowledge significant errors); Minor (Isolated defensiveness or delayed responses)
E. Affiliation Risk (15 points)
-
Positive Indicators: Public distancing from problematic organizations; Adoption of formal vetting criteria for affiliations
-
Negative Indicators: Major (Leadership role in organizations with repeated misconduct); Moderate (Repeated voluntary appearances with problematic actors); Minor (Isolated associations avoidable with reasonable judgment)