Frequently asked questions

CivicPrinciples is a civic-intelligence platform that analyzes local government meetings against 15 principles of good governance. It records, transcribes, and evaluates meetings to create a structured public record of votes, discussion, process, and governance performance. It currently covers the Colorado Springs City Council (under the CouncilWatch label) and is operated by Civix IQ, LLC.

Start with Headlines for the stories behind each meeting's key decisions, then explore the Screw-O-Meter for an overview of member performance.

Analysis is typically published within days of each regular meeting. The platform currently focuses on formal Colorado Springs City Council meetings and does not yet cover work sessions, committee meetings, or other governing bodies.

No. We apply the same 15 governance principles to every member and every vote, regardless of ideology or political alignment. The platform evaluates governance conduct and public decision-making processes — not partisan outcomes or political preferences.

The platform is currently funded through founder investment and subscriber revenue. It is independently operated by Civix IQ, LLC and is not directed by any political party, campaign, government entity, or advocacy organization.

No. CivicPrinciples does not endorse candidates, political parties, or ballot measures.

Where a potential violation appears, it is classified as Clear, Likely, or Potential. Those findings are weighted and combined into a final 0-to-5 score, where lower scores indicate stronger alignment with the principles of good governance. Scores currently map to three broad tiers:

• Principled (0.00–1.50)
• Questionable (1.51–3.50)
• Screwed (3.51–5.00)

Read the full methodology →

The principles are a set of governance standards covering transparency, fairness, fiscal responsibility, public engagement, accountability, and related civic expectations citizens should be able to expect from elected officials. See all 15 →

Each vote is evaluated independently based on the full meeting record available at the time of the vote — the policy itself, public testimony, discussion, alternatives considered, procedural handling, and member conduct during the meeting. Two votes on related matters may receive different scores if the surrounding record differs materially.

Scores reflect whatever votes a member has cast during the current session. A member with only a small number of votes will naturally have a less stable score than one with a longer voting history. Per-member evaluations note limited-sample situations explicitly, and scores generally stabilize as the record grows.

Yes. Scores may be revised if factual errors are identified or if additional official records materially affect the evaluation. Corrections are applied to the affected analyses, and material changes to a member's score are noted on their evaluation. Scores may also be recalculated when the methodology is updated, in which case the change applies consistently across all members.

If you believe a vote contains a factual error, missing context, or an incorrect principle classification, submit a report through Report an Issue. We review credible submissions and update the underlying record when warranted. Broader concerns about methodology are addressed through the published methodology and our Audit Policy.

The body-wide rating uses the term "Screwed" because it evaluates the collective outcomes experienced by residents. Individual members in the equivalent tier are labeled "Screwed Up" because no single member alone determines the body's overall direction.

The AI transcribes meeting video, identifies agenda items and votes, matches speakers to comments, and applies the 15-principles rubric to each vote. Every vote runs through the same evaluation pipeline using the same criteria and methodology.

Human oversight is applied throughout the analysis pipeline, and we conduct periodic quality reviews of outputs. Our Audit Policy describes the formal review process available for significant concerns, and we accept reader-submitted corrections through Report an Issue.

No. CivicPrinciples provides structured analysis intended to inform human judgment — by readers, journalists, civic groups, researchers, and the public. Voters and policymakers make the decisions.

It analyzes meeting video transcripts, official vote records, agenda items, motion text, and related meeting materials. It does not analyze campaign activity, private communications, or members' social media outside official meeting records.

Civix IQ is exploring partnership and licensing models that would let journalism outlets, nonprofits, universities, and civic organizations deploy the platform for other councils and governing bodies. These offerings are still in development. If you're interested in an early conversation, please get in touch.

Use our Contact page or email [email protected].