Frequently asked questions.

Local Government Accountability Institute (LGAI) is a nonpartisan 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. We conduct original, primary-source research into local government fiscal management, ethics, and governance — and we publish what we find so citizens can hold their officials accountable.

No. We are researchers and analysts. We do not practice journalism, and we are not bound by journalistic conventions such as seeking comment from subjects before publication. We produce factual, sourced research analyses — not news articles.

No. We are structurally nonpartisan. We do not endorse candidates, support political parties, accept political donations, or take government funding. We apply the same analytical standards to every officeholder regardless of political affiliation.

LGAI is funded by private contributions from individuals and foundations that support nonpartisan government accountability research. As a 501(c)(4), contributions are not tax-deductible. We do not accept government funding or political donations.

We are deployed by citizen request. We evaluate each submission against our selection criteria: a specific, documentable concern; accessible public records; a genuine accountability gap (lack of local news coverage); and a meaningful public-interest case. Not every submission results in a full investigation.

Yes. Visit our Report a Community page to submit a tip. We evaluate every submission, but we cannot guarantee that every community will receive a full investigation. We prioritize based on the severity of the accountability gap and the strength of the public-interest case.

No. We present facts, context, and comparisons. We do not tell citizens what to think, what conclusions to draw, or what action to take. Our job is to make the public record accessible and understandable. What the community does with the information is up to the community.

Yes — through a documented, tiered Subject Notification protocol.

For findings drawn entirely from audited public records — budgets, vote records, meeting minutes, official compensation, contracts on file — the public record itself is the official’s response. The Institute publishes these findings as the records present them. Where the record shows that fellow members of a deliberative body objected and the named individual did not, the Institute reports that asymmetry as a matter of record.

For findings that characterize an official’s conduct, intent, or relationships beyond what the record literally states, the Institute provides ten business days of written notice with the specific claim and its underlying source, and reviews in good faith any factual correction submitted.

For findings that connect evidence across records to allege a course of conduct — for example, procurement-steering or conflict of interest — the notification window extends to fifteen business days, the named individual receives an itemized description of the supporting evidence, and the Institute reviews any contextual records the individual provides.

If no response is received within the notification window, the finding is published with a note on the record stating that notice was given and no response was received. The Institute’s full Editorial Standards and Subject Notification Policy is published at /editorial-standards.

Every factual claim in our published research includes a source citation that links to the underlying public record. Our methodology is published on each project site. We design our work to be independently verifiable by any citizen, journalist, or researcher.

A 501(c)(4) is a social welfare organization under the Internal Revenue Code. Unlike a 501(c)(3) charity, contributions are not tax-deductible, but the organization has broader latitude to engage in public education and civic engagement. LGAI chose this structure for maximum editorial independence.

No. LGAI is an independent 501(c)(4) nonprofit with no formal or informal affiliations with any federal agency, department, or official. Our methodology applies publicly available data-analysis techniques — similar in spirit to how modern auditors and analysts work across many sectors — but we are not affiliated with any specific federal program, past or present.

Most of our researchers — former auditors, retired public officials, forensic accountants, data analysts — have active careers in fields where visible political-research work would be a distraction or a professional conflict. Our standard is that the research must be verifiable independently of who conducted it. Every claim is cited to a primary public document that any reader can check. Our names are not what make the work credible; the citations are.

The Local Government Accountability Institute is not a media company, not a journalism organization, not a law firm, not a political party or political action committee, not a campaign consultancy, and not affiliated with any federal department, agency, or political appointment.

We are an independent nonprofit research institute. We conduct primary-source forensic analysis of local-government fiscal management, ethics, and governance, and we publish what the public records show. That is the entirety of what we do.

The Institute is funded by private contributions from individuals and foundations that support nonpartisan government-accountability research. The Institute does not accept funding from any government entity, any political party, any candidate committee or political action committee, or any 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(3) directly engaged in candidate political advocacy.

Donor lists are not published as a matter of course, for two reasons. First, as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, the Institute is not legally required to disclose individual donors, and doing so could chill the willingness of supporters to fund independent oversight research — particularly in jurisdictions where the Institute is investigating officials with influence. Second, the Institute’s editorial structure ensures that donors have no advance knowledge of investigations, no role in selecting investigation subjects, and no editorial control. The independence is structural, not personal — which is precisely the point.

The Institute publishes its full conflict-of-interest and editorial independence policy at /editorial-standards.

A partisan watchdog applies one standard to one party and a different standard to the other. The Institute applies the same forensic standard to every officeholder, regardless of party affiliation, in every community we investigate.

In practice, this means: when the public record shows that two Republican incumbents in Sarasota County presided over the largest fiscal expansion in county history, the Institute documents and publishes that finding. When the public record shows comparable patterns under Democratic officeholders in any other community, the Institute will document and publish that finding under the same standard. The Institute’s current investigation slate spans jurisdictions with Republican and Democratic majorities. The selection criteria are budget size, depth of accountability gap, and availability of public records — not party.

The Institute does not, as a matter of policy, endorse candidates. In every investigation cycle, every candidate for the offices under Institute scrutiny — incumbents and challengers alike — receives the Institute’s comprehensive fiscal-accountability questionnaire on a documented timeline. Their responses, or their refusals to respond, are published in full. The Institute’s role is to ensure that no candidate advances on rhetoric alone.

The Institute maintains a public Corrections Log accessible from every investigation page. When a material factual error is identified — by a named individual, by an outside researcher, or by internal review — the Institute corrects the error promptly.

Corrections are appended at the point in the original document where the error appeared. The original text is struck through and the corrected text is added below, so that the reader sees both what was published and what was corrected. The Institute does not silently delete or unpublish corrected findings. The historical record of the correction is itself part of the Institute’s commitment to transparency.

The Institute’s commitment is not that we will never be wrong. The commitment is that we will be visibly, promptly, and completely accountable when we are.

The Institute publishes factual research products based on primary public records. The Institute does not endorse candidates, does not coordinate with campaigns, and does not direct how third parties use Institute findings.

Once an Institute finding is published, it is part of the public record. Candidates, journalists, advocacy groups, and citizens may cite, quote, or reference Institute publications under standard principles of fair use and public-records reporting — the same way they may cite a court ruling, an audited financial statement, or a published news article.

The rhetorical, persuasive, or political use a third party makes of an Institute finding is the responsibility of that third party. The Institute makes no representation about and accepts no responsibility for how a campaign, a PAC, a journalist, or any other third party characterizes, frames, or amplifies Institute work beyond what the Institute itself has published.

The Institute’s full policy on third-party use is at /editorial-standards, Section VIII.