How the record gets built.

A case is a single, structured record of one accountability matter affecting government in the registry's scope. Each case is tied to documents you can read yourself: an audit, a court filing, an ethics ruling, a settlement, or named-byline reporting in an established news outlet. If a case cannot be tied to that kind of source, it is not in the registry.

The registry is not a news site. It does not break stories. It compiles what has already been put on the public record, organizes it consistently, and connects each entry to a specific reform that would have prevented or surfaced it.

Where the evidence stands

• Documented. A government body or court has gone on the record: an audit finding, a court filing, an indictment, an ethics-board opinion, an Inspector General or Ombudsman report, or a public-records response. This is the strongest tier.
• Reported. Established news outlets with named bylines have surfaced the matter, but no government body has issued a finding yet.
• Alleged. A complaint has been filed with a court, board, or oversight body and is not yet adjudicated. Case copy uses the word “alleged” in front of every claim of conduct.

What the conduct is

• Criminal fraud. Chargeable financial misconduct.
• Conflict of interest. An undisclosed or unmanaged private interest in a public decision.
• Structural failure. Oversight, monitoring, or financial controls absent or inadequate at the systems level.
• Rule gaming. Conduct that stays technically inside the rules but produces the outcome the rules exist to prevent.
• Special privileges. Benefits or access available to insiders and not to the public.
• Misuse of public resources. Public staff, facilities, or funds used for private or campaign benefit.

What would have prevented it

Every case is tagged with one or more specific structural reforms. The registry exists to make that connection visible, not to enumerate scandals.

Cases are anchored in tiered sourcing. Tier 1 means primary documents from a government body, court, or formal oversight entity. Tier 2 means established news organizations with named bylines and editorial accountability. Tier 3, which covers partisan advocacy groups, party communications, social media posts, anonymous tips, opinion columns, and podcasts, is excluded from case records entirely.

Government URLs rot, so every Tier 1 source is captured in the Wayback Machine at the time the case is filed. The About page has the full tier breakdown and the canonical Tier 2 publication list.

The Washington Legislative Ethics Board opinion index lists roughly 235 opinions from 1995 to the present. The registry does not mirror that index. An LEB opinion qualifies for a case record only if at least one of the following applies:

• The respondent is a sitting or former member of the Washington State Legislature, a senior legislative staff member, or a legislative caucus acting in its official capacity.
• The opinion addresses conduct in one of the recurring categories the registry tracks structurally: use of public resources for campaign or personal benefit, conflict of interest related to outside employment, casework boundaries, special privileges, official-website integrity during election season, or public-records compliance.
• The opinion is part of a pattern of two or more comparable matters involving the same respondent or the same caucus inside a single biennium.

The registry explicitly excludes serial vexatious filings that the LEB dismisses for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without reaching the merits. In the 2024 through 2026 dockets this primarily means the more than thirty filings by Joel McEntire under case numbers in the 23-07, 24-08, 25-07, 25-13, 25-17, 25-20, 25-28, and related ranges, and a smaller cluster of filings by Rep. Jim Walsh in the 25-17, 25-34 ranges. These are listed on the LEB index but are not case records here. The registry also excludes opinions where the respondent is a member of the Louisiana Legislature, the Washington State Bar Association, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, a municipal mayor, county commissioners, or other non-legislative actors who the Board determined fell outside its personal jurisdiction.

Where a respondent appears multiple times in the LEB docket within the same biennium on substantively related conduct, the registry consolidates the references into a single case record rather than creating one case per docket number. Tags and the body prose note the related opinion numbers.

1. A Tier 1 or Tier 2 source publishes material that meets the threshold for at least one severity category.
2. A structured case record is drafted: identity, actors, classification, scale, status, sources, reform argument.
3. Every factual claim in the body is anchored to an inline source link. Every Tier 1 government URL is archived.
4. The record is read against the source documents and set to published.

When the evidentiary picture changes, through a new audit, a charging document, a settlement, an exoneration, or a correction, the existing record is updated in place at the same URL. The last updated field moves forward. The legal status and outcome summary reflect the new state. Every substantive change is logged on the Corrections page.

If a case is fully retracted, the URL still works. The page is replaced with a tombstone explaining what was retracted and why. Cases are never silently deleted.

If you are named in a case and believe the record is wrong, incomplete, or out of date, use the intake form on the Corrections page. Include the case ID, the specific sentence or field you dispute, and a document or link supporting your position. The registry will read every message, respond within five business days, and update or annotate the record where the documentary evidence warrants. Substantive changes are logged on the Corrections page with the date and the source that prompted the change.

The registry does not remove cases on request alone. It does update legal-status fields, add exoneration notes, and tombstone records when the underlying documents change. A formal exoneration, dismissal, or reversal by a court or oversight body will be reflected at the same URL.

• Partisan advocacy releases from any side of the spectrum, and any party-committee communications.
• Personal blogs, substacks, and podcasts, even from credentialed individuals.
• Anonymous tips and unnamed sources. Leaked documents are cited only if the document itself is Tier 1.
• Social media posts used in place of reporting or official communication.
• Speculation about motive. The registry asserts conduct, not intent.
• Sealed records, pseudonymous filings, and material covered by a protective order.

The registry does not break stories. It does not run anonymous tip lines. It does not solicit donations. It does not manufacture political balance, and it does not soften an alleged case into anything more than alleged.