Who governs.
Offices, terms, districts, city councils, appointments, committees, land-use powers, and lines of authority.
POWER MAPOfficial records. Status always visible.Governance · money · ethics · courts · audits
Research scope41 CITY SYSTEMS
USA PUBLIC INTEGRITY LEDGERFind the public record behind local power.
One search across 41 city desks, council systems, official-source topics, and the first reviewed federal influence sample.
ENTER
POPULAR ≠ TRENDING
Starting points are editorially curated. The ledger does not yet collect or rank people by user search activity.
A SEPARATE CIVIC ACCOUNTABILITY SECTION
Who holds power.
Who watches it.
What happened next.
Follow how a city is governed, who must disclose money and influence, what an oversight body actually found, and whether that finding was upheld, dismissed, corrected, or reversed.
AN AUDIT IS NOT A CRIME · A CHARGE IS NOT A CONVICTION · APPEALS STAY VISIBLEWho funds. Who lobbies.
Campaign finance, lobbying, gifts, travel, financial disclosures, and recusals.
MONEY & DISCLOSUREWhat the record says.
Final ethics actions, audit findings, court matters, dismissals, and appeals.
MATTER TIMELINEWhat changed.
Sanctions, corrective actions, reversals, implementation, and unresolved recommendations.
OUTCOME TRACKERALLEGATION ONLYComplaint filed
Displayed only after the responsible agency makes it public.
PRESUMED INNOCENTCharged
An accusation in court—not a finding of guilt.
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONEthics violation
Kept separate from a criminal conviction.
OUTCOMEDismissed / acquitted
Given the same visual weight as adverse findings.
Every city already in USA Crime Ledger has a public-integrity source path.
Official searchable outcomes suited to structured ingestion.
Official orders, reports, minutes, or packets requiring document review.
Governance, money, audits, and statewide outcomes come before local case feeds.
THE NATIONAL CITY DESK
Find the oversight system.
Coverage status describes how official records are published—not how ethical a city is. Missing public records never become a clean record.
41 cities shown
01Direct final-action index
New York · PILOT CITY
New York City
New York offers one of the strongest municipal starting points: searchable final ethics dispositions can be separated from annual disclosures, campaign records, audits, and criminal dockets.
02Published document stack
California
Los Angeles
Los Angeles has broad official ethics authority and substantial disclosure infrastructure, but enforcement history requires careful assembly from commission records and proceedings.
03Published document stack
Illinois
Chicago
Chicago publishes oversight reports and permits public summaries of sustained findings, but active referrals and some underlying investigative material remain restricted.
04Published document stack
Texas
Houston
Houston’s code covers ethics, financial disclosure, campaign finance, and lobbying. The strongest first public lens is money and disclosure, followed by final ethics records when available.
05Published document stack
Arizona
Phoenix
Phoenix makes requests for inquiry public after defined commission actions. That publication threshold must remain visible so confidential review is never described as exoneration.
06Published document stack
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
Philadelphia supports a strong administrative-accountability ledger, provided its civil ethics proceedings remain separate from criminal cases and audits.
07Published document stack
Texas
San Antonio
San Antonio publishes its complaint process, annual reports, opinions, and official financial-disclosure requirements. Complaints must not be displayed as findings.
08Direct final-action index
California
San Diego
San Diego publishes structured stipulations and administrative orders with dates, violation classes, case numbers, and penalties—an excellent pilot for matter timelines.
09Published document stack
Texas
Dallas
Dallas publishes commission documents and final-sanction materials, but the case history requires document-level extraction and careful outcome reconciliation.
10Published document stack
Texas
Fort Worth
Fort Worth confirms local ethics jurisdiction and sanctions, but public outcome history is less readily indexable than the strongest pilot cities.
11Published document stack
Florida
Jacksonville
Jacksonville has unusually clear local institutions, but complaint records are confidential until statutory publication triggers occur.
12Published document stack
Texas
Austin
Austin’s commission records include complaints, hearing materials, and final orders, but much of the history lives in meeting packets rather than a clean case index.
13Published document stack
California
San José
San José publishes board proceedings and findings but relies heavily on agendas and meeting-document systems rather than a consolidated enforcement database.
14Foundation / manual review
North Carolina
Charlotte
Charlotte provides official complaint rules and possible council sanctions, but local final-action history is not yet available as a reliable searchable archive.
15Published document stack
Ohio
Columbus
Columbus has strong searchable campaign data and municipal disclosure requirements. Its local ethics office advises and refers rather than directly imposing penalties.
16Foundation / manual review
Indiana
Indianapolis
Indianapolis has an official committee that handles ethics violations and complaints, but the public record requires meeting-by-meeting reconstruction.
17Direct final-action index
California · PILOT CITY
San Francisco
San Francisco publishes penalties, stipulated orders, and hearing outcomes in a form well suited to case-status timelines.
18Direct final-action index
Washington · PILOT CITY
Seattle
Seattle’s official action archive includes decisions, dismissals, settlements, and appeals—essential for a balanced accountability ledger.
19Published document stack
Colorado
Denver
Denver publishes a long-running digest of ethics opinions and complaint outcomes, including no-violation findings, but full-text records require careful document handling.
20Published document stack
Tennessee
Nashville
Nashville’s consolidated government publishes board decisions and searchable lobbyist materials, creating a useful influence-plus-outcome lens.
21Direct final-action index
New Mexico
Albuquerque
Albuquerque combines searchable municipal campaign reports with a local ethics board, advisory opinions and complaints, independent audit reports, and inspector-general investigations.
22Direct final-action index
Alaska
Anchorage
Anchorage combines local ethics opinions and annual reporting with municipal audit records and statewide campaign, financial-disclosure, and lobbying systems. Each record family must retain its own jurisdiction and procedural status.
23Published document stack
Georgia
Atlanta
Atlanta’s Ethics Office investigates and prosecutes local code violations, while campaign finance and lobbying require separate source systems.
24Published document stack
Georgia
Augusta
Augusta’s current code assigns public-official ethics complaints and discipline to the consolidated Commission. Those local records must remain separate from Georgia campaign, lobbying, financial-disclosure, audit, and court systems.
25Published document stack
Alabama
Birmingham
Birmingham publishes police complaint findings and use-of-force summaries alongside a civilian review route. Those administrative records remain distinct from Alabama financial, lobbying, campaign, and court filings.
26Direct final-action index
Massachusetts · PILOT CITY
Boston
Boston’s accountability record is strongest through statewide systems that publish municipal enforcement decisions and machine-readable campaign finance.
27Foundation / manual review
Georgia
Griffin
Griffin’s accountability desk begins with local government records and statewide campaign disclosures; a consolidated searchable local ethics-disposition archive has not yet been identified.
28Direct final-action index
Hawaiʻi
Honolulu
Honolulu has a local Ethics Commission with advisory, investigative, disclosure, and city-lobbyist responsibilities, while campaign finance is administered through Hawaiʻi’s statewide commission for county offices.
29Published document stack
Kentucky
Lexington
Lexington has a local Ethics Commission with complaint and advisory-opinion authority, while municipal campaign finance is disclosed through Kentucky’s statewide searchable registry.
30Published document stack
Georgia
Macon
Macon–Bibb publishes an ethics code, a current complaint form, commission records, and annual audits. Complaints must remain separate from findings and final outcomes.
31Published document stack
New York
Buffalo
Buffalo publishes ethics reports and disclosure materials alongside a Comptroller audit archive. Those administrative records should remain separate from campaign filings and criminal cases.
32Published document stack
Ohio
Cleveland
Cleveland has a citywide Ethics Office and public internal-audit function. State and county filing systems provide the campaign and financial-disclosure layers.
33Published document stack
Tennessee
Memphis
Memphis gives its Board of Ethics jurisdiction over elected and appointed officers and employees, while public audit reports document financial and operational findings separately.
34Direct final-action index
Wisconsin
Milwaukee
Milwaukee has unusually useful municipal money-and-influence sources: local campaign reports, required lobbying registration, Ethics Board materials, and Comptroller audits can be kept in distinct evidence lanes.
35Foundation / manual review
South Carolina
Myrtle Beach
Myrtle Beach’s strongest structured accountability path is statewide: campaign disclosures and statements of economic interests are public through the South Carolina Ethics Commission, while local records remain distributed across city documents and FOIA access.
36Published document stack
Oklahoma
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City combines an independent City Auditor reporting to Council with a statewide campaign and financial-disclosure transition. The city ethics policy, audit findings, campaign filings, and any court matter must remain separate evidence families.
37Direct final-action index
Florida · PILOT CITY
Miami
Miami benefits from a county ethics commission whose jurisdiction covers officials and employees in the county’s municipalities, with a searchable closed-complaint archive.
38Foundation / manual review
Florida
Orlando
Orlando has strong campaign-filing access and audit reports, but local ethics case history is not a consolidated searchable city archive.
39Direct final-action index
Oregon
Portland
Portland combines detailed city campaign-finance determinations with a statewide searchable ethics-disposition system.
40Published document stack
Puerto Rico · PILOT CITY
San Juan
San Juan requires a bilingual, multi-agency accountability stack. Audit findings, electoral audits, ethics matters, and PFEI criminal referrals must remain separate.
41Direct final-action index
Missouri
St. Louis
St. Louis is best covered through searchable statewide ethics actions combined with unusually extensive city and state audit records.
FIRST INGESTION COHORT
Six systems that teach us how to build the national ledger.
These pilots represent local boards, countywide oversight, statewide enforcement, and Puerto Rico’s multi-agency integrity system.
01New York CityIndependent conflicts-of-interest board, campaign-finance board, comptroller audits, and state/federal courts.OPEN CITY DESK →02San FranciscoIndependent Ethics Commission covering campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts, disclosures, and administrative enforcement.OPEN CITY DESK →03SeattleSeattle Ethics and Elections Commission with campaign, disclosure, ethics, settlement, dismissal, and appeal records.OPEN CITY DESK →04BostonMassachusetts State Ethics Commission for municipal officials, OCPF campaign finance, city audit, and state/federal courts.OPEN CITY DESK →05MiamiMiami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust covering county and municipal officials, plus inspector-general and Florida systems.OPEN CITY DESK →06San JuanPuerto Rico ethics, electoral comptroller, public comptroller, Special Independent Prosecutor Panel, and Commonwealth/federal courts.OPEN CITY DESK →
COMPARE THE SYSTEM — NOT A “CORRUPTION SCORE”
How does a city watch itself?
Is the watchdog independent?Who appoints and removes it?Are dismissals published?Can residents search final orders?Are campaign and lobbying filings accessible?Are audit recommendations tracked to completion?
PUBLICATION STANDARD
The case—not the person—is the record.
A politician profile can organize links. It can never replace the official matter, docket, order, or audit that supports the entry.
Official source first
Journalism can identify a lead. Publication requires the responsible agency, court docket, order, filing, or audit.
Status in the headline
Complaint, probable cause, charge, plea, conviction, acquittal, dismissal, settlement, and appeal are never interchangeable.
Archive every edition
Documents, retrieval dates, hashes, corrections, and superseded statuses remain recoverable.
Human publication gate
Identity matching and every sensitive public summary require review before they become visible.
No guilt by proximity
Contributions, lobbying, contracts, and votes may be shown as documented records without implying an improper exchange.
Corrections are first-class
Appeals, reversals, vacated judgments, amended orders, and documented errors update the headline—not a footnote.