Owen Sound: A Four-Year City Business Plan

Home › The Public Scorecard › Chapter 58

The Public Scorecard

Chapter 58Satisfaction: The Public Resident Experience Scorecard

10,021 words · Mike Seiler · Owen Sound, Ontario

Open in the reader →

Vote on the proposals, hear the audio, read the reviews, search the whole plan.

In this chapter

Resident satisfaction matters.

But municipal government is not a restaurant.

A City cannot measure success by asking only:

Did you like the answer?

Sometimes government must say:

A resident can reasonably be dissatisfied with the decision while still receiving:

That distinction is essential.

The central principle is:

Measure the resident's experience with government without turning government into a popularity contest.

The Satisfaction Scorecard should therefore distinguish between:

Satisfaction with the result

and

Satisfaction with how the City handled the matter

Those are not the same.

A resident may say:

I disagreed with the decision, but I understood it and was treated fairly.

That is valuable information.

Likewise, a resident may receive the answer they wanted while still experiencing:

A favourable outcome does not automatically mean:

The Scorecard should ask whether Owen Sound is becoming:

It should never become:

Do residents approve of the Mayor?

That is a political question.

The municipal Scorecard should measure:

the institution.

58.1Purpose

The Satisfaction Scorecard should answer:

Do residents know where to go for help?

Is information understandable?

Are staff respectful?

Are residents told what happens next?

Do promised follow-ups occur?

Are problems actually resolved?

Are residents satisfied with the service process even where they disagree with the result?

Are some departments consistently harder to navigate than others?

Are some communication channels working better than others?

Are seniors, youth and residents with disabilities experiencing different barriers?

Are businesses finding municipal processes understandable?

Are residents being bounced between governments?

Do residents believe the City explains difficult decisions honestly?

Are complaints treated seriously?

Is criticism protected rather than tracked politically?

Those are meaningful satisfaction questions.

58.2Satisfaction Is Not Political Approval

The City should never use the municipal Scorecard to ask:

Do you approve of the Mayor?

or:

Do you support Council?

Those belong to:

Not institutional service measurement.

58.3Policy Agreement Is Different

Residents may be asked about:

through public consultation.

That is separate from:

58.4Keep the Instruments Separate

A consultation asks:

What should we do?

A satisfaction survey asks:

How well did the City handle your interaction?

Do not mix them unnecessarily.

58.5Satisfaction Scorecard Headline Measures

A first-page dashboard could include:

  1. Overall service-experience satisfaction.
  2. Ease of finding the right service.
  3. Clarity of information.
  4. Respectful treatment.
  5. Understanding of next steps.
  6. Timeliness satisfaction.
  7. Resolution satisfaction.
  8. Follow-up reliability.
  9. No Wrong Door experience.
  10. Digital service satisfaction.
  11. Phone service satisfaction.
  12. In-person service satisfaction.
  13. Accessibility satisfaction.
  14. Business service experience.
  15. Recreation service experience.
  16. Transit service experience where applicable.
  17. Public-meeting experience.
  18. Complaint-handling experience.
  19. Resident confidence in City information.
  20. Percentage saying they were treated fairly even when they disagreed with the outcome.
  21. Survey response count.
  22. Survey methodology status.
  23. Major recurring dissatisfaction themes.
  24. Major improvements.
  25. Major unresolved resident-experience problems.

58.6No Single Satisfaction Grade

Avoid:

Resident Satisfaction: 82/100

That can hide too much.

For example:

Show components.

58.7Satisfaction and Service Performance

Satisfaction should be read beside:

58.8Objective and Subjective Together

Objective service data might show:

Resident experience might show:

Both matter.

58.9Objective Data Does Not Cancel Experience

Do not say:

The service standard was met, therefore the resident's frustration is invalid.

58.10Experience Does Not Cancel Objective Data Either

Do not say:

The resident was unhappy, therefore the service standard failed.

Use both.

58.11Result Satisfaction

Ask separately where useful:

Were you satisfied with the final outcome?

58.12Process Satisfaction

Then ask:

Regardless of the outcome, how satisfied were you with how the City handled the matter?

That distinction should become standard.

58.13Fairness Question

A particularly useful question:

Even if you disagreed with the decision, did you feel the process was fair?

58.14Respect Question

Were you treated respectfully?

58.15Clarity Question

Did you understand what happened and what the next step was?

58.16Resolution Question

Was your issue resolved or brought to a clear conclusion?

58.17Follow-Up Question

Did the City do what it said it would do next?

58.18Ease Question

How easy was it to find the right City service or person?

58.19Information Question

Was the information you received understandable and useful?

58.20Time Question

Were you satisfied with the time required for the service?

58.21Channel Question

Was the service channel you used convenient for you?

58.22Different Measures

Do not collapse all of these into one:

58.23Transactional Surveys

For some services:

A short survey after a completed interaction can provide useful information.

58.24Keep It Short

A transactional survey might ask:

  1. Was your issue resolved?
  2. Was the information clear?
  3. Were you treated respectfully?
  4. Was the time reasonable?
  5. Optional comment.

That is often enough.

58.25Survey Fatigue

Do not send a survey after:

58.26Frequency Cap

Where practical:

Limit repeated invitations.

58.27Resident Pulse

A broader annual or periodic Resident Pulse can measure:

58.28Transaction Versus General Experience

These should remain separate.

58.29Transactional Measure

Captures:

58.30Resident Pulse

Captures:

58.31Non-Users Matter

Some residents may not have contacted City Hall recently.

Their experience of:

still matters.

58.32"Not Used" Option

Always allow:

Not used / Do not know

where appropriate.

58.33Do Not Force Opinion

A resident who has never used:

should not be forced to rate it.

58.34Response Scale

Use a stable scale.

For example:

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Not Applicable / Do Not Know

58.35Keep Scale Stable

Do not switch every year between:

if trend measurement matters.

58.36Scale Change

If a better scale is adopted:

Document the break.

58.37Question Wording

Keep core questions consistent over multiple years.

58.38Wording Matters

These are different questions:

How satisfied are you with road maintenance?

and:

How concerned are you about poor road maintenance?

Do not compare them as the same trend.

58.39Leading Question

Avoid:

How satisfied are you with the City's improved service?

That assumes:

58.40Loaded Question

Avoid:

Do you support continuing our successful downtown revitalization?

That is:

Not measurement.

58.41Neutral Question

Better:

How satisfied are you with the cleanliness and maintenance of downtown public spaces?

58.42One Concept Per Question

Avoid:

How satisfied are you with road quality, snow removal, sidewalks and traffic?

Those are four things.

58.43Specific Enough to Act

A question should produce information that can change:

58.44No Survey for Survey's Sake

If nobody owns the result:

Do not ask the question.

58.45Question Owner

Every major survey category should have:

58.46Action Threshold

Before surveying:

Know what could happen if results are poor.

58.47Example

If residents report:

possible response:

58.48No Cosmetic Response

Do not respond to low satisfaction merely by:

Sometimes service itself must change.

58.49Communication Problem

Sometimes service is working but poorly explained.

Fix:

58.50Service Problem

Sometimes explanation is fine but service is:

Fix:

58.51Policy Disagreement

Sometimes residents understand everything and still dislike:

Report that accurately.

58.52Do Not Pretend Communication Solves Disagreement

People can understand a decision and still:

58.53Resident Pulse Core Questions

A stable core could ask:

I know how to find the City service I need.

City information is understandable.

When I contact the City, I know what happens next.

City staff treat me respectfully.

The City follows through on commitments.

I can access City services in a way that works for me.

I believe City information is generally accurate.

The City explains major decisions clearly.

I believe similar cases are treated similarly.

I can raise a concern without being treated differently because of my opinion.

58.54Opinion Neutrality

That final question matters.

Government should measure whether residents feel:

58.55No Political Identity Needed

Do not ask:

to interpret satisfaction.

58.56Critical Residents

A resident who dislikes the Mayor can still provide valuable:

58.57Supportive Residents

Same.

58.58Do Not Segment by Politics

No:

supporters rate us 94%, critics rate us 31%.

That has no place in municipal performance management.

58.59Anonymous Response

Where possible:

Allow residents to answer broader satisfaction questions anonymously.

58.60Anonymous Does Not Mean No Methodology

The City can still record:

where appropriate.

58.61Voluntary Demographics

Some broad demographic questions may help identify:

58.62Keep Limited

Possible:

Do not collect everything.

58.63Optional

Clearly.

58.64No Exact Address for General Satisfaction Survey

Usually unnecessary.

58.65Postal Code

May still be more precise than needed.

Use broad geography where sufficient.

58.66Small Groups

Do not publish breakdowns that could identify respondents.

58.67Indigenous Identity

Do not collect casually for municipal satisfaction analytics.

Relationship with SON should be handled through:

58.68Political Opinion

Again:

No.

58.69Religion

No need for ordinary municipal satisfaction measurement.

58.70Health Diagnosis

No.

58.71Accessibility Question

Ask about:

rather than diagnosis.

58.72Example

Did you experience an accessibility barrier while using this service?

That can be enough.

58.73Privacy Notice

Tell respondents:

58.74Campaign Firewall

Satisfaction responses never become:

58.75No Follow-Up Marketing by Default

Responding to a service survey should not subscribe someone to:

58.76Optional Follow-Up

A resident may choose:

I would like staff to contact me.

Keep separate from the anonymous response where possible.

58.77Anonymous Comment and Contact

Design so a resident can submit:

without surrendering anonymity merely because contact option exists.

58.78Complaint Is Different

If resident needs formal resolution:

Route to the complaint process.

58.79Survey Is Not Complaint System

Do not make residents believe selecting:

Very Dissatisfied

automatically creates a service ticket.

After survey:

Provide:

Need your issue addressed? Report it here / call this number.

58.81Complaints

Complaint experience deserves its own satisfaction measure.

58.82Complaint Questions

Possible:

Was it easy to submit?

Did you know who was reviewing it?

Did you receive an explanation?

Was the process respectful?

Was it completed in a reasonable time?

58.83Complaint Outcome

Resident may still disagree.

Measure process separately.

58.84Appeal

Some decisions have formal:

routes.

Do not substitute a satisfaction survey for them.

58.85Enforcement

A person receiving a ticket may be dissatisfied.

That does not mean enforcement failed.

58.86Enforcement Process Satisfaction

Possible questions:

58.87No Quota to Make Enforced Residents Happy

Government sometimes enforces rules.

Fairness is the goal.

58.88Planning and Building

These services often involve:

Satisfaction should distinguish:

58.89Applicant Satisfaction

Ask:

Did you understand what information was required?

58.90Predictability

Ask:

Were you told what would happen next?

58.91Early Answer

Ask:

Did the City identify major issues early enough to act on them?

58.92No Promise of Approval

A clear early:

No

can be better service than:

58.93Start-Up Desk

Business users should be surveyed on:

58.94Business Approval Bias

A business denied a permit may still rate:

Keep outcome separate.

58.95Business Satisfaction Question

Did the City help you understand what was possible before you committed significant time or money?

Useful.

58.96Service Catalogue

Every major service can identify:

58.97Do Not Survey Everything

Some back-office services do not need:

58.98Fire Emergency

Do not routinely survey residents immediately after traumatic incidents for:

Use appropriate professional follow-up.

58.99Police

Policing satisfaction should follow appropriate governance and methodology.

Do not create a mayoral police-approval survey.

58.100Safety Perception

Already addressed in Section 51.

Cross-reference.

58.101Recreation

Section 52 includes participant satisfaction.

Do not duplicate.

58.102Youth

Section 53 includes youth program experience.

58.103Accessibility

Section 54 includes accessibility experience.

58.104Privacy

Section 55 governs how survey data is handled.

58.105Environment

Section 56 may use resident observations as supplement.

58.106Partnership

Section 57 includes partner experience separately.

58.107Consolidated Satisfaction

Section 58 should bring together only the major resident-experience measures.

58.108No Double Counting

Do not count a recreation satisfaction result:

as two separate completed outcomes in the final promise total.

58.109Survey Methods

Not all surveys are equally representative.

This should be stated openly.

58.110Open Survey

Anyone may respond.

Useful for:

58.111Open Survey Limitation

It is not automatically representative of:

58.112Self-Selection

People with strong opinions may be more likely to participate.

58.113Do Not Pretend Open Poll Is Census

Never say:

83% of Owen Sound residents believe...

when:

Say:

83% of respondents to this open survey...

58.114Representative Survey

For major city-wide trend measurement:

A scientifically designed sample may provide stronger evidence.

58.115Probability Sample

If respondents are selected using a defensible probability method:

Statistical inference may be appropriate.

58.116Non-Probability Sample

If not:

Do not publish a traditional margin of error as though it applies.

58.117Margin of Error

Use only when:

58.118Sample Size

Always publish.

58.119Response Rate

Publish where known and meaningful.

58.120Sampling Frame

Explain enough for residents to understand:

58.121Weighting

If responses are weighted:

Publish:

58.122Weighting Is Not Magic

It cannot correct every participation bias.

58.123No Methodology Theatre

Do not use complex statistical language merely to make weak data appear:

58.124Independent Administration

For major city-wide satisfaction measurement:

Independent administration may strengthen credibility.

58.125Not Always Necessary

Routine service surveys can be:

58.126Election Year

An independent annual survey may be particularly useful if the City wants to protect institutional credibility.

58.127Same Schedule

Do not suddenly survey residents:

because current leadership expects good numbers.

58.128Fixed Timing

Where possible:

Conduct city-wide satisfaction measurement at roughly:

58.129Seasonal Services

Ask about:

near enough to winter for accurate memory.

58.130Avoid Event Shock

A major emergency or unusual event can temporarily affect perceptions.

Note context.

58.131Do Not Delay Because Result Might Be Bad

Stick to schedule.

58.132Survey Channel

Use multiple channels where practical.

58.133Online

Convenient.

58.134Phone

Can reach residents who do not use online forms.

58.135Paper

Can help in selected contexts.

58.136In-Person

May help accessibility but can introduce:

Use appropriately.

58.137Mail

Can support random sampling.

58.138QR Code

Useful supplemental route.

Not entire methodology.

58.139Social Media Survey

Useful for:

Weak for claiming community-wide representation.

58.140Staff Tablet

May help at:

Do not pressure residents.

58.141No Mandatory Survey

Municipal service should generally not depend on:

58.142Incentive

Small survey incentives may increase response.

58.143Incentive Bias

Consider whether incentive changes who responds.

58.144Prize Draw

May require contact details.

Keep those separate from survey responses where possible.

58.145No Political Prize

Obviously.

58.146Survey Accessibility

Every important survey should be:

58.147Accessible Digital

Cross-reference Section 54.

58.148Phone Alternative

Provide where appropriate.

58.149Plain Language

Use.

58.150Translation

Where needed and feasible.

58.151Cognitive Load

Keep questions:

58.152Survey Length

Long surveys increase:

58.153Core Plus Modules

A useful structure:

Stable core questions

plus

rotating issue modules

This preserves trends while allowing new topics.

58.154Stable Core

Keep the same over the four years where possible.

58.155Rotating Modules

Could cover:

58.156Do Not Replace Bad Core Question Quietly

If a question proves flawed:

Change it.

But disclose:

58.157Baseline Integrity

Year One establishes the baseline.

58.158No Retroactive Baseline Manipulation

Do not redefine the Year One score in Year Four merely because:

58.159Question Versioning

Keep:

58.160Public Questionnaire

Publish full questions.

58.161Public Methodology

Publish:

58.162Public Results

Publish more than:

58.163Full Distribution

For major questions show:

58.164Do Not Hide Neutral

Combining only positive responses can obscure:

58.165Top-Two Box

May be useful.

For example:

Satisfied + Very Satisfied

But publish full distribution too.

58.166Bottom-Two Box

Same.

58.167Net Satisfaction

Possible:

Positive % - Negative %

Use only if helpful and clearly defined.

58.168Do Not Turn Net Satisfaction Into Political Poll

Keep service context.

58.169Mean Score

Can be calculated.

But average can hide polarized experience.

58.170Distribution First

Better.

58.171Median

Sometimes useful.

58.172NPS

A commercial Net Promoter Score asks whether someone would recommend a company.

That is often poorly suited to:

Residents do not choose municipalities like:

Do not adopt NPS simply because consultants use it.

58.173"Would You Recommend City Hall?"

Weak question.

A resident may never:

That tells little about service.

58.174Better Question

Was it easy to get the service you needed?

58.175Satisfaction Target

Do not set:

95% satisfied everywhere

without evidence.

58.176Directional Goal

Aim for:

58.177Minimum Service Expectation

Some dimensions should have higher expectations.

Example:

The goal should be:

58.178Respectful Service

A resident should not need to earn:

58.179Respect Does Not Mean Agreement

Staff may say:

respectfully.

58.180Abuse of Staff

Residents also have responsibilities.

58.181Satisfaction Does Not Require Staff to Accept Abuse

No.

58.182Respect Goes Both Ways

Staff should not be expected to tolerate:

58.183Critical Feedback

Strong criticism is not automatically:

58.184Complaint Tone

Do not reduce satisfaction scores because:

The experience still matters.

58.185Vexatious Conduct

Handle through lawful policy.

Do not use it to remove difficult critics from survey results.

58.186Staff Feedback

Employees can help explain low satisfaction.

58.187Staff Blame

Do not use public satisfaction rankings to publicly shame:

58.188Team Level

Report service or department level where appropriate.

58.189Small Teams

Suppress if results could identify individuals.

58.190Coaching

Use results for:

58.191Performance Management

Employee matters remain under:

58.192Public Leader Accountability

Council and administration should own systemic problems.

Do not push all dissatisfaction onto frontline staff.

58.193Root Cause Categories

Low satisfaction may result from:

58.194Theme Coding

Free-text comments can be grouped into themes.

58.195Human Review

Use human judgement.

58.196AI Theme Analysis

AI may assist with:

58.197Privacy First

Remove identifying or sensitive information before using external AI unless the system is approved for such data.

58.198AI Is Not Final Arbiter

Human review should validate significant themes.

58.199Sarcasm

AI can misunderstand.

58.200Minority Theme

A smaller but serious issue can be hidden by automated frequency ranking.

58.201Safety Theme

One serious accessibility or safety issue may matter more than:

58.202Theme Counts

Useful.

58.203Comment Sentiment

Use cautiously.

Do not reduce resident criticism to:

alone.

58.204No Political Sentiment Analysis

Do not classify respondents as:

58.205Verbatim Comments

Public comments can provide context.

Do not publish identifiable survey comments without:

58.207Selective Quotes

Do not publish only:

58.208Balanced Example

If using quotations:

Show representative:

themes.

58.209Abuse and Personal Information

Remove:

as appropriate.

58.210Do Not Hide Legitimate Criticism

Moderation is not:

58.211Comment Archive

Could publish aggregate thematic summaries rather than every raw comment.

58.212Open Data

Survey data may be released in de-identified form where privacy permits.

58.213Small Cells

Suppress.

58.214Free Text

Usually higher re-identification risk.

58.215Individual Response

Never public by default.

58.216Resident Contact

If someone requests follow-up:

Keep that information operationally separate from analytic data where practical.

58.217Department Comparison

Comparing services can identify:

58.218Apples to Oranges

Do not compare:

as though they should generate identical satisfaction.

58.219Service Difficulty

Some services naturally involve:

Use process measures.

58.220Comparable Dimensions

Across services, compare:

These are more universal.

58.221Outcome Satisfaction Stays Service-Specific

A permit denial is different from:

58.222Channel Comparison

Compare:

where meaningful.

58.223Channel Preference

Ask residents which channel they prefer.

58.224Preference Is Not Mandate

Not every service can be delivered through:

58.225Digital Satisfaction

Measure:

58.226Website Satisfaction

Do not ask:

Do you like the new website?

Ask:

Could you find what you needed?

58.227Task Completion

Stronger measure.

58.228Search Success

Where measurable:

Did resident reach correct:

58.229Analytics

Use privacy-respecting data.

58.230No Session Replay by Default

Cross-reference Section 55.

58.231Phone Satisfaction

Measure:

58.232Hold Time

Objective metric belongs in service score.

Resident satisfaction supplements.

58.233Long Hold

A resident may tolerate a longer hold if:

Use both.

58.234In-Person Satisfaction

Measure:

58.235Accessibility Satisfaction

Ask whether resident experienced:

58.236Accessibility Is Not Satisfaction Alone

A resident saying:

fine

does not establish legal accessibility.

Use Section 54 objective measures.

58.237Seniors

Seniors may have different channel needs.

58.238No Senior Stereotype

Do not assume:

Measure actual preference.

58.239Youth

Young residents may have different:

experiences.

58.240Do Not Treat Youth Responses as Less Valid

58.241Business

Business satisfaction deserves specific attention because municipal delay can create:

58.242Business Experience Measure

Potential:

clarity before investment;

time to first meaningful answer;

number of handoffs;

predictability;

respect.

58.243Business Satisfaction Is Not Permit Approval Rate

Important.

58.244Landlords

Same.

58.245Tenants

Same.

58.246Homeowners

Same.

58.247Renters

Municipal satisfaction should not only reach:

58.248Taxpayer Language

Remember:

Renters also contribute economically.

Resident experience is not limited to:

58.249New Residents

Could be asked about:

58.250Long-Term Residents

May have important comparative experience.

58.251No "Local Longer Means More Valid"

Every resident matters.

58.252Visitors

Some City services serve:

Keep resident satisfaction separate where necessary.

58.253Downtown Visitors

Can provide:

Do not call visitor survey:

58.254Geographic Breakdown

Broad neighbourhood analysis may reveal:

58.255Small Sample

Do not overinterpret.

58.256Geographic Fairness

One neighbourhood reporting lower satisfaction may require:

Not automatic redistribution of equal dollars.

58.257Service Geography

Look at:

together.

58.258Resident Expectations

Expectations matter.

58.259Higher Expectations

Improved service can sometimes raise expectations and lower satisfaction temporarily.

58.260Explain Carefully

Do not use expectations as an excuse for poor service.

58.261Benchmarking

Comparing with other municipalities may provide context.

58.262Comparable Method

Only compare if:

are reasonably similar.

58.263No Vanity Benchmark

Do not hunt for a comparison that makes Owen Sound look best.

58.264Internal Trend More Valuable

Often:

Are we improving against ourselves?

is stronger.

58.265Benchmark Context

Use external comparison as:

58.266Response Bias

Every survey has some.

Publish limitations.

58.267Nonresponse

People who do not respond may differ from those who do.

58.268Digital Divide

Online-only survey may overrepresent:

58.269Event Sampling

Surveying at a festival may overrepresent:

residents.

58.270Facility Sampling

Surveying only recreation users tells you:

Not city-wide satisfaction.

58.271Complaint Sampling

Complaint users may naturally report:

Use appropriately.

58.272Social Media

Followers are not representative residents.

58.273Mailing List

Likewise.

58.274Strong Vote Participants

Likewise.

Participation in civic tools should not be mistaken for:

58.275Resident Pulse Participation

Open participation can still provide:

Just label it correctly.

58.276Representative Supplement

Where affordable:

Use independent sampling periodically.

58.277Cost

Survey research costs money.

58.278Complete Cost

Publish material:

cost.

58.279In-House Survey

Cheaper.

May have:

tradeoffs.

58.280External Firm

Can provide:

Not automatically necessary.

58.281Procurement

Survey firms follow procurement.

58.282No Favourite Pollster

Political campaign polling firms should not automatically receive City work.

58.283Conflict

If a firm works for:

any municipal contract requires proper conflict review.

Better separation may be appropriate.

58.284Data Ownership

City should own or control:

58.285Raw Data

Contract should address:

58.286Vendor Reuse

Do not allow resident responses to become:

without authority.

58.287AI Survey Vendor

Same privacy rules.

58.288Public Questionnaire Before Launch

For major annual survey:

Publish methodology or at least questionnaire when practical.

58.289Pre-Registration

For high-stakes city-wide trend surveys:

The City could publish in advance:

This reduces later manipulation.

58.290Lock the Core

Once fielding begins:

Do not change questions because early responses look:

58.291Early Results

Do not give Mayor or Council selective live access that could influence:

58.292Blind Field Period

For independent city-wide survey:

Keep process professionally controlled until fieldwork closes.

58.293No Mid-Survey Campaign Response

Official channels should not start:

specifically to influence active satisfaction polling.

Normal service communication continues.

58.294Survey Window

Publish.

58.295Close Date

Keep.

58.296Late Responses

Follow stated methodology.

58.297Duplicate Responses

Use proportionate controls.

58.298No Universal Digital ID Needed

Do not overbuild identity verification merely to prevent duplicate survey entries.

58.299Open Survey Duplicate Control

Can use:

methods with privacy limits.

58.300Representative Survey

Selection methodology handles this differently.

58.301Bot Protection

Use accessible measures.

58.302CAPTCHA

Cross-reference Section 54.

58.303Survey Fraud

If evidence of coordinated manipulation exists:

Investigate.

58.304Do Not Discard Critics

Unfavourable answers are not:

58.305Suspicious Pattern

Use objective methodology.

58.306Transparency

Publish exclusions where material.

58.307Survey Comments and Staff

Never use comments to create public:

58.308Compliment

Can be shared internally.

58.309Complaint

Can trigger service review.

58.310Personal Attack

Handle appropriately.

58.311Threat

Escalate through safety procedures.

58.312Criticism

Still preserve.

58.313Root-Cause Review

Every quarter or appropriate period:

Review recurring dissatisfaction themes.

58.314Theme Owner

Assign.

58.315Action

For each material theme:

What did residents say?

What does objective data show?

What is the cause?

What will change?

When will we check again?

58.316"Nothing Changes" Finding

Sometimes the service is:

Explain.

58.317Satisfaction Is Input, Not Veto

Residents do not govern through:

Council remains accountable for decisions.

58.318Rights

A minority's rights do not disappear because:

58.319Budget

A popular service may still be:

58.320Long-Term Stewardship

A necessary infrastructure investment may be unpopular.

That does not make it wrong.

58.321Difficult Decisions

A strong satisfaction framework should ask whether:

58.322Explanation Score

Potential question:

Even if you disagreed with the decision, did you understand why the City made it?

58.323Trust

The word:

can be broad and political.

Use carefully.

58.324Institutional Reliability

Often better to ask:

Does the City generally do what it says it will do?

58.325Information Confidence

Ask:

Do you believe official City information is generally accurate and current?

58.326Fairness Confidence

Ask:

Do you believe similar cases are generally treated similarly?

58.327Voice

Ask:

Do you believe you can raise a concern without being treated differently because of your opinion?

58.328Influence

Do not ask:

Does City Hall always do what residents want?

That is not the standard.

58.329Better Participation Question

When the City asks for public input, does it explain how that input affected the decision?

58.330Consultation Feedback Loop

Cross-reference Resident Government.

58.331Survey of Consultation Participants

After major consultation:

Ask whether:

58.332Do Not Ask Whether They Won

Again:

process separate.

58.333Council Meetings

Residents attending or delegating may be asked about:

58.334No Political Approval

Do not ask:

Did you like Council's decision?

unless the purpose is policy consultation.

58.335Clerk Process

Focus on:

58.336Resident Communications

Newsletters and notices can be evaluated for:

58.337Communication Reach

Not same as:

58.338Open Rate

Activity metric.

58.339Social Likes

Not public trust.

58.340Comments

Not representative.

58.341Website Traffic

Not satisfaction.

58.342Event Attendance

Not satisfaction.

58.343Press Coverage

Definitely not satisfaction.

58.344Mayor Popularity

Not municipal satisfaction.

58.345Resident Praise

Not enough.

58.346Resident Anger

Not enough either.

Use systematic measurement.

58.347Service Recovery

How the City responds after a failure matters.

58.348Service Failure

Examples:

58.349Recovery Question

After the problem occurred, did the City resolve it effectively?

58.350Recovery Can Increase Confidence

A mistake handled:

can improve institutional credibility.

58.351Do Not Manufacture Problems

Obviously.

58.352Correction

Cross-reference Safe Information and Section 55.

58.353Billing Error

Correct.

58.354Refund

Where owed:

Process.

58.355Apology

Where City made a real error:

A straightforward apology can be appropriate.

Do not avoid ordinary respectful language because of exaggerated fear that saying:

we made an error

always creates legal liability.

Use professional advice for serious matters.

58.357No Empty Apology

If root cause remains:

Fix it.

58.358Repeat Failure

A repeated service failure should weigh more than:

58.359Satisfaction After Recovery

Track selectively.

58.360Resident Time

A strong satisfaction system should consider:

58.361Time Burden

Possible questions:

How many contacts were required?

Did you need to repeat information?

Did you need to visit City Hall?

Was the process understandable?

58.362Repeat Contact

Already measured objectively in Section 46.

Use satisfaction only as supplement.

58.363Form Burden

Long forms can reduce satisfaction.

58.364Document Burden

Repeated requests for the same document can frustrate residents.

58.365One File

Good service can reduce repetition while preserving:

58.366No Giant Resident File

Cross-reference Section 55.

58.367Department Transfer

Resident should not repeat their story:

if lawful internal coordination can prevent it.

Where sensitive data is involved:

Coordinate carefully.

58.369Wait Experience

A resident may tolerate waiting better if:

are clear.

58.370Uncertainty Burden

Often worse than:

58.371Predictability

Measure.

58.372Promise Date

If City says:

we will contact you by Thursday

did it?

58.373Follow-Up Reliability

A very strong measure.

58.374Missed Promise

Track.

58.375Revised Promise

If delay arises:

Tell resident before:

where practical.

58.376Silence

One of the most frustrating service experiences.

Reduce it.

58.377Status Updates

Useful for:

58.378Too Many Updates

Can become noise.

Use meaningful milestones.

58.379Survey After Long Process

Ask about:

58.380Resolution

A service ticket marked closed may not feel resolved.

58.381Closure Confirmation

Where appropriate:

Ask resident:

Does this address your issue?

58.382Resident Does Not Control Technical Completion

If pothole is repaired:

It can be complete even if resident wanted:

58.383Explain Scope

Important.

58.384Dissatisfaction After Proper Closure

Still record.

But do not reopen endlessly without new issue.

58.385Reopen Rate

Section 46.

58.386Satisfaction and Complaints

Both should be reviewed together.

58.387High Satisfaction, High Complaints

Investigate.

58.388Low Satisfaction, Few Complaints

Maybe residents gave up.

Investigate.

58.389Low Survey Response

Could mean:

Do not automatically interpret as satisfaction.

58.390High Survey Response

Can mean:

Not success alone.

58.391Response Rate Target

Use realistic methodology.

58.392Do Not Bribe Response

Incentives should remain modest.

58.393Resident Panel

A standing voluntary resident panel could provide ongoing feedback.

58.394Panel Risk

Over time it may become:

58.395Refresh

Rotate or replenish.

58.396Panel Is Not Council

It provides:

58.397Panel Is Not Strong Vote

Keep tools separate.

58.398Panel Privacy

Do not create political profiles.

58.399Panel Compensation

If asking for significant recurring research participation:

Small compensation may be appropriate.

58.400No Access for Campaign

Strict firewall.

58.401Resident Pulse Public Meeting

Annual results could be discussed publicly.

58.402Do Not Stage Praise Session

Discuss:

58.403Department Response

Each major low-scoring area should explain:

58.404Council Response

Council may address policy issues.

58.405City Manager Response

Administration addresses operational issues.

58.406Do Not Micromanage From Survey

One complaint theme does not require:

Use proper governance.

58.407Annual Resident Experience Report

Publish:

methodology

full core results

service results

key themes

objective cross-check

actions taken

unresolved issues

58.408Previous Year

Show comparison where valid.

58.409Four-Year Trend

Show.

58.410Methodology Break

Flag visibly.

58.411Data Confidence

Possible labels:

High

Moderate

Low

Not Comparable

58.412Confidence Is About Measurement

Not resident credibility.

58.413Small Sample

Use:

Low confidence / indicative only.

58.414No Fake Precision

Do not report:

63.742% satisfaction

from a small open survey.

58.415Rounding

Use sensible precision.

58.416Qualitative Result

Sometimes:

recurring concern

is better than a false percentage.

58.417Annual Comparison Table

MeasureYear 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Trend

Only where method remains comparable.

58.418Service Experience Table

MeasureBaselineCurrentDirectionStatus

Possible:

58.419Channel Table

ChannelSatisfactionResolutionRepeat ContactResponse Count

58.420Department Table

Where sample sizes support it:

ServiceProcess SatisfactionOutcome SatisfactionClarityRespectResponse Count

58.421Complaint Table

MeasureCurrentTrend

Possible:

58.422Public Information Table

MeasureCurrentTrend

Possible:

58.423No Wrong Door Table

MeasureCurrent

Possible:

58.424Fairness Table

Possible questions:

treated respectfully

process was fair

similar cases treated similarly

safe to criticize

58.425Traffic Lights

Green

Strong and stable resident experience under published criteria.

Amber

Material dissatisfaction or declining trend requiring review.

Red

Persistent significant service-experience failure.

Grey

Insufficient data or methodology not comparable.

58.426No Green From Small Sample

A service with:

should not receive a confident city-wide Green.

58.427Grey for Low Evidence

Appropriate.

58.428Red Is Not Staff Punishment

It means:

58.429Green Is Not Victory Lap

Continue monitoring.

58.430Status Thresholds

Publish before seeing the current-year result.

58.431Do Not Move Thresholds

Do not change Amber to Green because:

58.432Anti-Gaming Rule One

Do not ask political approval questions in a municipal service survey.

58.433Anti-Gaming Rule Two

Do not call policy support:

58.434Anti-Gaming Rule Three

Do not call a self-selected online survey representative of all residents.

58.435Anti-Gaming Rule Four

Do not publish a margin of error for a methodology that does not support one.

58.436Anti-Gaming Rule Five

Do not hide sample size.

58.437Anti-Gaming Rule Six

Do not change question wording without disclosing the break in trend.

58.438Anti-Gaming Rule Seven

Do not remove neutral or "do not know" responses to improve the positive percentage without disclosure.

58.439Anti-Gaming Rule Eight

Do not combine outcome satisfaction and process satisfaction into one number where the distinction matters.

58.440Anti-Gaming Rule Nine

Do not survey only people who received approvals.

58.441Anti-Gaming Rule Ten

Do not exclude complainants because they are likely to rate the City poorly.

58.442Anti-Gaming Rule Eleven

Do not over-sample City newsletter subscribers and present them as the whole community.

58.443Anti-Gaming Rule Twelve

Do not count social-media likes as satisfaction.

58.444Anti-Gaming Rule Thirteen

Do not count attendance as satisfaction.

58.445Anti-Gaming Rule Fourteen

Do not count low complaint volume as high satisfaction automatically.

58.446Anti-Gaming Rule Fifteen

Do not count high complaint volume as failure automatically if reporting access improved.

58.447Anti-Gaming Rule Sixteen

Do not discard negative responses simply because language is harsh.

58.448Anti-Gaming Rule Seventeen

Do not publish only favourable survey comments.

58.449Anti-Gaming Rule Eighteen

Do not use AI sentiment classification to remove inconvenient criticism.

58.450Anti-Gaming Rule Nineteen

Do not classify residents politically from their comments.

58.451Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty

Do not use satisfaction responses for campaign targeting.

58.452Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-One

Do not move the annual survey date to a politically favourable period.

58.453Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Two

Do not delay an unfavourable survey until after an election.

58.454Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Three

Do not accelerate a favourable survey for campaign use.

58.455Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Four

Do not change scoring thresholds after seeing the results.

58.456Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Five

Do not lower the baseline retrospectively to manufacture improvement.

58.457Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Six

Do not count survey invitations as participation.

58.458Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Seven

Do not count incomplete surveys as completed responses without clearly defined methodology.

58.459Anti-Gaming Rule Twenty-Eight

Do not double-count the same satisfaction result across several Scorecards.

58.460Election-Year Integrity

The Year Four satisfaction measurement should use:

58.461Independent Release

For the final city-wide survey:

Results should be released according to:

58.462No Mayor Preview for Spin

Where an independent research process is used:

Avoid giving political leadership privileged early access solely for:

Administrative factual review can still occur where necessary.

58.463Factual Check

Correct:

Do not rewrite:

58.464Full Release

Publish complete top-line results.

58.465Campaign Use

Candidates may discuss public results after release.

Official City channels remain:

58.466No Official Victory Advertisement

City communication should not say:

Residents approve of our leadership.

58.467No Official Defensive Advertisement

Likewise:

Ignore the survey because critics organized against us.

58.468Methodological Criticism

If there is a real methodological problem:

Explain with evidence.

58.469Survey Error

If discovered:

Correct openly.

58.470Baseline

Year One should establish:

58.471Baseline Before Target

Do not invent aggressive satisfaction targets before:

58.472Year One Objective

Measure honestly and identify the largest resident-experience barriers.

58.473Year Two Objective

Improve:

58.474Year Three Objective

Focus on persistent low-performing services and institutional consistency.

58.475Year Four Objective

Publish the full four-year trend using the same methodology and explain both improvement and dissatisfaction.

58.476Four-Year Core Measures

Strong candidates:

58.477Do Not Promise Universal Satisfaction

Government will make decisions some residents:

The goal is:

government.

58.478What a Strong Result Means

Not:

everyone agreed.

It means:

residents generally understood the process, received respectful treatment and could see what happened next.

58.479Four-Year Satisfaction Audit

At term end publish:

Resident Pulse methodology

Response count

Core satisfaction trend

Process satisfaction

Outcome satisfaction

Clarity

Respect

Follow-up

Resolution

Fairness

Information confidence

No Wrong Door

Digital channel

Phone channel

In-person channel

Accessibility

Business experience

Complaint experience

Major positive themes

Major negative themes

Actions taken

Persistent problems

Methodology changes

Major unresolved resident-experience issues

58.480Name the Biggest Satisfaction Improvement

Use evidence.

58.481Name the Largest Decline

Do not hide it.

58.482Name the Service With the Best Improvement

58.483Name the Service With the Largest Persistent Problem

58.484Name the Largest Clarity Improvement

58.485Name the Most Common Confusion That Remains

58.486Name the Strongest Follow-Up Improvement

58.487Name the Largest Follow-Up Failure

58.488Name the Biggest No Wrong Door Improvement

58.489Name the Government-Handoff Problem Still Frustrating Residents

58.490Name the Strongest Digital-Service Improvement

58.491Name the Biggest Non-Digital Access Problem

58.492Name the Strongest Accessibility Experience Improvement

58.493Name the Service Where Outcome Dissatisfaction Was High but Process Satisfaction Remained Strong

That can demonstrate:

58.494Name the Service Where Outcome Satisfaction Was High but Process Satisfaction Was Weak

That can reveal hidden:

58.495Name a Survey Question That Was Removed or Changed

Explain why.

58.496Name a Survey Finding That Changed a City Process

58.497Name a Survey Finding the City Did Not Act On

Explain why.

58.498Name the Largest Resident-Experience Liability Being Handed to the Next Council

58.499Ease Test

Ask:

Can residents find the right service without understanding the City's organizational chart?

58.500Clarity Test

Ask:

Do residents understand what is required, what happened and what comes next?

58.501Respect Test

Ask:

Are residents treated respectfully even when they are angry, critical or unsuccessful?

58.502Staff Safety Test

Ask:

Can the City protect staff from threats and harassment without labelling ordinary criticism abusive?

58.503Resolution Test

Ask:

Do residents reach a real conclusion rather than an endless chain of acknowledgements?

58.504Follow-Up Test

Ask:

When City staff promise a next step, does it happen?

58.505Fairness Test

Ask:

Can residents disagree with the decision and still believe the process was fair?

58.506Equal Treatment Test

Ask:

Do residents believe similar circumstances receive similar treatment?

58.507Information Test

Ask:

Do residents trust official City information because it is current, sourced and corrected when wrong?

58.508Digital Test

Ask:

Can residents complete online tasks easily without unnecessary tracking or complexity?

58.509Non-Digital Test

Ask:

Can residents who prefer phone, paper or in-person service still obtain essential municipal service reasonably?

58.510Accessibility Test

Ask:

Are residents with accessibility needs experiencing fewer barriers?

58.511Business Test

Ask:

Can a business understand municipal requirements early enough to make informed decisions?

58.512Complaint Test

Ask:

Can a resident challenge City service through a clear process and receive an explanation?

58.513Participation Test

Ask:

When residents participate in consultation, can they see how their input was considered?

58.514Criticism Test

Ask:

Can someone openly criticize the Mayor or Council and still receive the same municipal service?

The answer must be:

Yes.

58.515Privacy Test

Ask:

Can residents provide feedback without becoming part of a political or behavioural profile?

58.516Methodology Test

Ask:

Would an independent researcher understand exactly how the satisfaction result was produced?

58.517Election Test

Ask:

Would the same survey have been run, scored and published if the result hurt the incumbent?

58.518Institution Test

Ask:

Would the measurement system continue unchanged if a completely different Mayor took office tomorrow?

It should.

58.519What Success Looks Like

Satisfaction success does not mean:

Success means:

58.520What Failure Looks Like

Failure includes:

58.521The Satisfaction Scorecard Commitment

Owen Sound should commit to:

Measure resident experience without turning municipal government into a popularity contest.

Keep satisfaction with political leadership separate from institutional service measurement.

Keep policy consultation separate from service satisfaction wherever practical.

Distinguish satisfaction with the outcome from satisfaction with the process.

Ask whether residents understood the decision even where they disagreed.

Ask whether residents felt the process was fair.

Measure respect, clarity, next-step understanding, resolution and follow-up.

Measure ease of finding the right service.

Measure whether City information was understandable and useful.

Use transactional surveys only where they can improve an actual service.

Keep transactional surveys short.

Do not survey residents so often that feedback becomes a burden.

Use a stable Resident Pulse for broader City-wide experience.

Keep recent service experience separate from general community perception.

Include residents who have not recently contacted City Hall through broader measurement where appropriate.

Always provide Not Used or Do Not Know options when respondents may lack experience with a service.

Use stable response scales.

Do not change measurement scales casually when trend comparison matters.

Keep core question wording stable over time.

Disclose any change that breaks comparability.

Avoid leading and loaded questions.

Ask one main concept at a time.

Do not ask questions nobody intends to act upon.

Give every major satisfaction measure an administrative owner.

Understand in advance what action could follow a poor result.

Distinguish communication failure, service failure and policy disagreement.

Do not pretend better communication automatically resolves genuine policy disagreement.

Use stable questions about service access, clarity, respect, follow-up, fairness and reliability.

Measure whether residents feel free to criticize the City without receiving different treatment.

Never ask political-party or candidate preference for municipal satisfaction analytics.

Never segment municipal service satisfaction by political support.

Allow anonymous feedback where practical.

Collect only limited voluntary demographic information where it genuinely helps identify access gaps.

Do not collect exact home addresses for ordinary city-wide satisfaction research without a compelling reason.

Protect small demographic and geographic groups from re-identification.

Ask about accessibility barriers rather than medical diagnoses.

Tell residents how survey information will be used.

Keep satisfaction data completely outside campaign systems.

Do not subscribe survey respondents to unrelated communications without separate consent.

Allow anonymous feedback while separately offering optional follow-up.

Make clear that a survey is not a substitute for a formal service request or complaint.

Provide the proper route when a resident needs action rather than merely feedback.

Measure the complaint process separately from whether the resident liked the final decision.

Do not replace statutory appeals or legal review with customer satisfaction.

Evaluate enforcement through fairness, clarity and respect rather than whether the person enjoyed being enforced against.

Measure permit and planning experience through clarity, predictability and early identification of issues.

Recognize that an early clear No can be better service than months of uncertainty.

Measure Start-Up Desk experience according to whether businesses understood what was possible before major investment.

Do not equate permit approval with business satisfaction.

Give each major resident-facing service only the resident-experience measures it actually needs.

Do not survey traumatic emergency interactions merely to fill a dashboard.

Respect proper police, fire and emergency governance in satisfaction research.

Cross-reference recreation, youth, accessibility, privacy, safety and partnership satisfaction rather than duplicating counts.

Do not double-count the same resident-experience outcome across Scorecards.

Label open surveys as open surveys.

Never describe self-selected respondents as representing all Owen Sound residents.

State "respondents to this survey" when that is what the evidence supports.

Use scientifically designed samples for representative city-wide conclusions where Council decides the value justifies the cost.

Publish a margin of error only when the methodology legitimately supports one.

Always publish sample size.

Publish response rate where known and meaningful.

Explain the sampling frame for representative research.

Disclose weighting methods where weighting is used.

Do not pretend weighting eliminates every form of response bias.

Avoid statistical jargon designed to make weak data appear stronger than it is.

Use independent administration for major city-wide surveys where it materially improves credibility.

Do not require expensive outside research for every small service survey.

Keep annual city-wide measurement on a stable schedule.

Do not move the survey immediately before an election for political advantage.

Use comparable seasonal timing where seasonal services are being measured.

Disclose major events that may affect resident perceptions.

Do not delay fieldwork because City leadership expects a negative result.

Use multiple survey channels where representation or accessibility requires them.

Do not rely on social media as a representative survey sample.

Do not rely on QR codes as the only survey route.

Do not make survey completion a condition of ordinary municipal service.

Use incentives carefully and disclose them.

Separate prize-draw contact details from survey answers where practical.

Make surveys accessible.

Use clear language and reasonable survey length.

Maintain a stable core of questions and use rotating modules for temporary issues.

Publish survey questionnaires and methodology for significant annual research.

Publish the full distribution of major answers rather than selected positive percentages.

Show neutral and Do Not Know responses.

Define any Top-Two, Bottom-Two, mean or net satisfaction measure clearly.

Do not use commercial Net Promoter Score merely because it is fashionable.

Measure whether residents can accomplish municipal tasks rather than whether they would "recommend City Hall."

Do not promise universal satisfaction.

Set high expectations for respectful treatment even where service outcomes may be unpopular.

Protect staff from threats and harassment without treating ordinary criticism as misconduct.

Do not publicly rank individual employees by satisfaction score.

Use team and service results for operational improvement.

Protect small teams from identifiable public ranking.

Do not make frontline staff solely responsible for systemic failures created by policy, staffing or software.

Use free-text comments to identify root causes, not to create political sentiment profiles.

Use AI for comment theme analysis only with appropriate privacy protections and human review.

Do not let automated sentiment analysis erase sarcasm, nuance or important minority concerns.

Do not classify residents as supporters or opponents from municipal feedback.

Publish survey themes fairly rather than selecting only praise.

Protect identifiable information in public comment reporting.

Moderate threats and personal information without hiding legitimate criticism.

Release de-identified survey data only where re-identification risk is appropriately controlled.

Keep optional follow-up contact information separate from analytical survey data where practical.

Compare departments carefully because different services have different levels of complexity and enforcement.

Use universal process dimensions such as clarity, respect and follow-up for cross-service comparison.

Keep service-specific outcome measures service-specific.

Measure online, phone and in-person channels where each is relevant.

Ask whether residents could complete a website task rather than whether they liked the website's appearance.

Use privacy-respecting digital analytics.

Do not use invasive session replay simply to improve satisfaction analysis.

Measure phone experience through routing, clarity and resolution.

Measure in-person service through access, waiting, privacy, respect and completion.

Do not use satisfaction alone as proof of legal accessibility.

Measure senior preferences rather than assuming all seniors prefer one service channel.

Treat youth responses as substantive resident feedback.

Measure business experience through predictability and early clarity because municipal uncertainty can create direct financial cost.

Do not limit resident satisfaction research to property owners.

Include renters and other residents fairly.

Do not treat length of residence as a measure of whose opinion matters more.

Keep visitor experience separate from resident satisfaction where needed.

Use broad geographic analysis only where sample size supports it.

Investigate geographic differences rather than automatically assuming unequal spending is the solution.

Interpret satisfaction together with objective service conditions.

Recognize that expectations can affect satisfaction without using expectations as an excuse for poor service.

Use comparable external municipal benchmarks only when methods are sufficiently similar.

Prioritize Owen Sound's own trend over vanity benchmarking.

Publish survey limitations honestly.

Recognize nonresponse and self-selection bias.

Do not pretend online-only surveys represent residents without strong digital access.

Do not mistake festival, recreation-facility or complaint samples for the whole City.

Do not treat newsletter subscribers, social-media followers or Strong Vote participants as a representative sample automatically.

Use representative research periodically where the public value justifies its cost.

Publish the complete cost of major survey research.

Use procurement for external research firms.

Maintain strong separation between campaign pollsters and municipal satisfaction research where conflicts may arise.

Protect municipal survey data from vendor commercial reuse.

Define ownership, retention and deletion of raw survey data in contracts.

For high-stakes city-wide research, consider publishing core questions, scoring and field dates before data collection begins.

Do not change questions in response to early results.

Do not selectively brief political leadership on live partial results for messaging advantage.

Allow appropriate administrative factual review without rewriting unfavourable findings.

Keep official communications from attempting to influence residents while a formal satisfaction survey is actively measuring that service beyond normal operational communication.

Publish survey windows and exclusion rules.

Use proportionate duplicate-response and bot controls without requiring universal digital identity.

Investigate genuine manipulation while remembering that negative answers are not fraud.

Publish material exclusions when data is removed.

Use satisfaction results to improve service rather than shame employees.

Review recurring themes on a regular schedule.

For every material dissatisfaction theme, compare resident experience with objective service data.

Assign a responsible owner and next action.

Explain when no operational change will be made because law, cost or public policy supports the existing approach.

Remember that satisfaction is an input to government, not a veto over lawful democratic decisions.

Do not allow popularity to override rights, public safety or long-term stewardship.

Measure whether difficult decisions were explained clearly and honestly.

Use institutional reliability questions rather than broad political trust questions where possible.

Measure confidence in the accuracy of official City information.

Measure whether residents believe similar cases are treated similarly.

Measure whether residents feel free to criticize City leadership without service consequences.

Measure whether consultation processes explain how public input influenced the final decision.

Do not use consultation satisfaction as a test of whether a resident's preferred option won.

Evaluate Council participation through clarity, access and respect rather than political agreement.

Do not treat newsletter opens, social likes, website traffic, event attendance or press coverage as resident satisfaction.

Use structured measurement rather than anecdotal praise or anger.

Measure how effectively the City recovers after service failures.

Correct billing, information and administrative errors promptly.

Use straightforward apologies where the City made a real mistake and an apology is appropriate.

Do not let apology replace root-cause correction.

Pay particular attention to repeated service failures.

Consider resident time and repeated contacts as part of the service experience.

Reduce unnecessary repetition of documents and explanations across departments while preserving privacy.

Do not solve coordination by building a giant resident dossier.

Recognize that uncertainty can be more frustrating than a known delay.

Measure predictability.

Track whether promised follow-up dates are actually met.

Tell residents when a promised date must change rather than allowing the deadline to pass silently.

Use meaningful status updates for long-running files.

Distinguish technical completion from whether a resident wanted a larger scope of work.

Explain closure clearly.

Review satisfaction together with complaint, repeat-contact and reopening data.

Do not interpret low survey participation as proof of satisfaction.

Do not interpret high participation as proof of success.

Use resident panels only as one feedback mechanism and refresh them periodically.

Never use resident-panel membership for campaign access or political profiling.

Discuss annual Resident Pulse findings publicly, including negative results.

Require departments with significant resident-experience problems to explain the issue and response.

Maintain the distinction between Council policy responsibility and administration's operational responsibility.

Publish an Annual Resident Experience Report.

Show valid year-to-year and four-year trends.

Flag breaks in methodology.

Use data-confidence labels where sample strength varies.

Never present false precision from small or weak surveys.

Use qualitative findings where a numerical estimate would be misleading.

Publish Service Experience, Channel, Department, Complaint, Public Information, No Wrong Door and Fairness tables where data supports them.

Use Green, Amber, Red and Grey with thresholds established before the result is known.

Do not mark tiny samples Green or Red with false confidence.

Do not treat Red as public punishment of staff.

Do not change status thresholds after results arrive.

Never put political approval questions into a municipal service score.

Never describe policy support as service satisfaction.

Never present self-selected polling as a statistically representative community result.

Never publish unsupported margins of error.

Never hide sample size.

Never change questions silently.

Never manipulate positive percentages by removing neutral or Do Not Know responses without disclosure.

Never combine process and outcome satisfaction when doing so hides a meaningful difference.

Never survey only residents who received approvals.

Never exclude complainants because they may lower the score.

Never treat City communications audiences as a representative sample automatically.

Never use social-media engagement as satisfaction evidence by itself.

Never treat low complaints as proof of satisfaction or high complaints as proof of failure without context.

Never discard harsh criticism merely because it is uncomfortable.

Never publish only favourable comments.

Never use AI to classify residents politically.

Never use satisfaction data for campaign targeting.

Never move survey dates for election advantage.

Never change scoring rules after seeing the result.

Never rewrite the baseline retrospectively to create an artificial improvement.

Never count survey invitations as responses.

Never double-count satisfaction results across several final Scorecards.

Use Year One to establish the Resident Pulse, transactional standards, methodology, privacy protections and baseline.

Use Year Two to improve clarity, routing, follow-up and reliability.

Use Year Three to focus on persistent low-performing services and inconsistent resident experiences.

Use Year Four to publish the complete four-year record using the same core method.

Publish the full Four-Year Satisfaction Audit.

Name the biggest satisfaction improvement.

Name the largest decline.

Name the service that improved most and the service with the most persistent problem.

Name the largest improvement in clarity, follow-up and No Wrong Door performance.

Name the largest unresolved digital, non-digital and accessibility experience barriers.

Name cases where process satisfaction remained strong despite unpopular outcomes.

Name cases where residents received favourable outcomes but still experienced poor administration.

Name survey questions that changed and explain why.

Name resident feedback that directly changed City operations.

Name feedback the City deliberately did not act upon and explain the public reason.

Name the largest resident-experience liability being handed to the next Council.

Judge the final record by whether residents experienced City government as easier to navigate, clearer, more reliable, more respectful and fairer, even when they disagreed with the decision.

A strong Satisfaction Scorecard should let a resident say:

I knew where to go.

I knew what information I needed.

I knew what would happen next.

I was treated respectfully.

I did not have to tell the same story five times.

When the City promised to call me, it called me.

When the City was wrong, it corrected the mistake.

When the answer was no, someone explained why.

I could disagree with the Mayor and still receive exactly the same service.

I could give negative feedback without becoming a political target.

I could use the phone instead of an app if I needed to.

I could see that my feedback sometimes changed things.

When it did not change the decision, the City explained why.

That is more meaningful than asking whether residents:

like City Hall.

The standard for municipal government should be higher than popularity and more durable than approval ratings.

Residents do not need to agree with every decision.

They should be able to expect:

Measure the experience, not the politician. Separate disagreement from bad service. Ask stable questions. Publish the sample. Protect criticism. Fix recurring problems. Keep the methodology the same when the results become inconvenient.

← Chapter 57: Partnership: The Public Partnership ScorecardChapter 59: Completed: The Public Commitments Completion Scorecard →