The latest polls for the public’s view of Congress reflect an approval rating hovering around 20%. This is some of the lowest in our country’s history. To put this in perspective, Richard Nixon had a higher rating (24%) upon leaving office after Watergate.

When the public is asked why they view Congress so poorly many indicate that they find the group ineffective and too polarized. Others note that representatives are out of touch with the rest of the country and the people.

Yet, despite these low ratings, 98% of the incumbents in Congress win reelection.

This apparent contradiction where the public has a very low opinion of Congress as a whole yet continues to vote for their own representative is confusing at best. Many may argue that the incumbent wins because they have name recognition, more money for their campaigns and lots of free press coverage that allow them to win.

I might also venture though that many are unable to gauge the performance of their congressperson. Along those lines, maybe we should employ an approach similar to many private and public sector organizations. Seeing that congresspeople often impress upon us that they work for us, maybe we should evaluate them like they were truly our “employees.” If that were the case, we might conduct a regular performance evaluation to see how well they are meeting expectations.

In looking at our current delegation I might offer my observations on several criteria of our House congressional delegation.

Effectiveness: In measuring effectiveness, one looks at how successful the congressperson has been on delivering on their campaign promises, accomplishing specific matters on behalf of their district, obtaining funding and key projects that benefit their district, and their ability to influence other congresspeople to support measures that benefit the districts constituents. In shorthand, this is “Does your representative deliver the goods?” Even while in the minority, 4th Congressional District U.S. Rep. Ken Buck has been able to move several key measures forward and accomplish some strategic objectives for his district. The same can be said for 1st Congressional District U.S. Rep. DeGette, who has been skillful in directing various projects and funding to her district. Both could be viewed as “above average” in their performance for their respective districts under this category.

Leadership: In looking at leadership, there are two areas to consider. First, is the individual viewed highly enough by their peers in the party to be either elected to key leadership positions and/or appointed to powerful committees such as the House Ways and Means Committee? No one in Colorado’s delegation is in House leadership in either party. None are chairs of major Committees or even ranking minority members of committees. Several though are chairs or ranking minority members of subcommittees. The dearth of Colorado representatives in key leadership positions may be attributed to the fact that many of the delegation are relatively new. Seniority remains a major consideration in landing party leadership and key committee positions which works against Colorado’s delegation. Based on the above, one might rank the entire delegation as “satisfactory”.

Interpersonal Relations: In preschool this is how well your child plays with others. In Congress this is how well one works with those in their own and the opposing party to build support for their legislation or views on issues. Some elected officials like 7th Congressional District U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter has worked well with members of both parties which have allowed him to cobble together coalitions on key matters. His prior experience in the Colorado Senate and House helped give him a leg up in this area before he was elected to Congress. In contrast 3rd Congressional District U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, who has a strong following at a national level, has had difficulty working with even members of her own party. To some extent, this may be attributed to inexperience being that this is her first term and she had never held elected office. In the case of Perlmutter, we might grade him as “above average” while Boebert probably rates a “needs improvement”

Communication: 2nd Congressional District U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse appears to be a natural communicator. He comes off well when speaking in committee hearings, engaging the press, or in public meetings. He is likable, approachable and someone who works hard to keep his constituents informed In comparison 5th Congressional District U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, despite serving several terms, struggles in this area and appears uncomfortable in public meetings or speaking to the press. The fact that Lamborn has faced several primary opponents over the years seems to highlight this problem as he has difficulty in communicating to many in his district. Neguse may rate an “outstanding” while Lamborn merits a “needs improvement” score.

While these are important factors in my eyes, the assessment of your congressperson’s job performance should be based one’s own scorecard. For many constituents, the most important factor is constituent support services for VA benefits, Social Security, SBA loans or other federal services or programs. For others the congressperson’s position on specific issues may be paramount.

Unfortunately, if one were grading out Congress, as a whole, the overall lack of progress on key issues and partisan-fomented gridlock could at best be given a “needs improvement” rating. In those cases the employee is given a period of time to improve their performance. For congresspeople, that review happens every two years and you have the power to keep them or fire them.

Greg Fulton, a 40-year Denver resident, is the president of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, which represents over 600 companies directly involved in, and affiliated with trucking in Colorado.

GREG FULTON