(Last Updated 11/11/05)

The Association’s intention to rate candidates was announced in a published press release issued in October and has also been prominently displayed on the MRRA website since 11 October.   The intention to rate the candidates also received ABC radio coverage from Bendigo. 

MRRA’s October press release made it clear that candidates would be measured on what they had and hadn’t done, not whether they were liked.   For example, all current and former councillors were automatically awarded points in recognition of their participation in local government.

The results could be said to reflect how other people see the candidates, which may not be the same as how some candidates may see themselves.  Candidates were measured against a range of criteria.  The end result depended upon opinions about how the candidate was seen to have performed and, at the X Factor, how members felt the candidates could perform as a councillor.  The accumulated, averaged, total points for each candidate determined how many stars were awarded.  The better that candidates were seen to perform against all or most of the criteria, the more points they received (and the fewer they lost), and the more stars they received.  The criteria also included some controversial planning decisions which had been the subject of strong community objection, for example ‘Helensville’ in Gisborne, the North Woodend recycling depot and Kyneton Mechanics Institute issues.  Current and former councillors lost points for supporting those applications – the more applications they supported, the more points they lost.

The criteria against which candidates were measured have been spelt out.  They obviously didn’t address all issues, including other areas where some candidates may have performed strongly.  That’s why MRRA published information about the criteria.  We wanted to make sure the basis for the star ratings – what had and hadn’t been considered – was clear.   People can make up their own minds about (a) whether they think these criteria are important (or more or less important than other issues), and (b) whether they think MRRA’s view is important.

The Association invited all of its members to participate in the assessment of candidates.  Details of ‘who’ and ‘how many’ are considered to be internal Association business, as are the details of what members saw to be candidates’ strengths and weaknesses.

Points, not stars, were awarded.   The number of stars received relates to the number of final points scored.  That is, the stars are the end product of points scored and points lost – a numerical calculation.

We haven’t.  We’ve simply done what anyone does who writes a letter to the editor or puts signs on their car – we’ve expressed a view, and we’ve explained the basis for forming that view.

Not true.  It has been made clear that the view being expressed is that of the Association, and no-one else.

The Association’s adopted policy for any member running as a candidate replicates requirements found at Section 29 (1)(d) and (3) of the Local Government Act, which the Association believes provides a sound and legitimate model for Association policy.  This section states that a member of Council staff is not capable of becoming a Councillor or nominating as a candidate unless the member of Council staff takes leave to stand for election and, if elected, resigns.  Candidate (and MRRA President) Neil Manning gave written notice and took leave (stood down) from the Association in accordance with policy requirements, and took no part in the assessment and rating process.

The star ratings represent the Association’s view, one of many views being put forward in this election.  We don’t agree with comments that the Association is not representative – our members come from all over the Shire and MRRA believes they are a reasonable reflection of the diversity of the wider community.

MRRA is an incorporated association and operates accordingly.  It not only makes regular contact with members, it also maintains and keeps in contact with a large ‘Keep It Rural’ network of non-member residents around the Shire.

The Association created the website as a forum for providing information about issues and expressing its views.  People may well hold a different view to those expressed on the website, but at the end of the day, it is MRRA’s website.

No.  One objective of producing the ratings was to ensure candidates were accountable.  The Association has been keeping an eye on potential candidates for some time, noting their public performances and community activities.  Let’s face it: in an election, candidates usually only put positives and/or promises forward to tempt people to vote for them.  Past mistakes, unpopular decisions and negative actions that have occurred over time usually aren’t a feature of what candidates say about themselves.  But MRRA has noted and remembers poor performances (and the negative effects some of those have had on people’s lives) and thought it would be useful for those things to be part of the electoral information mix so that candidates could be evaluated by voters on their record (what they’ve done), as well as their promises.