Under the proportionate voting system used in local government elections in NSW, all electors have only one primary vote and optional preferential votes that are only distributed if the candidate receiving the primary vote receives a “quota” or is eliminated.

A quota is the number of valid votes received divided by one more than the number of positions to be filled, plus one.

If a candidate receives, for example 20 votes more than a Quota, then only the preferences from the 20 surplus votes are distributed to other candidates in the proportions they had receive in his total vote.

Only when the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, are his preferences distributed and so on. When there are only enough candidates left to fill the still vacant positions, they are declared elected.

The primary votes received by these candidates are the only ones counted and the preferences they receive are not distributed.

This system is very complicated and is designed for group and party politics but is chaotic and open to manipulation and abuse when applied to elections comprising predominantly individual, independent candidates.

Let’s keep our council elections simple and honest. Vote NO on Saturday. 

The misinformation which the current Councillor election campaign has generated is quite exceptional, and reveals major shortcomings in some of the nominees' perception of the facts.

Councillor Toni Hull's letter to the 'Star' last week pointed out some of the fallacies in claims made by some Councillor nominees, and numerous other statements have been made which urgently need correction.

For instance the claim that (quote) "No pensioner discount will be available on rates in the future" is pure scaremongering.

The independent state body IPART is currently reviewing the Local Government Rating System, and one of numerous proposals under consideration is a review of the pensioner rates rebates system, with the possibility of an alternative system of subsidising the cost of pensioners' rates.

This has nothing to do with Council or (prospective) councillors.

With regard to the occupancy of our shire's Visitors Information Centre, on 24th June 2015 Council resolved "that Council renews the Licence Agreement for 1 year" (for the Tenterfield & District Visitors Association to run the Centre - Item NM9/15).

Six weeks later on 8th August it was announced that the Mayor and General Manager had signed and sealed the licence agreement, but the TDVA had declined to sign, and had given notice that they had decided to vacate the VIC premises on 31st July.(item GMO73/15), which they did, leaving the premises stripped bare. 

Since then the VIC has remained open 7 days a week, and if anyone wonders how well it is operating, just look inside and see the extensive display of information, brochures and local produce which has since been installed, and read the numerous comments in the visitors book, which are overwhelmingly complementary of the service provided.

Over the past year there has been noted an increase in visitor numbers, and website visitors have increased by 39 per cent (Item ENV43/16), and many more local businesses are appreciating the support of an Information Centre which serves the whole shire impartially. 

As for the running costs, the claim that some Councillors have allowed the real costs to be obscured is not true. Council's Director of Corporate Services declared in an official document (Item ENV 45/16) that the costs to Council to run our Visitors Information Centre over the past 12 months was $113,018.72, which was well within budget.

He explained that it was not possible to quantify the value of the time of any senior staff whose duties have always included, amongst many others, the functioning of the VIC.

However a nominee has claimed that the true figure is about three times this amount, ("in excess of $300,000") but so far with no documentary evidence to verify this claim.

Before believing these wild statements, ask to see the figures to support them.

As for reverting to the previous management of the VIC by the TDVA, is the proposer of this move unaware that at a general meeting of the TDVA  held on 4th July this year (over 2 months ago) a motion was moved that (quote) "The TDVA enters into voluntary termination of the TDVA as an organisation, and members authorize the TDVA committee to begin the process of voluntary termination of the TDVA immediately and to complete the process as soon as possible"?

This motion was carried with the support of 90 per cent of the voting members present.  So are the members to be ignored yet again?

Much of the hot air concerning honesty and transparency which we are currently hearing being blown about quickly disperses when someone seeks the evidence behind such electorally-motivated distortions of the facts.