Clarence Valley Council has released the list of nominees for the 2026 Citizen of the Year Awards, but the announcement has sparked immediate concern after it became clear that the winners will now be decided through public voting rather than a merit based judging process. A program once centred on service, integrity and genuine contribution now risks being reduced to a popularity contest.
Voting opened the moment nominees were announced, yet the information provided by Council offered very little detail about how each nominee met the official criteria. Traditionally, the awards highlight community impact, voluntary service and long term contribution. This year, the public was presented with names but almost no context, making it difficult for residents to make informed choices about who genuinely meets the spirit and purpose of the awards.
The flaws in the new voting system have also become immediately apparent. The public can vote as many times as they like, with no limit or verification process in place. This creates a system that can be heavily influenced by anyone with a large online following, a motivated support base or simply the time to repeatedly vote. It undermines fairness and opens the door to vote stacking, coordinated campaigns and outcomes driven more by visibility than contribution.
Another issue is the presence of nominees listed in more than one category. Under the current rules, the same person could win multiple awards simply because their name appears several times and supporters can repeatedly vote across categories. It skews the playing field and risks overshadowing nominees whose work is significant but quieter.
This shift sits at odds with Council’s longstanding principles, which state that the number of nominations should not influence results and that awards should recognise meaningful service beyond self promotion. By offering minimal information about the nominees and relying on unlimited public voting, Council has created a process that is easily swayed and disconnected from the values the awards were built on.
For many in the Clarence Valley, these awards have always honoured the people who do the work without seeking recognition. Volunteers who stay late, show up early and contribute to the community year after year with no expectation of applause. Moving to a popularity driven model risks sidelining these individuals and diluting the integrity of the awards.
Community involvement is important, but it must be balanced with structure and fairness. This new approach feels rushed, unclear and open to manipulation. With voting already underway, residents are left wondering if genuine service will still be recognised or if the awards will now be decided by who can generate the most clicks.
Add comment
Comments