Methodology
The original publishes a methodology page, so this one does too. The difference is that ours says which sentences are opinion, and which accusation it threw out.
The grade scale
Theirs, repurposed. The originals are on their methodology page and worth reading beside these.
| Grade | Theirs, in summary | Ours |
|---|---|---|
| A | Excellent. Strong alignment with coalition standards. | Agrees with whichever member wrote the question. |
| B | Good. Mostly meets coalition standards, some gaps. | Agrees, with a caveat that will not survive the first budget vote. |
| C | Mixed. | Asked a clarifying question about who was marking. |
| F | Poor. | Noticed that the group asking is the group scoring. |
Five rules
Quote, do not characterise
Where a criticism rests on something the original said, the sentence appears in quotation marks with the page it came from, so you can check it in one click.
Label opinion as opinion
Sentences beginning "our view" are argument. Everything else is quoted or sourced. We do not blur the two to make a joke land harder.
Aim at structures
Fourteen groups, mostly unpaid volunteers. The design turns out predetermined grades whether or not anyone intends it to, which is the whole argument.
Name only public actors
Elected councillors and declared candidates are named, because they asked for the job. Private individuals and contractors are not, including the designer credited on the original site, who drew a logo and has nothing to do with any of this.
Publish the retraction terms
Three disclosures would end this site: name the graders, publish the share of donations received under $99, and score incumbents on their votes. That offer is on the scorecard.
What we refused to claim
The brief was to show the coalition is propped up by a real estate developer lobby. We looked. It is not there. The roster includes a fiscal restraint watchdog and a police budget campaign, and any claim broad enough to cover those two would have been false about both.
So it is not on the site. What replaced it is smaller and harder to answer. A scorecard built this way cannot be checked by the people it is aimed at. That one has the advantage of being true.
Sources
Primary material is the original site itself. Secondary material, each attributed where it is used:
- The housing partner's 2022 Elections BC Sponsorship Contributions filing, as analysed by CRD Watch on August 24, 2025 and summarised at CityHallWatch on August 25, 2025. Attributed, not asserted independently.
- City of Victoria Governance Review, prepared by MNP LLP, July 18, 2022.
- Times Colonist, August 4, 2023, on the code of conduct amendment.
- Times Colonist and CHEK News, March 2024, on the council pay increase.
- Times Colonist and Victoria News on the Official Community Plan boundary change.
- Reporting of March 5, 2026 on the City withdrawing its development lobby membership.
- Victoria Buzz, August 2026, on partner organizations and the scorecard's partisanship.
- Elections BC third party sponsor register for 2026.