EDITORIAL: A look at our election coverage

*Our production partners have informed us there have been some technical difficulties with some of the candidate interview videos. We are working to get them up as soon as possible.

The Rio Rancho Observer has been busy, since the municipal candidate filings were finalized, inviting and sitting down with city council candidates and asking a series of questions regarding the issues Rio Rancho faces.

This year, those interviews have been done in a new format. Candidates that accepted our invitation were interviewed in our company’s new podcast booth, and those interviews will be posted to our YouTube page as well as our website, rrobserver.com and posted on Soundcloud for the audio-only version. All the interviews will also be linked directly to rrobserver.com.

We feel this new platform is beneficial in that the readers and viewers get to hear the answers from the candidates directly and in full rather than being filtered through an intermediary.

It is also a way for us to reach a new generation of readers, as the world of podcasts and YouTube is where they live.

In District 1, all candidates accepted our invitation. In District 4, Alexandria Piland declined our invitation. In District 6, we have been working with incumbent Nicole List to coordinate schedules, but nothing firm has been set, and Aleta Suazo never gave a response one way or the other. All the other candidates from Districts 4 and 6 participated.

Each candidate that came in to be interviewed was asked the following questions:

• One of the reasons people move into Rio Rancho is due to its lower crime rate. Even so, Rio Rancho faces issues with crime, including theft, drugs and occasionally murder. How should the city work to eradicate those issues?

• What type of business would you like to see moving into Rio Rancho and how would we get them here? What is the plan to attract more diverse businesses to the city?

• What are your thoughts on the proposed LNG facility in Rio Rancho and how do you think it will impact the city and its residents?

• The city and county have called on the legislature to impose more restrictive open records laws. Residents, including staff at the Observer, have called for more transparency in the past. Where do you stand?

• Do you feel like the current city council handled the call to remove LGBTQIA-themed books from the city’s public libraries in the appropriate manner? Would you have responded differently?

• Roads have been a continuing issue in Rio Rancho. Do you think the city is taking the right approach to scheduling repairs and replacements and what, if any, changes do you think need to be made in the process?

• Pedestrian safety has been brought the forefront of concerns in recent months. What steps can be taken to improve that?

• One of the candidates has stated this is one of the most important elections Rio Rancho has had. Do you agree with that and why?

• What are the biggest challenges currently facing the city?

• Do you think the city is moving in the right direction and why?

• Is there anything else you would like to discuss that we haven’t touched on yet?

Additionally, Mayor Gregg Hull sat down with us to discuss the three bond issues on the ballot: a $10.6 million general obligation bond for roads; a $4.2 million general obligation bond for public safety; and a $1.2 million general obligation bond for quality-of-life facilities.

That interview is also available on the same platforms as the candidate interviews.

We also want to clarify some points in this election cycle as well. A few readers in recent Letters to the Editor have called the Observer out for publishing letters in support of specific candidates, stating that in past elections, such letters were not allowed.

Since the previous municipal election, there have been some changes in management, including editor, at the Observer, and this policy was never made clear in the passing of the torch. However, it is the opinion of the current editor, Tracy Goldizen, and senior vice president/COO Rod Arnold that the community has a right to voice their opinions and that the Observer’s Letters to the Editor section is a vital community forum to that end. Therefore, we have freely allowed all letters regarding the municipal election to run. However, any letters that contain profanity or are potentially libelous will not run. We also ask that letters do not exceed 400 words.

Letters must also be signed by the author with their town of residence and phone number, which is only used for the verification process.

We take our duty of remaining politically neutral seriously, so let us also address another point that was alleged in a reader response implying letters have only been published in support of candidates on one side of the aisle: All letters that have been received and verified regarding the election to date have run. Additionally, all candidates received the same invitation to sit down with us. They were all asked the same questions.

There is one more rumor we wish to address: We have not made any candidate endorsements in this election cycle. If you would like to see one, here it is: Get out and vote March 5 (or during early/absentee voting).