Ad
EDITORIAL: FOG, ACLU findings not surprising
Being proponents of transparency and considered “watchdogs” of local government, we read the guest editorial from the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government and the ACLU with great interest this week.
And while not entirely surprising, some of their findings on transparency in Rio Rancho were disheartening.
It’s not the first time we’ve been here with the city. We’ve had our own concerns with them on this issue. And, until recently, it seemed things had gotten better on this front.
But in reviewing their editorial and some of our communications, it’s not just about transparency. There is also a control factor at play.
What really stood out to us from their editorial were the concerns about Deputy City Manager Peter Wells. The experience outlined in their editorial, unfortunately, is not too far off from experiences we have had with Wells and others in the city manager’s office here at the Rio Rancho Observer.
In a January 2025 email where staff writer Michaela Helean reached out to both city administration and then Rio Rancho Fire and Rescue Chief James Defillippo about a lawsuit that had been filed against the chief and the department, Jaley Turpen, communications specialist in the city manager’s office, sent an email Wells was copied on:
“It has come to our attention that you reached out to Chief Defillippo to obtain a response after we provided a response. This approach undermines the protocol we have in place and creates unnecessary confusion. City Administration speaks exclusively on behalf of the organization and those named in the lawsuit. Attempting to seek alternative responses does not change this fact and will not yield any additional information.
“We take this matter seriously and respectfully request that all future inquiries regarding this or similar matters be directed solely to our office.”
That response did not sit well with us, and Observer Editor Tracy Goldizen responded to the city, arguing the rights of the freedom of the press:
“First, reaching out to Chief Defillippo was in no way intended to undermine any previous response from the city. In reality, we simply thought the fair, journalistically responsible and right thing to do was to reach out to the head of the department and one of the people named in the lawsuit and give them a chance to respond as well.
Ad
“Secondly, while we understand the city has and maintains its own policies regarding the press and media, we feel it is within our rights to reach out to public departments and representatives as we feel necessary for whatever story we happen to be working on. The attempts the city has made in recent months to try to tell our reporters who they can reach out to when, in our opinion, comes dangerously close to infringing on the rights of the freedom of the press outlined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“We strive to cover the issues and events of this community in a fair way and take that responsibility to our readers and your taxpayers seriously, and therefore we will continue to ask questions where and when we feel appropriate. We hope the city understands that and continues to work with us for the good of our entire community.”
There was another instance, in September 2024, where Turpen sent emails, again with Wells copied, that came just short of telling us to stop inquiring about breaking news.
“Please be advised that putting in real-time inquiries while the situation is occurring puts a strain on our resources, and if you continue to do this, our ability to respond to you will vary,” Turpen wrote to Helean.
Helean followed up and asked, “What is the best way to properly get this kind of information and also be able to have breaking news for the community? Our goal is to stay current with our news while also respecting the work put in by RRPD and the city. This is the first time I have heard this concern but I would like to go forward with the city and police and the best way possible.”
Turpen then responded:
“Yesterday, we received multiple law enforcement inquiries, based on various sources, from media members very close together to different staff while different situations were occurring. This caused response challenges and inefficiencies for staff.
“City staff’s priority is responding to, assessing and addressing issues and then, providing accurate/confirmed and complete information when available and appropriate. We do not give preference to one media outlet over another and have limited resources available to dedicate to media inquiries.
“Seeking preliminary information for ‘breaking news post content’ for a website in a competition industry/environment, such as yours, always has the potential to create challenges for any local government. Too often, when a local government is not fast enough to meet the wants of a media outlet, unwarranted criticism is levied.
“As you know, local government has its own resources available to use when appropriate and necessary to notify and/or make information available to the public at-large or different impacted segments of the public.”
The last line appeared to refer to the city’s Information of Public Records Act portal, which is the city of Rio Rancho’s preferred method of having us ask for information about an incident. However, as the FOG/ACLU editorial notes, “By requiring journalists to use IPRA, city officials can delay the release of information up to two weeks, and sometimes longer. This cumbersome process interrupts and delays the flow of critical news to Rio Rancho residents.”
However, like we said, for about a year, things seemed to be improving. But within the last few months, concerning emails have been finding their way to our inboxes again from Wells himself.
At 6:47 p.m. Sept. 11 — when Wells was in a governing body meeting — he emailed Goldizen with the subject line “FYI and Correction” regarding a brief on Michael Meek announcing his campaign for mayor. “Meek is term limited as county commissioner per State Constitution …. He was first elected in 2018 and then again in 2022. He is term limited out of county office in December 2026.”
While the body of the text did not state exactly what correction Wells was seeking, it was concerning to us that somebody in his position seemed to be making an effort to influence how a mayoral candidate’s campaign was announced.
Then in October came a note from Wells that gave the appearance of rushing Helean in her coverage on the dispatch center dispute between the city of Rio Rancho and Sandoval County. Helean had been diligently working on talking with city and county officials, looking through past documentation and getting input from other municipalities within the county — all of this around her day-to-day assignments.
He asked if there would “be any follow-up by the Observer” as it had been three weeks since an interview with himself and others from the city.
At that time, Helean noted she was still working on setting up an interview with Mayor Gregg Hull and that she had been spending time reaching out to other sources “aside from the city and county.”
“Respectfully Mr. Wells, we have our own timeline and rules to follow. I want to make sure a story like this isn’t rushed nor done incorrectly,” she wrote.
Goldizen also responded to this inquiry: “If this was not made clear in the meeting you had, I apologize. But this is a deep story that involves multiple agencies and interviews and is taking time to put together on top of the work we have to do on a day-to-day basis. We want to ensure we take all the proper steps in putting it together so therefore can’t be done on a timeline put forth by you or any other agency but rather by when we have the space and time to properly put all the pieces together. I hope you can understand and appreciate that.”
The first part of that series has since been published, with the second piece being worked on as this editorial is being written. However, that was not the end of Wells’ notes on our coverage of the dispatch center.
When County Manager Wayne Johnson announced the county’s center was 911 operational Oct. 22, Wells sent an email the following day requesting a correction on a quote from Johnson.
While we understand he may have had disagreements with the contents of Johnson’s quote, reporters do not change quotes at the request of another person.
Wells then also sent an email Nov. 9 regarding the Project Ranger items on the agenda for the Nov. 13 governing body meeting. It followed a discussion Wells and Goldizen had in prior months, asking for an alert when it was coming up before the city. However, Wells went further than that in his email, writing, “In addition to reviewing the individual document attachments, I highly suggest you click on each item title to review the cover memo associated with each item.”
Goldizen wrote back, “Thank you for alerting us to this meeting. I’ve had it on my calendar since Mr. Kreitz told me that he and other Castelion Corporation members were likely to be back in town for this meeting last month. However, with all due respect, I feel we are fully capable of determining what preparation we need to do for public meetings.”
While it may seem like we come down hard on the city, the truth is they’re the only government entity that we regularly interact with that has given us true concerns about transparency, open records and, now, attempts to control how journalists do their jobs.
We have asked difficult and uncomfortable questions from both Rio Rancho Public Schools and Sandoval County officials. They have never delayed a response without giving a valid reason — not simply “broad and burdensome” — and have even apologized if something has taken longer than expected, though they are almost always quick to respond. They also don’t default to referring us to IPRA.
For RRPS, there was nothing more uncomfortable in our current staff’s time here than covering a Rio Rancho High School baseball player being accused of urinating in the opposing team’s water jug. However, communications officials with the district were willing to answer all questions and understood our role in the community.
We have also followed up with the county on their side of the dispatch dispute and accusations about the process of bringing Project Ranger to Sandoval County — both from residents and concerns brought up in the previously referenced Nov. 13 governing body meeting. However, Johnson and his staff have always given what appear to be full explanations of those concerns in a timely manner.
And, neither of them have ever given us the slight hint that they were telling us what to cover, how to cover it and when to publish it.
