Let’s talk about transparency and not target individuals

The City of Rio Rancho would like to respond to two recent editorials written by the media and representatives of the media related to transparency.

Transparency is essential in both good government and responsible journalism. The recent editorials from the media-funded NM Foundation of Open Government (FOG) and the ACLU, as well as the Rio Rancho Observer, present concerns, but fail to provide full context. Ironically, while calling for more transparency, these editorials obscure a larger picture of what transparency truly requires and omitted relevant information.

For years, both FOG and Observer have expressed frustration with the City’s approach to sharing information and news coverage, and the frustration is mutual. The City has made continued efforts to correct inaccuracies, provide clarifications, and comply with public records law, but these efforts are often misinterpreted or ignored in favor of framing the City as uncooperative.

The interview request for a special program cited by FOG, from nearly two years ago, failed to mention that an interview had been conducted, and an alternative interview option was proposed yet rejected when a second interview request was made. Further, the questions posed were speculative and/or could be easily answered through basic journalistic research. It’s not the City’s responsibility to do reporters’ research. This was not a transparency issue; it was about journalistic diligence.

Moreover, an editorial cites the City’s efforts to correct factual errors as evidence of attempts to control the narrative. Let’s set the record straight: providing corrections to inaccurate stories and asking questions is not an attempt to dictate how the news is covered, but rather an attempt to ensure that coverage is accurate and fair.

On the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), the editorials suggest the City is deliberately withholding information. The City constantly responds to numerous media inquiries ranging from basic questions to requests for interviews in a timely manner and refers journalists to IPRA for certain information and source documents. While it does require staff time to process the request, it more importantly provides a response process that is fair and consistent across all requesters. After recent complaints from FOG, the Observer, and others, the New Mexico Department of Justice has found no violations in the City’s practices related to IPRA. IPRA requests are processed in the order received, with no priority given to the media over any other group or individual, and permissible response time extension are due to the legal responsibility to ensure that information is accurate, complete, and appropriately redacted, especially when it concerns public safety. We have obligations not only to the requester but also those who appear in the requested documents. The City works diligently to provide broad-based services to thousands every year, fulfilling IPRA requests being just one of those services. Year to date, the City has Received 4,613 IPRA requests since January, up from 881 requests in 2019. The dramatic increase in requests year-over-year has led the City to fund three new positions to process these requests, doubling our staff processing IPRA requests.

What these complaints miss is the City’s ongoing commitment to transparency and public trust. Recently, Rio Rancho was recognized as a top performer nationwide for trust in government based on the results of a biennial citizen survey. This reflects the City’s dedication to transparency, accountability, and building trust with the public.

Transparency is a shared responsibility and isn’t just about providing information on demand; it’s about responsible dialogue and working within the law to ensure accuracy.

Just because a journalist disagrees with the format or timeline for information doesn’t mean transparency is violated. This issue deserves a broader scope, without personal attacks, that presents a full picture rather than a handful of cherry-picked interactions.

Lastly, it is worth noting that one editorial totaled 591 words and the other totaled 1,818 words. The City, like those who are not members of the media, is limited to only 300-500 words for publication. Because of these restrictions, this response did not provide all the details nor the full background for this important issue. At nearly 700 words, we anticipate that this letter, as submitted, may be shortened for space considerations.