Questions Surrounding Aaron Montes' Political Bid

Pretty much everyone in political circles has known that City Reps Cassandra Hernandez and Alexsandra Annello were Aaron Montes' main sources for stories while he covered city council. In fact, they are most of the local media's main sources on stories regarding city hall. 

Leaking information that is damaging to the city, according to sources on council, was the reason that City Rep Hernandez was kicked of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. A seat on the MPO is usually something that is pretty sought-after by members of council. 

Montes has always been tight with Hernandez and there have been repeated rumors that Rep Hernandez's husband-to-be - Jeremy Jordan - is consulting on Montes' campaign. 

The rumors got so loud, I asked him about them directly. He read the message, but he hasn't answered. 

That was weeks ago.  

I'm gonna take his non response as a yes, because if Jordan wasn't consulting on his campaign, Montes likely would've indicated so right away. The fact that he hasn't is probably an indicator that he understands its problematic.

But what is also problematic for the former journalist-turned-candidate, is the fact that he's the first journalist in town I can think of that went from working for a media outlet on a Friday to announcing his candidacy for office - on a beat he actually covered - the following Monday. 

And make no mistake, Montes is running on the fact that he was a journalist. His campaign lit that he leaves on doors is meant to look like a newspaper article. It even says "Breaking News". The fact that he used that to market his campaign got me to thinking about a few things. 

And before I go any further - his supporters on council and the pseudo-"progressives" that follow Republican Max Grossman are going to absolutely lose their mind about this post - but someone has to point out the obvious. 

So let me shed some light on some things that I think are interesting for the electorate to know when they are making their decision on who to vote for in the District 7 race. Montes lived most of his life in District 3, which is represented by his friend and ally Cassandra Hernandez. In the same month he announced his candidacy, he moved into District 7. 

Why? Because he knew he was going to run for City Council. I know that, because I asked him directly when he first announced. I looked up his voting record and his address was listed in District 3, which is why the questions arose. He told me he made the decision to run for council and that is why he moved. 

Montes filed an application to be a candidate on for District 7 on July the 29th. He had a zoom event as he was on his way to go file the paperwork. I have acquired the audio from that meeting and there are some pretty interesting things he says that I'll talk about in another post. 

To underscore just how short of a period of time he has lived in District 7, on his application to be a candidate for District 7 he indicates he's lived in the district for 4 months.

So here is what is problematic about that. 

He was covering city hall as a journalist, after he had made the determination that he was going to run for city council. Anyone who is currently a journalist and reading this knows that is a major problem. I know journalists that won't take a bottled water at something they are covering because they don't want the appearance of a bias in their coverage. They've flat out told me that in their mind, its unethical to even take a bottled water. Others do, because well, its just water and its not going to influence the outcome of their reporting.

But if you are a journalist on an assigned beat and have already made up your mind that you are going to run for a seat, on the very body you are covering, you have no business covering that body anymore. 

I mean that doesn't seem like a terribly difficult conclusion to come to. 

Why? Well obviously because you clearly have an interest at that point. Someone with an interest can shape coverage of issues. Especially when you've had your mind made up to the point where you were considering it (which is when he should've stopped covering city hall) then explored it, then looked for an apartment to rent, then rented the apartment and moved in. That was plenty of time - a rather long period of time in fact- to take yourself off the beat. 

Forget the Republicans undermining journalism - moves like this hurt the profession more than anything else. 

Listen, I don't knock anyone's desire to serve. He's a smart guy and the kind of young leader that would be good on council under a different circumstance. And he's not the first guy to go from news to trying to be a policy maker. County Commissioner David Stout did so as well. 

But Stout wasn't working an assigned news beat and decided to run for office and then continued to cover that beat. In fact, he took some time off before running for Commissioner.  

No newsroom in El Paso would allow that because it would obviously undermine the integrity of their reporting. 

But the fact that he wanted to run, moved to another district to run because he didn't want to run against an ally, and remained in a position to shape public opinion about the very body he wanted to be elected to, is by any measure - problematic. 

That leads me to the second part. I saw someone he's apparently grown up with call him out about running in a different district than the one he grew up with. He tried to diffuse it by saying something along the lines of what do you mean, I've always been an Eastsider... Which is probably true. But, when you are on council you represent 1/8th of El Paso and each district has some pretty distinct needs. 

If you have only lived in the district you want to represent a matter of weeks, not months, before you declare your candidacy to represent that community, don't be surprised when people question your motives and ability to represent them. Its just natural that people will take issue with it. Especially in a community like El Paso where roots are important. 

What I think are the two issues that stick out in my mind that have a common thread...personal ethics. 

Aaron Montes is a trained journalist. He knows that journalist's coverage of a body is part of how the public forms their opinions of the level of government they are covering and the people serving in that capacity. At some point he was faced with the decision of knowing that he made up his mind to run - and he still chose to continue to cover the very same body he knew he wanted to run for. 

The second thing is, Montes fully understands that he doesn't know the community he wants to represent as well as the one he is actually from. Montes knows he only moved into the district after he decided to run to represent the district. 

Think about that for a moment. Regardless of who represents you in any particular level of government right now, at this moment, how do you feel about someone who moved into your area a few weeks ago, wanting to speak for you on matters involving your tax dollars?

I seriously can't think of how many people would be cool with that. I think someone who just showed up to their neighborhood and started calling the shots would probably not be too popular. But that again, is a personal choice. 

At some point he had to have a conversation with himself about whether or not he was really in a position to tell folks that have been long-time homeowners and taxpayers in the district, that he should go to the front of the line and speak on their behalf. 

I checked the USA Today website, which is the parent company of the El Paso Times, to see if they had any kind of written statement on reporting ethics. If you click on this link you can read them. Its pretty clear to me that there are several portions that apply to Montes' decision to be a candidate and still cover the level of government he was going to seek to be elected to. There are 5 sections to that code and I think there are bullets in every portion of the code that are problematic for Montes' candidacy. 

Section 1 of that code covers "Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way" and the first bullet of that section says:

• We will be honest in the way we gather, report and present news - with relevancy, persistence, context, thoroughness, balance, and fairness in mind.

If Montes moved into the District to run, which is clearly indicated on the paperwork he filed to be a candidate and also something he told me on the record, and continued to cover city council (as he did), then people would rightfully question if he was seeking to gather, report and present news with "fairness in mind." 

Any reasonable person would feel there is the appearance of a conflict and would consider that as a reporter he would be uniquely positioned to cover, or not cover, issues at council based not on the public interest, but on Montes' interest. 

Section 2 of that code covers Serving the Public Interest and there is a bullet in that section that reads:

• We will seek solutions as well as expose problems and wrongdoing in order to effect change for the good in the communities we serve.

But knowing you're a candidate for city council while still covering city council undermines the premise of whether the reporting is actually being done in order to effect change for the good of the community. Many people would rightfully question whether that reporting was in fact done to benefit his candidacy. 

Section 3 of that code deals with Exercising Fair Play. I think any objective reading of that code would conclude that the two bullets would be something to consider when assessing Montes' candidacy. 

• We will strive to include all sides relevant to a story. When news develops and we can’t include important perspectives immediately, we will share updates, including additional sources, when possible. We also will share attempts to reach sources who add value to the story.
• We will explain to audiences our journalistic processes to promote transparency and engagement.

Section 4 of the code addresses Maintaining Independence. In my opinion, this is the portion of the code that I think cause Montes the biggest problems. 

We will remain free of outside interests, investments or business relationships that may compromise the credibility of our news reporting.

We will maintain an impartial, arm’s-length relationship with anyone seeking to influence the news.

There's no arm's-length relationship when your campaign consultant is engaged to a member of council and a lobbyist for the PD union. When he made the choice to move into the district to run, he most certainly considered all these factors and was still covering city council. 

The fact that he actually moved from another district that also had an incumbent running for re-election this cycle, to move into another incumbent's district to run also calls into question being free of outside interests and obviously compromised the credibility of his reporting.

The last part of the code of USA Today - Montes' employer at the time he chose to run for city council - deals with acting with integrity. Integrity is a word that gets thrown around a lot but honestly, everyone knows what it is and what it isn't. 

• We will act honorably and ethically in dealing with news sources, the public and our colleagues.
• We will take responsibility for our decisions and consider the possible consequences of our actions.
• We will be conscientious in observing these principles.

If you know you're going to be a candidate for city council, can you honestly saying you're acting honorably and ethically in dealing with any source at the city if you don't disclose to them that very soon you are going to end your employment on a Friday and announce your candidacy in a Monday? Can you honestly say that you're taking responsibility for decisions and consequences if you aren't disclosing your plans for running for the level of government you are about to campaign to become a part of? 

The last of those bullets is self-explanatory. 

The fact that Montes was hosting interviews as a reporter for the El Paso Times of candidates during the recent primary elections- and then went on to endorse and volunteer for one of the candidates he was interviewing in his capacity as an unbiased reporter in the same election cycle (albeit after he left employment with the Times), its a blatant example of how he was clearly biased as a reporter. 

But that in fact, is exactly what happened.

Does any of this disqualify Montes as a candidate? No, not at all. He's still qualified to be a candidate. 

But lets be honest, part of the reason he's running is because of what be perceives as being a somebody in El Paso, the fact that he was a reporter.

Well that comes with a fair amount of scrutiny. Voters should be able to make decision about who they will select to represent them based on a full understanding of the candidates. 

I'm sure Aaron Montes would be the first to agree with that sentiment.