New Mexico Mercury

Editor's note: there is an update at the end of this piece with clarification about the relationship between Research and Polling, Inc. and the Albuquerque Journal.

Last week, the Albuquerque Journal ran a story that stated "Most Albuquerque voters favor a city proposal to build more trails and other recreational access through the city's riverside bosque….The support is widespread across political and demographic groups, the survey found."

Apparently the hundreds of naysayers that showed up in vehement opposition to the mayor's Rio Grande Vision on September 4th were just the vocal riffraff who only represent a small minority of people who "oppose the city's proposal to increase access to the Rio Grande and the Bosque." 

Or so the Journal would have you believe.

This is a classic example of what I call "editorial polling" whereas an issue is stripped of essential context, an equivalent to a "gotcha" question is posed to the public and the results are trumpeted on the front page of the newspaper that funded the poll to give weight to its editorial slant. 

The poll sampled "402 Albuquerque voters who said they plan to vote and have voted in the 2011 or 2009 city election."  That's apparently where the "scientific" part of the poll ends.  The question posed to these likely voters was: "Do you support or oppose the city’s general proposal to increase access to the Rio Grande and the bosque, by adding things such as path trails, pedestrian bridges, boardwalks and viewing platforms?" The words "increase access" inherently skew the polling results, along with the absence of a number of other clarifying questions that would actually add some scientific merit to this poll. 

The question lists what can be deemed as highlights in the plan yet fails to mention the uncertainty of any impacts that development may have on the current ecosystem.  We have no idea if any of the respondents have actually been to the bosque recently, or ever, and if they know anything about the many easily accessible entries and amenities that exist right now.  Most importantly, we have no idea if any of the respondents have read one word about the plan or have any other knowledge of its proposals. The words "increase access" may inherently suggest to some that there is currently limited access or a need for access, when in fact the bosque is fully accessible to anyone who may want to experience it.

The piece uses Michael Jensen, a member of the proposal-opposing Amigos Bravos to slip in a caveat for the poll: “Jensen… suggested that opposition might grow once people are confronted with the details of specific projects, rather than being presented, as they were in the poll’s question, with the general idea of trail improvements.”  At least Jensen has on his basic logic cap.

To say the Journal contracted Research and Polling, Inc. to conduct the poll is technically correct but a bit misleading.  Research and Polling, Inc. is actually a subsidiary of the Journal. It would raise the bar of transparency if either of the companies noted this affiliation on their polls.

Brian Sanderoff has run Research and Polling, Inc. since the company was founded in 1986. He’s considered the preeminent polling authority in New Mexico and I’ve always found him honest, quick to respond and very forthcoming with information.  I reached out to him for some insight regarding this poll.  He explained:

…Sometimes our clients take a shot at a first draft questionnaire, then, I make sure the questions are OK and usually rewrite them.

The way I see this issue, the Mayor wants to increase access and the opponents are very skeptical about that; many of whom want no development in the Bosque. Notice that in the question, I kept away from terms like “improve” access, that I’m sure supporters would have preferred. At the same time, I kept away from terms such as “development”, which, based on my experience, has negative connotations. Instead, I said support or oppose “increasing” access, which could be seen as good or bad depending on one’s perspective.

If the poll was trying to gauge straight support for the proposal, the question would have been better drafted as “Do you support the Mayor’s proposed initiative, ‘The Rio Grande Vision’?” with one of the answers being, “Don’t have enough information to decide.” We could then get some valuable data as to whether people feel educated about the initiative. But we run into trouble when the factual word “development” is deliberately left out because it's a percieved negative. That would be similar to asking the public about access to local libraries and not addressing any accompanying tax because the word "tax" has a negative connotation. The simplification lends to bias. Additionally, before the polling question is even drafted the opposition's side is drastically simplified and therefore the phrasing has a biased starting point.

The poll results came out after public opposition caused Barbara Baca, the director of the Albuquerque Parks and Recreation Department, to cancel two public meetings, one a presentation to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) and the other was another public input session at the Albuquerque Museum originally scheduled for September 18th. It is my understanding that in order for the plan to proceed, the MRGCD must approve it. 

I actually don’t hold the polling company at fault, but rather the Journal’s not-so-sly manipulation here.  Sanderoff went on to say:

Our intention was to simply ask whether voters supported or opposed increased access into the Bosque/Rio Grande. We did not offer the primary supporting or opposing arguments from proponents and opponents. We did not know whether people would appreciate or cringe at the thought of pedestrian bridges and boardwalks in the Bosque. That’s why we just stated the facts as in the Vision Plan.

The problem is many would say that the Vision Plan has the facts wrong or completely leaves out legally-binding requirements based on the Bosque Action Plan which was adopted in 1993 by the Albuquerque City Council and dictates standards for management of the bosque.

The Sierra Club noted this in a recent letter to Mayor Berry:

A recent email exchange with Matt Schmader has made it explicit that the City does not intend to comply with the Bosque Action Plan's requirement for the evaluation of ecological impacts of proposals before turning any dirt. Mr. Schmader stated that the City would collect baseline data, but the collection of data is very different from the evaluation of impacts before construction begins. The City's refusal to evaluate impacts is a patent violation of the Bosque Action Plan and is illegal.

As the largest daily in the state, with one of the best environmental reporters around, this is the issue the Journal should be sniffing around about.  Is Mayor Berry’s plan, as it stands now, legal? 

Sanderoff told me that he suspected a follow up question would show similar results and “When the opportunity avails itself I will try it and let you know!” We hope he does.  In the meantime, might we suggest a Journal ombudsman?  Not an original idea I know, but surely an ongoing one by those privy to how the polling wand dictates public opinion, rather than reflects it.

Update: Brian Sanderoff contacted me to clarify Research and Polling, Inc's relationship to the Albuquerque Journal.  He stated that the company was originally started by himself and Tommy Lang, the longtime President of the Journal Publishing Co.  His shares of ownership increased over time from 20% to currently 49% of the company with the remaining shares owned by the Journal Publishing Co, which is the overall business entity that owns the Albuquerque Journal as well as a number of other businesses.  He states that "The Albuquerque Journal is a client in which we conduct their polls. In 27 years no one from either organization has attempted to influence our work."