An Open Invitation to Mayoral Candidates Poturica and Armstrong from Osoyoos News

Osoyoos News extended an open invitation. Neither Chose to Respond.

Neither candidate was given a list of loaded questions. Neither was asked to defend a decision, debate an opponent or respond to criticism. We simply offered each of them space to speak directly to the people they are asking to represent.

Every declared mayoral and council candidate has been offered the same opportunity.

The invitation was straightforward:

«“We are not looking for particular answers. This is your opportunity to tell residents what you believe they should know about you, your platform and your reasons for running.”»

Candidates were invited to discuss why they are running, their priorities for Osoyoos, the issues they believe deserve more attention, the changes they would support, their experience and anything else they felt voters should know.

Participation required nothing more than a written response by email. There was no requirement to sit for an interview.

We also made it clear that public comments would not appear beneath candidate articles. Their statements would not be opened up to arguments or attacks from readers. We would edit only for spelling, grammar, length and readability, without changing the meaning of their words. If anything required clarification, we would contact the candidate before publication.

The deadline was August 28, 2026.

Neither Zachary Poturica nor Scott Armstrong accepted the invitation or provided Osoyoos News with a statement by the deadline. No response was received afterward either.

That is disappointing.

Candidates regularly speak about openness, accountability and listening to residents. Those principles should extend beyond familiar settings and established media outlets.

Osoyoos News provides residents with another place to learn about local issues—one that is independent of large media companies, paid campaign advertising and the municipality itself. Candidates are not charged to explain their platforms, favourable coverage is not for sale, and access is not reserved for selected campaigns.

When a candidate communicates through some media outlets but leaves an equal, no-cost invitation from an independent local publication unanswered, residents are entitled to ask why.

Is it simply an oversight? Is one media outlet preferred over another? Are some audiences considered more worthwhile to address?

We do not know why either candidate chose not to respond, and we will not assign a motive to that decision. We can report only what happened: both were offered a fair and uncomplicated opportunity to speak directly to local voters, and neither used it.

Running for mayor involves more than distributing campaign material. It also means reaching residents through different community outlets, including independent ones that may attract readers outside a candidate’s usual audience.

This was not a test and there were no hidden conditions. It was an open door.

No candidate will receive preferential treatment because they advertise elsewhere, currently hold office or have an existing relationship with another publication. The same space, freedom and editorial standards are being offered to everyone running for office.

Whether the candidates use that opportunity is their decision.

Whether voters consider the lack of a response meaningful is theirs.