Now that the mayoral primary election is over, I thought it would be a good time to respond to some of the questions -- and off-base rumors -- that have surfaced since we published the three-candidates-once-filed-for-bankruptcy story four days before the election.

Some have been raised in letters to the editor. Others have come in personal e-mails to the newsroom. Still others have been raised on our online forums under topics such as "Rootovich reaction to bankruptcy story," "Tuesday's election results in Nashua" and "Nashua city voters can make a difference Tuesday," among others.

But before I explain the sequence of events that led to the story, let me try to dispel one rumor that has been raised repeatedly in our forums despite the best efforts of Telegraph Managing Editor/Online Damon Kiesow to refute them:

Alderman-at-Large Jim Tollner, who ended up topping the ticket Tuesday night, was not the person who originally tipped us off to the David Rootovich bankruptcy in mid-August, which triggered the research that led to the Sept. 7 story.

And, if he had, we never would have protected his identity under those circumstances in fairness to his competitors and our readers.

So in line with our ongoing efforts to be as transparent with our readers as possible, here is a detailed timeline from the conception of the story to its publication:

• Mid-August: Around the time that we were conducting editorial board interviews with the six candidates, since-retired Editorial Page Editor Claudette Durocher receives an e-mail -- not from Mr. Tollner -- that made reference to Rootovich's bankruptcy in the late 1990s, a fact we had reported in the coverage of an aldermanic meeting on May 11, 2000.
  As would be expected, that information was then brought to the attention of City Editor Jonathan Van Fleet, City Hall reporter Patrick Meighan and myself.
  Given we had reported on the bankruptcy back in 2000, there was no particular urgency at that time to pursue that story until we had an opportunity to check on the other candidates.
  
• Aug. 31 (Friday): Staff reporter Ryan Halliday, who had covered the Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce's mayoral breakfast forum the previous day, receives an anonymous (male) phone message suggesting that he might want to look into the credit histories of the mayoral candidates. He then brings that to the attention of Jonathan.
  
• Sept. 1 (Saturday): The next day, Ryan begins checking public records available online and learns that Rootovich and Arthur Matsis had once filed for bankruptcy during the 1990s.
  
• Sept. 4 (Tuesday): Ryan, who is working a night shift that day, calls Jonathan that morning to tell him what he had learned. They agree that Ryan should go Wednesday to U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manchester to check on all six candidates running for mayor.
  
• Sept. 5 (Wednesday): Based on that search, Ryan learns that it appears four of the six mayoral candidates -- John Gustin, Donnalee Lozeau, Matsis and Rootovich --  once had filed for bankruptcy, but the actual paper records are now located in Waltham, Mass. (It wasn't until we spoke to Gustin the next morning that we learned it was a different John M. Gustin of Nashua.)
  
• Sept. 6 (Thursday): While Ryan drives out to get the paper records in Waltham that morning, court reporter Andrew Wolfe begins calling the candidates to interview them for the story. Together, they begin writing the story for the next day's edition.
  
• Sept. 7 (Friday): The story runs at the top of the front page under the headline: "Three hopefuls bankrupt in 1990s."
  

Now, in retrospect, do I wish we had pursued the story sooner so we could have published it a few weeks instead of a few days before the primary?
Of course I do. As I told one e-mailer who raised the question with me prior to the election, I would have much preferred that we had published it sooner, which would have given the candidates and the voters a better opportunity to digest the information and place it in some kind of context.

But, given that we were not able to do that, I also have no regrets about publishing the story when we did, which was as soon as we had the documents in hand and had conducted the interviews with the three candidates in question.

One final point: While the public debate over the timing of the story is certainly a legitimate one, let's not forget what one might argue is the more important question:

Did voters have a right to know before they voted that half the field of candidates running for mayor -- an executive position that oversees an annual budget of about $200 million in taxpayer money -- had once filed for bankruptcy in their personal or professional lives?

While I suppose reasonable people can agree to disagree on this point, I can tell you this: I would much rather be explaining to readers why we published the story before they went to the polls rather than having to explain why we sat on that story until after they voted.

That's one column I hope I never have to write.