BILLIE STANTON

bstanton@tucsoncitizen.com

After more than five years at the Tucson Citizen, I still feel like the new kid on the block.

Some of our core content creators – the “deciders” – have been here three decades or more, and their institutional memory and regional knowledge have served this community very well indeed.

You know that guy to my left here, the Micky Mouse afficionado of “Arizona Illustrated” fame.

Mark Kimble and I have kitty-corner offices behind the newsroom, where we call out questions and quips without leaving our seats.

We’ve entertained and irritated one another repeatedly, but he steadfastly has defended me against the savages, and our teamwork has been a blast.

Kimble has been a good boss. He’s been an even better journalist. He came to the Tucson Citizen 34 years ago, and we all know the Citizen wouldn’t have made it this far without his wit and wisdom.

This Little Afternoon Daily That Could likewise would have derailed long ago if not for two men working in relative obscurity.

Joel Rochon got here 36 years ago, and I’ve long regarded him as the real brains behind this operation. (If only Gannett would have listened!)

Joel is a brilliant and talented artist and designer, an expert with technology, a supplies and budgeting guru, a visionary about the newspaper business and a people person who wisely dispenses free chocolate with encouragement and support.

I love him to pieces.

Paul Schwalbach can put panache on the most pedantic prose. With two big words and a carefully chosen photo or two, he’ll put a full page into focus.

But that’s just the technical stuff. He’s also a highly sophisticated political and social observer and one of the funniest, warmest human beings with whom I’ve had the privilege to work. (Scarecrow, I think I’ll miss you most of all.)

These three astute editors are the unheralded infrastructure of the Tucson Citizen.

Thanks to them, I’ve been free to lambaste violent racists, skewer mean-spirited conservatives, cheer on the No More Deaths crowd, support and honor our veterans, promote the public school system that makes our democratic society possible, push for the election of President Obama and, in general, annoy a whole lot of nattering nabobs of negativism. (Sorry, Spiro.)

This puts the period on my 30-year career. Most of it was spent in Colorado and Florida, but I started at the Arizona Daily Wildcat, so it’s appropriate that it ends in Tucson, too.

I’ve enjoyed making a contribution here, but others have committed their entire professional lives to this paper. I salute them. And to all you faithful readers, thank you.

Send job offers to billiestanton@gmail.com.

JEFF SMITH

Once upon a town there was a time when folks around there had a pretty good idea what was up.

The town was Tucson and the time was the tail end of the 19th century through the better part of the 20th. Better indeed.

The folks knew up from sideways because – if they bestirred themselves to waddle onto the front lawn – they could pick up a hometown newspaper where they could read all about it.

The Tucson Citizen and the Arizona Daily Star had decidedly differing views. A grammar school dropout could tell which was which three grafs into their editorial pages – but they shared a fundamentalist approach to reporting those events:

You let the participants do the talking and the paper do the typing. The editorial page chewed the fat. News-side eschewed it.

The trick to maintaining incivility was for one paper to break a different story, or a different angle, when they could leave the competition looking asleep at the wheel.

What nobody did fiddle with was the facts, because then as now a small hometown like Tucson could tell when local coverage flunked the smell test.

You might run a story datelined Afghanistan and it might have a scent of barnyard here or there and you might get away with it, but a hometown paper better have the hometown news fair and square.

I am of the educated opinion, however, that even in these perilous times for print, an honest hometown paper that remembers its roots, and has the publisher to protect them, will survive.

The Citizen came first, in the last trimester of the 19th century, when all it had to fight was Apaches and politicians. Then the Arizona Daily Star hit the streets and the battle was joined.

As a mercenary whose checks have been signed by the publishers of both, from 1968 until the curtain came down on 2007, I’m here to tell you it was the kind of ride that keeps otherwise intelligent professionals working like short-handled hoers for money that would make a school teacher weep.

But we had the pride of knowing we were keeping the people up to date and armed with facts when the high and mighty were armed with sophistry.

My first encounter with hometown journalism was as an 8-year-old pal of Donald Thornton, son of Vic, managing editor of the Star. On weekends Donald and I would wander into the old Star/Citizen building on Stone Avenue and listen to the editors argue about whether Art Luppino was the best tailback in the country or just a fast frog in a slow pond. (For the record, Art was the greatest running back ever. You can read it spelled out in my scrapbook, in raw umber.)

In those days the Star was owned by the Ellinwoods and Matthews. The Citizen belonged to the Smalls. Those days were the ’50s. By the ’60s the feds had targeted Tucson newspapers in an antitrust action, which we were spared when the Failing Newspapers Act allowed the papers to keep publishing, leaving the housekeeping to a third party we still know as Tucson Newspapers Inc.

And they all lived happily ever after. Until the owners of the Star tried to sell but found no takers except a small-time outfit named Brush-Moore. So the Citizen’s owners, Bill and Bill Small, father and son, bought the Star, with the pledge to keep out of its internal affairs and find a decent buyer. Which it appeared it had – Pulitzer sounds like a decent newspaper name – until the wife of a Pulitzer made it a matter, for me at least, of quit or get fired.

Upon which my own purely personal opinion of selling a hometown newspaper to out-of-town interests experienced an epiphany. It blows.

So I began my career at the stupid end of a shovel.

A white knight rode to my rescue, in the person of William A. Small the younger. (Let me share this apology across the void to Bill: Scouts’ honor, Boss, when I referred to you as Bill Small the Lesser, it was an allusion to Homer’s Iliad, in which he identified Ajax the Lesser, thus to distinguish him as his father’s son. Not by any means to disparage you, or Ajax.)

Because in November 1976 I went to work for a hometown newspaper at the zenith of its powers. And circulation. The Citizen made money and spent money. It spent money to make money: I read somewhere that’s how smart money does it.

A veritable Ku Klux Klan of factors conspired to drive what was once a rabbit warren of glad-hearted hustle – curiosity inspiring phone calls, calls inspiring car keys, keys taking reporters all over Arizona, northern Mexico, to hell and gone and back again, in time to fill out our expense vouchers and then home for the weekend and gone again next Monday.

Bill Small did not bitch about the money spent to cover the on-beat and off-beat: He did the math and read the English, which sang of profitability.

There was money to be made in a hometown paper – one that made readers laugh and cuss and look forward to the next edition.

For Small it bought a newspaper sufficiently profitable that when he decided to spend his days pursuing the muse instead of news, his Citizen caught the eye of the biggest newspaper chain on the planet, the Gannett Co., of all the factors conspiring to stamp out hometown newspapers, the Mother Factor.

So after two blissful years working for an enlightened, penny- and pound-wise publisher, I thought, “Poop.”

And I was right. If Gannett allows this to see print it will be the most liberal editorial decision I have seen in three decades under the aegis of the people who brought us USA TODAY . . . and converted every hometown newspaper it could buy into one of its clones.

Old newspapermen joke that a good reporter could cover the Second Coming of Christ in 13 column inches. But a good feature writer could create a novella, and a good newspaper would dummy the room to run it.

My brother Dave wrote a feature on a kid from Mesa who walked into a beauty parlor, made five women lie face-down on the floor and then calmly shot each in the back of the head. The story ran roughly the length of a Louis L’Amour novel. It jumped from Page One of the Los Angeles Times Sunday edition all the way to the back, and then jumped from the back to the front again, turned around and ran until it ran out.

The Times got one of the best days of street sales in its history. The kid got life in Florence, and my brother got a VW vanload of Best of Whatever awards.

It was the kind of story Gannett never would even consider, not if every woman the kid murdered were every subscriber’s mother, daughter, sister or aunt; if the kid were every reader’s adopted son, and the town were home to the chief executive officer of Gannett. Maybe that’s a good thing, a savvy decision, but it is not the sort of policy that endears it to the antiquarian species that reads its paper on the porcelain pedestal of a morning.

Gannett ran an ad campaign for the Citizen a few years ago featuring a chorus of elevator-tenors chiming “. . . the Citizen is Tucson.” I had my doubts then, and as Gannett smothers Tucson’s oldest, once-hometown paper, like some bothersome bed-ridden uncle, I don’t think the Citizen is Tucson anymore.

Gannett sent one of its aparatchiki to announce the execution to the crew, lest they hear it first from the Star. There were people there – friends of mine, guys who have fired me three, maybe four times – who’ve put in 40 years or better at that newspaper. And this suit from east of the Potomac lacks the decency even to thank them for their toil.

He was here to announce a successful hit, by an assassin with a long string of successful hits. Hit men don’t fly across a continent to thank the family and friends of the departed; they come to put the stink-eye on anybody who looks like he might make trouble.

The emissary just didn’t get enough stink on everybody. Pray that you live long enough to see the hometown newspaper make its inevitable comeback.

Jeff Smith is only mostly dead. Much like his muse . . .

MARK KIMBLE

bstanton@tucsoncitizen.com

I can’t complain. It was a good run. There aren’t many people who have the opportunity to do what they truly love and to do it in one place for 34 years.

That’s how my career went at the Tucson Citizen – from Dec. 16, 1974, until May 15, 2009.

Some of you I will miss. Others, not so much.

At the top of the “miss” list are the people I work with. The job has been fun mostly because the people have been fun.

These pages wouldn’t be here without Billie Stanton. She’s to my right today, but in reality, she isn’t to the right of anyone. She’s impassioned and would right every wrong in the world if she had the time.

In the four months since we first were threatened with closure, we’ve know that there are a lot of people who care.

Bishop Gerald Kicanas was one of the first to call and say he was thinking of us. There also have been legislators and former legislators, City Council members and former council members and many others.

But what touched me most were the kind notes from those of you I have never met. Most offered words of support and said how much they will miss us.

Typical was a comment left online yesterday by a reader I know only as rubysky: “I hope the staffers are OK. These are our neighbors and fellow citizens.”

Others had different concerns.

I was slightly hurt when one caller was more concerned about Brenda Starr’s future than mine. How, the reader wondered, would she be able to keep up with the red-haired reporter?

I resisted telling her that Brenda was fictional and I was real and she should be a little more concerned about my future.

Oh, well. Good luck, Brenda.

I also won’t miss those people who have called or e-mailed almost every day over the past four months to point at something in the paper they didn’t like, saying, “This story is why you are closing.”

Some said it’s because we’re too liberal, some say it’s because we run too many conservative Cal Thomas screeds.

One even said we were gonna close because we ran a short story on Martha Stewart’s puppy being accidentally killed in a kennel.

I actually think the reasons were bigger than that, but who knows?

I also won’t miss the guy who called every Feb. 6 to castigate us for not running a front-page story reminding people it was Ronald Reagan’s birthday. And what would the second sentence of the story have been?

It’s been fun, this journalism business. Thanks for letting me be a part of it.

Contact Mark Kimble at mskimble@cox.net.

Do you ask someone how it feels when a relative dies after a long bout with cancer? After all, we knew the end was coming for months.

But here’s a revelation: When death comes, even if it’s not supposed to be a shock . . . it’s still a shock.

So give us six months, or six years. Then we can provide some context.

Let’s stick, then, to the few points we can make with a sufficient degree of conviction:

• If there’s a way to spin the Citizen’s closure into a positive for Tucson, we’d love to hear it. But one doesn’t exist.

It would be bad enough if we were just any company. But a newspaper is the type of high-salary, knowledge industry, “smart” business that any of the city’s TREOish, economic-development types would love to recruit.

Those of us who have explored Tucson’s, uh, challenging employment environment know we won’t be making anywhere near the money we make now. Bottom line for Tucson: More than five dozen well-paying jobs lost.

But a newspaper isn’t just any company. It’s a repository of the city’s collective memory and of our aspirations and hopes.

Healthy journalism equates with a vibrant city. A dead paper is analogous to the city’s libraries closing – a chilling prospect.

• To all those bloggers and “citizen journalists” who, if you believe the Internet, are this close to reinventing the industry, here’s your opportunity.

Now is your chance to cover never-ending board meetings, make Freedom of Information Act requests to dislodge facts from public officials, call sources – you have cultivated sources, right? – and otherwise do what we in our dying industry like to call “reporting.”

To do it right, you’ll have to work eight to 10 hours a day, five to six days a week.

If it sounds like a job, not a hobby, it is. But don’t expect to get paid; apparently, that business model has been discredited.

We’re rooting for you. Public officials need vigilant scrutiny if our dollars are to be wisely spent and public policies are to be sane and progressive. So good luck with that.

• Finally, frankly, this paper’s closing dissolves a colorful, creative cast of characters the likes of whom you’ll never find in one place again. From sweet Mary Bustamante’s long-time devotion to schools to Dan Buckley’s vivid mariachi videos, from Ryn Gargulinski’s bizarre takes of the macabre to Alan Fischer’s scintillating science coverage, from Steve Rivera and Geoff Grammer’s mastery of Wildcats basketball and high school sports, respectively, to Anthony Gimino’s personal peeks at sports personas, we’ve had it all. And you had it, too.

But not now. With the loss of the Tucson Citizen, everybody in Tucson loses. And that’s a fact. Goodbye.

Bottom line for Tucson: More than five dozen well-paying jobs lost.

Compiled by BILLIE STANTON

bstanton@tucsoncitizen.com

The story: President Obama’s potential Supreme Court justice choices include Janet Napolitano, former Arizona governor-turned-secretary of Homeland Security.

Your take: You must be joking! Most of our online commentators lambaste Napolitano, but a few fans weigh in on her behalf:

• “Will someone please wake me up from this nightmare? I can’t take too much more of this.” – Bubba

• “It doesn’t matter (whom) Obama recommends – it will be a leftist liberal who doesn’t believe in God, who stands for killing babies and will want to change the definition of marriage.” – Powersgrandma

• “I’m afraid, grandma, what is doomed is your evil philosophy of imperialism, racism, homophobia, sexism, oppression and death. Stick a fork in it!” – leftfield

• “This woman couldn’t even govern well, then was promoted to Homeland Security where she is performing even worse . . . and then Obama would consider her for the Supreme Court? When does all this bad judgment end?” – Aztxslady1

• “Judicial system does need Napolitano’s eloquence, poise, judgment, character, perseverance and, definitely, multicultural experience. She’s qualified. I predict she’ll be assigned to wear a judicial judge robe.” – Az Intelligence9377

MOST-VIEWED

LOCAL NEWS STORIES

For Thursday, May 14

1 Cavalry soldiers exhumed here to be reburied in Sierra Vista.

2 The Bounce: UA dodges fallout over Floyd’s alleged cash for Mayo.

3 Obama considering Napolitano for Supreme Court.

Construction of a city-county courts complex downtown has been delayed because an old cemetery was on the land.

But Pima County did the right thing by taking the time and spending the money to exhume and store more than 1,800 sets of remains.

Saturday, the remains of 61 U.S. Cavalry soldiers and some of their dependents will be reburied in the Southern Arizona Veterans’ Memorial Cemetery in Sierra Vista.

The remains will be escorted from Tucson by scores of motorcyclists from the Veterans of Foreign Wars Patriot Riders.

Burial will come with full military honors at a new cemetery for historic burials near Fort Huachuca.

That’s as it should be. These soldiers from long ago deserve the same honors as current members of our military.

Several members of the Tucson City Council this week violated the spirit – and possibly the letter – of the state’s Open Meetings Law.

The law was written to ensure that decisions by public bodies are made in public. That didn’t happen when several council members got together ahead of the meeting to reach consensus on controversial budget cuts.

It’s a practice that must not be repeated.

Before Tuesday’s meeting, Councilwoman Nina Trasoff said she had met with some colleagues “in twos or in threes” to discuss funding cuts to nonprofit groups and other jurisdictions.

Trasoff said that since four council members had not been together, there never was a quorum so it didn’t violate the state Open Meetings Law.

That’s defining the law too narrowly – and flies in the face of several opinions from the state Attorney General’s Office.

The law says this: “All meetings of any public body shall be public meetings and all persons so desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings.”

But that’s just the beginning. Public bodies cannot circumvent the intent of the law by meeting in smaller groups ahead of time to reach consensus. That prohibition extends to the exchange of e-mails among members of a body in an attempt to reach an agreement.

A 1975 opinion by the state Attorney General’s Office said “all discussions, deliberations, considerations or consultations among a majority of the members of a governing body regarding matters which may foreseeably require final action or final decision of the governing body constitute ‘legal action’ and must be conducted in an open meeting.”

The same opinion says that discussions taking place among fewer than a majority of the members “to circumvent the purpose of the Open Meeting Act . . . would constitute a violation.”

That covers almost precisely what Trasoff did with Regina Romero, Karin Uhlich and Shirley Scott.

The discussion involved possible budget cuts so the city could avoid instituting a tax on residential rentals. That tax was the subject of lengthy and heated public hearings that drew hundreds of Tucsonans recently.

Council members should have continued that discussion in public so citizens could hear the entire messy process with all views expressed.

The talk should not have taken place in a series of private conversations and telephone calls, with the resulting consensus presented in public as a neatly packaged fait accompli.

City Council members must be educated not only on the Open Meetings Law, but also on the way it has been interpreted over the years. Public business must be conducted in public.

Even though a quorum of the City Council didn’t meet, the law can’t be circumvented with a series of smaller meetings.

JACK JENNINGS AND YING ZHANG

Parents and other citizens are often frustrated by certain policies in public schools.

Arizona, for example, for several years has required students to pass Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards in order to receive a high school diploma.

An exception, called “augmentation,” allows students who fail the test to get a diploma, provided their grades are good and they take remedial courses in math, English or both.

The problem has been that students, parents and even teachers have not always known about this important exception or how students can take advantage of it. Confusion results.

The Center on Education Policy, an independent Washington, D.C., advocacy and research organization, studied policies for at-risk students and English- language learners in Arizona during the 2006-07 school year.

Researchers conducted 364 interviews with students, teachers, administrators and parents at five high schools in southern Arizona.

Three Arizona policies in particular were the focus: AIMS and augmentation, the Arizona English Language Learner Assessment and the written. individualized compensatory plan (a learning plan for English-language learners who have been classified as “fluent” in English but are not making progress).

Serious problems were found with understanding and implementing all three policies.

In addition to the confusion about the augmentation policy, many teachers believed English-language learners passing AZELLA were not necessarily ready for mainstream classrooms, let alone passing high school exit exams.

Once students pass AZELLA, in principle, they are not qualified to receive any language service; AZELLA becomes a legitimate excuse to deprive students of desperately needed services.

Under such circumstances, it is natural that some schools create their own rules of classification and manage to subsidize programs without funding from the state.

Legal arguments, such as Flores v. Arizona, should not be surprising, because the state’s identification, classification and funding system is simply not working for students, teachers and schools.

Another problem area is Arizona’s written individualized compensatory plan. Teachers are to specify learning goals for struggling students to help with their academic progress.

This is a really good idea when a couple of students in each class need such service. But when a school has to write individual plans for more than 700 students, as in some of the schools reported in the study, this well-intended policy turns out to be unrealistic.

This program was abandoned by some schools because they did not have sufficient staff, resources or knowledge to put it into practice.

Policy design is not just theory; this individualized plan program is an object lesson in how idealistic design can contribute to impractical implementation.

The lesson from our work in Arizona couldn’t be clearer: State policies may not only fail in achieving their goals, but also may bring unexpected consequences to students and schools.

CEP’s report captures this reality during 2006-07 and describes a wide range of reactions among teachers and school staff.

We hope, for the students, parents, teachers and other citizens of Arizona, the situation has improved.

But the broader lesson is that the state government and local school boards should make sure their policies make sense when implemented together and don’t conflict with one another.

They should also be sure that teachers and local administrators have the capacity to carry out those policies.

Otherwise, there will be confusion in the public and frustration in the schools.

Arizona is not alone in having school policies that do not fit well together and in requiring policies when there is little or no capability to carry them out.

But not being alone should not be an excuse. Policymakers must make sense out of what we ask our schools to do.

Jack Jennings is president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy.

Ying Zhang is a CEP research associate.

The story: In a guest opinion, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham wrote that it’s time to move on and halt investigations into the Bush administration’s use of coercive interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists.

Your take: A split verdict, but generally disagreement with the “it’s over, move on” viewpoint.

leftfield was unambigious: “First we hang Cheney by his toes, then we waterboard him 83 times, then we send him to Swat Valley wrapped in an American flag. Then we move on.”

Priscilla replied: “If so, then we do the same to Pelosi and all her Democrat gang as well as Repubs who approved of waterboarding, who voted yes to the war in Iraq and who, for votes and power, sold this country out.”

ldonyo thought it was a curious position for one of the authors: “McCain advocating torture and holding people without charging them with anything. I guess he didn’t learn a thing in five years as a ‘guest’ of the Hanoi Hilton.”

demospolis is suspicious of everyone in power: “Politicians like John McCain/Obama rule with contempt for the rights/economic justice of common citizens.”

2865 was not bothered by the interrogation techniques: “To win a fight, any fight, you have to be willing to be at least a shade crazier and a shade less ethical than your opponent.”

Compiled by MARK KIMBLE

mkimble@tucsoncitizen.com

MOST-VIEWED

LOCAL NEWS STORIES

For Wednesday, May 13

1Mexican shoppers add $1B to Tucson economy.

2Obama considering Napolitano for Supreme Court.

3City OKs deal for $167 million convention center hotel.

The big debate:

Torture: Time to move on?

The next time you see several Sonora license plates in the parking lot of a Tucson store, you’re seeing your taxes being cut.

The Tucson area reaped $968.7 million in direct economic benefits from July 2007 through June 2008. That’s up from $280.2 million in 2001, according to a University of Arizona study released this week.

Dollars that Mexicans spend in Tucson boost our economy and are responsible for employing many Tucsonans.

Sales and other taxes paid by those shoppers are taxes that don’t have to be collected from the rest of us.

Many complain about the problems of living close to the international border. But there is a substantial upside.

Our Opinion