The Smearing of Mark Stegeman, TUSD Board Candidate

1. There’s a 99.999% chance that the person(s) doing the smearing has a last name of Grijalva.

2. If for No other reason, we should support the reelection of Dr. Stegeman to the TUSD School Board. The Pathological Campaign of David Safier to unseat Dr. Stegeman from the TUSD Board, is symptomatic that Dr. Stegeman MUST be doing something RIGHT!!!

3. Bravo Francis Saitta…(and you too, Jonathan Hoffman).
   Take that, you little twerp Safier!
   *******************************
   “I am Danehick Sux, and I approve this message.”

4. Dont worry Mark, this liberal democrat voted for you. Many of us see what is really going on, thank you for not going away like they would very much like you to.

5. But please, dont align with hicks. I know you dont have anyone else but that doesnt help you either

6. Well, I suppose if you did nothing but listen to Stegeman on the radio — and you knew nothing about the professional field of EDUCATION, which is different from the field of economics, and you had never had a child enrolled in one of the many TUSD schools which have NOT benefited from the sorts of policies Stegeman favors — you might be willing to vote for Stegeman.

   Here’s a word to the wise from people who know education, know TUSD, and actually closely observe the district’s business: none of the incumbents — not Foster, not Juarez, and not Stegeman — should be re-elected. We need to get away from the divisive dynamics on this Board — dynamics in which Stegeman, in spite of his pretenses to the contrary, has been an active participant.

7. For the well-informed commenter- can you provide one or two examples on Stegeman’s divisiveness and how his policies harmed my children’s education?

8. Thank you, Jonathan, at least for providing some balance in what appears in TW. (I love the photo!) And thank you, “just curious,” for asking for evidence. I am surely neither a perfect candidate nor a perfect board member, but it is astonishing how much judgment is thrown around without, actually, examples or evidence. The people who write of the need to teach critical thinking skills apparently have a point.

   The power-hungry charge is laughable. If I were power-hungry, then I could find much more fruitful playing fields than the TUSD board! If anything, the sociology of the board feels like returning to junior high school, not a move into the Realms of Power. Many at UA understand my motivation exactly: can we please get this organization to adopt serious management practices and start educating kids effectively?!

   We do our youth a great disservice (and patronize them) by setting the bar so low.

   I should add details concerning the party registration. I had been a Democrat for most of my life until I had a major falling out with the local party in 2014 and switched to Independent. Like many Arizonans now, I like that place. I have contributed to candidates from both parties, over the last several years, and like being immune from charges of DINO or RINO. I switched my registration back to D this year for the purpose of primary voting — that is likely temporary — but philosophically I remain Independent. I am grateful to have been welcomed in every way by the local Republican Party, even without adopting the R registration, as opposed to my virtual ostracism from the other party. The Democratic Party may claim to be progressive and secular, but its approach to “heretics” comes straight out of the 16th century. Your reference to the Devil’s Proof is quite appropriate.

9. I should add that some of TUSD’s schools and teachers and programs do educate kids effectively — indeed some are exemplary! But this too often occurs despite lack of support from central administration, not because of it.

10. Some examples of Mark Stegeman’s divisiveness:

    1. The way the MAS controversy was handled. If there were problems with the curricula, which may well have been the case, the problem should have been handled without a top-down imposition of authority from the state level, with which it seems Stegeman collaborated. Anyone who has taught in K-12 or raised a child successfully knows that “discipline” and “correction” take place within the context of a relationship that must be tended and maintained. Punitive and unnecessarily authoritarian approaches risk damaging or destroying the relationship. Many relationships were damaged during the period of the MAS controversies and resentments were created that continue to fuel discord to this day.

    2. His handling of problems with the current Board by securing negative media coverage of the district and asking for enforcement actions from external authorities. The dynamics of the current Board are problematic, but Stegeman is partly at fault for that because the current behavior of the majority is, in part, a reaction to Stegeman’s actions during the MAS period. (See point 1 above.) Many who have observed the whole arc of relations on this board for the past decade and more feel that Stegeman is like the kid who kicks someone under the table, and when the victim reacts, he complains to the teacher and gets the teacher to punish them for reacting. Neither the initial offense nor the reaction are commendable, hence the conclusion: vote all three incumbents off. Put a stop to the ongoing resentments and cycle of mutual harm that has been going on too long and that voters need to interrupt, if a collaborative climate is to be created on this Board. Whatever the outcome of November’s election, Adelita Grijalva will remain on the Board for another two years, unless she resigns, which seems unlikely. If those two years are years with both Stegeman and Grijalva (whose relationship has long since deteriorated to a point where they cannot respect one another and cannot work together) are on the Board, it seems unlikely we will see any end to the discord.

    Policies that have harmed children’s education: teachers have frequently complained that TUSD’s use of standardized testing needs to be reformed and modified. The way testing is being used distorts classroom practice to encourage “teaching to the test.” It is hard for people like Stegeman who champion “Accountability!” and who have had no direct connection (as a parent, teacher, or administrator) to K-12 education and what has happened in schools since the test-based “accountability” in “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top” were introduced to understand fully how much damage has been done by these federal programs and what specifically needs to be done to repair the learning climate in the publicly funded schools where these mandates were introduced. This is an area where Board policy matters. I am not aware of the details of Stegeman’s position on this topic, but I have read most of his constituent updates during the last three years and it has not been one of the issues he has seemed to foreground or an area where he has systematically and persistently championed policy reform.

    In this and other matters, I believe this Board could benefit from adding more people who have a direct connection to and understanding of K-12 education. Putnam-Hidalgo is a TUSD parent and has worked in the schools as a family liaison; Sedgwick is a former teacher with a master’s degree in education; Rustand is a parent who seems to have taken the time to develop an informed understanding of desegregation policy. If the Board is to improve, adding three candidates like this as Board members would seem better than re-installing incumbents who have ALL been involved in the Board’s history of toxic discord.

11. (1) Yes we mishandled various aspects of MAS, and I am accountable for some (not all) parts of that. I did not collaborate with the state, however. I carefully minimized contact with ADE through that period. I testified at the hearing because I was subpoened.
    (2) I went to the AG with the OML complaints because I had tried to get the issues addressed for YEARS internally, without success. I long ago proposed a motion for faster posting of minutes: voted down 3-2. Etc. When some external party filed an OML complaint, it seemed like a good time to get those problems finally cleared up. I have no regrets about that. Those issues should have been addressed long ago.
    (3) Negative media coverage of the district happens by itself.
    (4) What kick under the table? I am generally pretty open with my concerns. Do you watch board meetings? I am almost never the one that pivots to the personal comments. I do not vote for or against a motion based upon who made the motion or how others are voting; that is one reason that Hicks and I often vote differently. Can you say that for the others?
    (5) I agree the board dynamics are terrible. Looking at the current 4-person leadership team, however, I do not think that Adelita is the primary cause of that.
    (5a) I thought the internal auditor policy was a chance to compromise and get the board to work together, and it would be a big win. I worked sincerely with Juarez on that and was committed to a good outcome. We both made compromises. The failure to get that through was a huge disappointment and affected the board’s subsequent trajectory.
    (5b) Hicks and I recently proposed a board retreat and that was completely serious. You should watch that discussion; it is instructive.
    (6) I have long felt that we do too much standardized testing, and I am the reason that TUSD reduced its benchmark testing this year. I proposed a policy change last spring and within 2-3 days the administration proposed its own change. I can send you my letter on testing, from earlier this year, if you want. It was also covered by the Star.
    (7) Yes, I have a direct connection to K-12. I deal with the results at UA. I am a long-time member of the UA’s General Education Committee. We deal with it. It isn’t pretty. Students struggle far more than they should, and it is not because they are dumb.
    (8) Yes, there has been contention on the board, since long before I joined it. MAS cranked it up, no question. But even without such a momentous driving issue, it has become much more toxic since the 2012 elections. Draw your own conclusions.

12. Thanks for your reply. To make sure that I understand what you said correctly, let me summarize what I learned- Stegeman’s divisiveness is really about the MAS issue, which happened 6 years ago and originated from the State House Bill (based on the google search results). I can see that it is an extremely sensitive issue and probably difficult to handle in a way that is satisfactory to both the lawmakers and the local community.
    Your second point is about excessive and meaningless tests in the classrooms, which the board can address. However, you weren’t sure what Stegeman’s policy is.
    I usually learn quite a bit from the media coverage of TUSD’s issues and it is a form of transparency regardless it’s positive or negative news for me.
    At last, you suggest electing all newcomers to the board because they don’t have any records, i.e. we don’t know how they would behave once elected or how long it will take them to be familiar with the board/district details and policies.

13. The bad feelings of the MAS era live on and continue to cause problems: witness the recent news on Jorgensen’s withdrawal of his endorsement of Stegeman because of remarks made by Cox which were printed on a Stegeman flyer and posted on Stegeman’s website. These remarks were taken to be referring in an unacceptable way to MAS-era decisions:
    http://m.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2016/11/04/don-jorgensen-withdraws-his-endorsement-of-mark-stegeman

    Sometimes it is best to clear the air and move on with people who don’t have this kind of history. Whether through their own fault or through the fault of others, they become a magnet for negative attention and politicized discourse. This is very much the case with Stegeman and I doubt it will change.

    I’m not going to address all the points made by Stegeman and “curious.” There are a couple of points, though, that are important to me:

    1) Teaching college is not having experience in K-12 education. If you have trouble understanding this point, consider these analogies: being served a cake you don’t like does not confer expertise in baking. Getting behind the wheel of a faulty car does not make you a mechanic. To know that there are problems with the competence of students entering the University of Arizona does not confer expertise, as I have written elsewhere, in how to alter a troubled and complicated K-12 public school district in ways that will improve learning conditions and educational outcomes. Current misguided attitudes towards K-12 education in this country which make the assumption of expertise and decision-making authority by people who are ignorant of the fields of professional expertise relevant to the K-12 system is a problem which has complex origins that cannot be properly treated here. Suffice it to say that from the perspective of many who do have professional expertise in the areas relevant to K-12, Stegeman appears as one of those who do not have expertise but propose to assume authority — and who make mistakes is exercising their authority because of the combination of ignorance and arrogance informing their decisions in office.

    2) Both factions in the district tried to respond to concerns about testing. Neither response was sufficient and neither faction has a consistent history of actions and statements that demonstrate understanding of the gravity and extent of the issue. There are schools in the district that are thought to be successes that have serious problems relating to this — one of them, in particular, would make John Dewey turn over in his grave if he saw the abuse of students that passes for “success” in that school.

    I don’t have additional time to devote to this comment stream today, and it’s probably too late in the election cycle for commentary to make any difference in any case. It will be interesting to see how the new Board, whoever may be serving on it, handles the complicated business of managing this troubled district. I wish them success. For better of for worse, what they do affects the quality of education delivered to tens of thousands of students in our region.

14. Thanks for the reply. I did not claim to be an expert on K-12 instruction. I do know something about whether the results meet students’ needs. Once Liz Fagen admonished me to remember that she was the expert on K-12 instruction, not me. I said: that is true, you are the one who knows how to make car seats (a random analogy). But we at the university make cars and we are telling you that the seats do not fit in the cars. That should be relevant information.

15. Perhaps, Dr. Stegeman, you should ask yourself why you keep having this problem in your dialogue with people who DO have professional expertise in K-12, that they have to remind you that it is not your area of expertise. Why is that?

    The analogy you used with Fagan is a poor one: K-12 is not manufacturing one relatively simple, relatively insignificant part for a much more important, much more complicated project the university has underway. K-12 is laying the foundations on which the university builds. It’s a complicated project of its own, critically important, and requiring its own distinct kinds of expertise.

    The information that kids entering the U of A are not well prepared is relevant, but once the information is conveyed, it’s relevance stops there. Having the information that many students entering the U of A are unprepared does not confer some kind of magical expertise in the management of public school districts, nor does it necessarily qualify you to serve on a school board, nor should it grant you authority to make decisions in K-12. This is all pretty easy to understand, IF you respect K-12 education as a distinct professional field with distinct bodies of knowledge connected with it, and IF you aren’t the sort (too often encountered in this society) who will patronize the adults who manage K-12, assuming that in that they deal with children they somehow exist on a “lower” level than professionals like university instructors who deal with adults.

16. I appreciate your concern but have had few conversations of that nature. I mostly stay out of pedagogical issues and have never claimed expertise in K-12 pedagogy, magical or otherwise. To your other point, my friends in the Ed. College would I guess agree that you have a somewhat oversimplified view of the relationship between K-12 and university education, for the students who choose that path.

17. I also guess that most of us at the university would agree that those who teach in K-12 are far more heroic than we are.

18. Really? Stegeman thinks his “friends” at the U of A College of Ed would think that those who believe K-12 “is a complicated project of its own, critically important and requiring its own distinct kinds of expertise” have an “oversimplified” view?

    I think he doesn’t know many people at the College of Ed.

    The sad thing is that he reveals his character qualities very well in the way he keeps coming back at the various people who raise concerns about his leadership track record in this comment stream and in other comment streams in TW. He is argumentative, condescending and disrespectful in engaging with commenters who, from the sound of their commentary, are professional educators themselves, perhaps parents in the district, and people who seem to have paid close attention to the affairs of this deeply troubled Board.

    He refers to his University colleagues repeatedly as though their opinions matter more than the opinions of teachers and parents in the district where he serves as a school board member.

    It is to be hoped that this district’s Board will finally be rid of him after December 31, 2016. If it is not, I fear there will be more problems ahead for TUSD.

19. Some of the issues touched on in this comment stream are also addressed in the comment stream on Safier’s piece, “Don Jorgensen Withdraws His Endorsement of Mark Stegeman”:

    http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2016/11/04/don-jorgensen-withdraws-his-endorsement-of-mark-stegeman

    Of particular interest is this excerpt from a comment from Jana Happel:

    “Stegeman testified for Huppenthal AGAINST TUSD and called MAS a cult. He was not a reluctant witness. When he was called to testify, he brought a book with him to the witness stand. Apparently, he believed it supported his accusation. When he tried to start reading from it, the judge had to admonish him to merely answer the questions. Stegeman actively worked against TUSD to sabotage a program in his own district.”

20. The part that seemed oversimplified to me was: “The information that kids entering the U of A are not well prepared is relevant, but once the information is conveyed, it’s relevance stops there.” I have intended my responses to be courteous and on point, and never personal, but I am sorry if I have not succeeded. I think all viewpoints are relevant in the project of improving TUSD.

21. You must be operating with a different definition of “courteous” than mine, but that is not a big surprise. You have seemed to have different definitions of “transparent,” and “compassionate” than some of the commenters in these streams have, as was noted in commentary on your UHS-separate-site plans in another TW article:

    http://m.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2016/11/02/whos-afraid-of-the-tusd-school-closure-issue

    One of the commenters there asked, “You are in favor of transparency? Then please answer these questions:
    –Does the [UHS separate site] plan involve closing a neighborhood-feed high school?
    –If so, which high schools may be targets for closure?
    –Will the plan involve removing AP and fine arts opportunities from the population that attends Rincon?
    –If so, how will these opportunities be replaced?
    –How widely distributed are high quality college preparatory courses in this district?
    –Is a plan that uses limited district resources to take already unevenly distributed opportunities and concentrates them more narrowly in a high school that serves only a cognitively selective population with no admixture of open enrollment population an appropriate one?
    –If so, why is it appropriate; how is it appropriate?
    –What advantages does this use of the district’s limited resources achieve for the forty-something thousand students in the district who will not be enrolled in UHS or its co-located middle school?”

    It would be good — and courteous, transparent, and compassionate to disadvantaged students — to provide answers to those questions.

22. Stegeman: please don’t respond to “Yet another reply to Mark Stegeman.” People like this “contributor” will make me a Republican. To them someone is always at fault except the people who should be taking responsibility. Minority students are dropping out at higher rates than whites. The answer isn’t to look at why this is the case with the students, be it taking parental responsibilities at home despite being minors, lack of discipline at home, disrespecting teachers and school administration in the application of consequences for bad behavior, etc. No, you can’t blame bad parents; “culturally-relevant courses” is the cure all to the disastrous effects of single-motherhood and other crimes parents (more like sperm and egg donors) commit. In the real world, guess what: college is going to be full of courses that are NOT “culturally-relevant” and interesting and students are probably going to have to go to boring meetings when they get jobs as adults. In short: these “advocates” for students are just blame shifters who are destroying the community one child at a time.

23. Welcome to the Republican Party. Its not so bad after all. I did the same.

24. TucsonObserver: Yes, I agree. Thanks.

25. Why should Stegeman not be asked to answer questions about a plan that he has for the district and what the implementation of this plan will actually involve for students currently enrolled in the schools that are the targets of the initiative?

    The questions are very straightforward and factual. Why do you agree, Mark Stegeman, that this constituent’s questions should not be answered? Please be clear in explaining what specific portion of these factual and relevant questions you object to, and what specific portion of “Tucsonobserver”‘s comment you agree with.

    After reading “Tucsonobserver”‘s comment a couple of times, for my own part I find I’m still not quite sure what this commenter is trying to say. He (or she) seems to mix a lot of vague references to bad parenting and culturally relevant curricula into a subject (the UHS separate site plan) where they do not belong. The only sense I can make of it is that the commenter believes that is appropriate to withdraw college preparatory courses and faculty from the Rincon site because students enrolled in Rincon are the victims of bad parenting and can’t benefit from college preparatory courses? Honestly, I do not understand what claims are being made here. Perhaps the commenter will weigh in again and explain.

    In any case, it is interesting that in both comment streams where these questions about the specifics of the UHS separate site plan were asked, supporters of Mark Stegeman jumped in. In the former comment stream Jim Campbell, a $1,000 donor to the Stegeman campaign, made a long comment about his wife’s IEC and changed the subject. Stegeman never re-appeared to answer the questions that had been asked of him. In this comment stream, a Stegeman supporter disparages the person asking the questions and recommends that they not be answered, for reasons that do not make much sense, when examined. And Stegeman agrees.

    All very interesting and very relevant to voters making an informed choice in this election. I hope some of those who have not sent their ballots in already are paying attention.

    Thank you, Mark Stegeman, for making it clear by your responses (and failures to respond) in this comment stream where exactly you stand on being courteous and fully transparent with constituents. Thank you, too, for giving us a better idea, both through your quotes of Cox in your brochure and on your website and through your agreement with “Tucsonobserver” above, exactly where you locate yourself on the spectrum of views about education — and what kind of “thinking” about education, young people, and the curricula in their schools you choose to affiliate with.

26. “Why should Stegeman not”: I see many words but no substance. People like you are equally part of the problem as Sanchez is. You posted that TUSD not preparing its graduates for higher education isn’t a TUSD problem and that this lack of preparedness is the college’s problem. NONSENSE!

    You call yourself defending children when in reality you’re enabling bad parenting and a failing school district by not placing the blame where it belongs: the community, the school district and bad/absent parenting.

    (I didn’t say anything or allude to UHS/Rincon.)

    Your viewpoints are laughable. Stegeman is in the minority on the Governing Board of a sinking, failing school district yet you find the time to go after him. For all intents and purposes, his wings have been clipped. Again, he’s in the minority on most board decisions. If you don’t like the direction the district is heading (who does?) why not talk with Grijalva, Sanchez, Juarez and Foster?

    Did you know that on KVOA’s Facebook page there were more responses from the community to Cholla HS’s dirty lockerrooms than there were about the (potential) pay-for-play scandal with ESI and Juarez/Foster? The community has more interest in dilapidated bathroom stalls than board members receiving kickbacks from contractors.

    You’re a sad enabler. But, please join the community, Sanchez, Grijalva, Foster, Juarez and the absent community in its quest towards bringing up closer to charter schools for all students. That’s the next step.

27. As a former longtime Tucson resident/CEO I became deeply involved with a very hi-poverty midtown elementary school. Thank to many generous people, SALC, Educational Enrichment Foundation, Community Foundation, we have raised mid six figures enabling us to give the school a productive organic garden, STEM lab, running track, new auditorium equipment . . .the list is long. The kids and teachers are thriving. Along the way I met Mark. He walked the neighborhood with me, in and out of the trailer parks, he attended the special events, he answered emails quickly. Though now continuing the work remotely while living in the Bay Area, Mark remains involved and thoughtful. I do not have the time or inclination to try to sort out the politics here. My focus are 500+ wonderful kids who come to school to learn, but also to get a meal, get medical help, visit the onsite clothing bank and so much more. Mark has earned my respect.

28. TucsonObserver: your expressed views continue to be incoherent and inaccurate. Please note that none of the commenters in this stream have said that the university should be responsible for fixing problems with TUSD graduates’ preparedness. Try reading the comments in this stream again and aiming for more accurate understanding of their content. If you cannot do that, and if you cannot stop using incivilities to insult other commenters in this stream and to suggest that constituents’ reasonable questions not be answered by Stegeman, a candidate for a position of a governing Board in a district serving between 40,000 and 50,000 students, please stop posting here. Your largely uncivil and irrelevant comments are interfering with constituents getting information relevant to an upcoming election from someone who is asking for voters to re-install him in a governance position where he will be making decisions that affect students in TUSD high schools and whether or not they receive adequate preparation from the secondary programs in which they are enrolled that will enable them to work constructively in the community and / or to succeed in further education.

    Kathleen Perkins: whether Stegeman participated constructively in one individual project within TUSD says very little about whether his participation in other aspects of the district’s affairs (e.g. MAS, e.g. the UHS separate site initiative) has been constructive and serves the best interests of the district. Those questions are relevant to this election and should be answered.

    Dr. Stegeman: please answer the reasonable, factual questions in the comment above entitled “Yet Another Reply to Mark Stegeman.” If you refuse to answer these questions, please explain what you feel justifies your refusal to answer them.

29. You have pretty thin skin. I have not attacked anyone in this thread. You’re trying to hold Stegeman’s feet to the fire when he’s in the minority on many consequential board decisions. You’re asking the wrong person. Get over your hurt feelings.

    TUSD isn’t just about Rincon and UHS. The problems are much larger. And if these are schools your children go to, which is why you’re harping on them, you can shove the issue up your behind. This race is far bigger than UHS and Rincon.

    You stupidly said (now that’s an attack on your words, not you) that TUSD graduates entering high education unprepared is irrelevant once it’s been “conveyed.” Thankfully, you’re not making any important decisions. You’re too thin skinned and narrowly focused on one issue for any position of authority.

    Stegeman: this person is the dreaded one-issue voter. Who cares that TUSD is cooking the books with 301 money. Who cares that test scores are abysmal or that enrollment has been decreasing. He or she just cares about UHS/Rincon.

    Don’t you love people like this? The house is on fire but he or she wants to check to see if the mail was delivered.

30. Again: uncivil, incoherent. Whether Stegeman will use the position he is asking voters to grant him to benefit the few at the expense of the many is a matter of principle and it is broadly relevant to whether he deserves to be granted the position he seeks to occupy. What makes you assume that the people raising questions about Stegeman’s fitness for office have not also raised questions about Foster and Juarez’s fitness for office? There are many, MANY voters in this district who recognize that all three incumbent are unfit for office and I happen to be one of them.

    Stegeman: answer the questions, please.

31. Thank you Mark for not hiding your true self. You THANKED and AGREED with Tucson Observer’s comment placing the blame for racial disparity in drop out rates on parents:

    “Minority students are dropping out at higher rates than whites. The answer isn’t to look at why this is the case with the students, be it taking parental responsibilities at home despite being minors, lack of discipline at home, disrespecting teachers and school administration in the application of consequences for bad behavior, etc. No, you can’t blame bad parents; “culturally-relevant courses” is the cure all to the disastrous effects of single-motherhood and other crimes parents (more like sperm and egg donors) commit.”

    Your reply:

    “TucsonObserver: Yes, I agree. Thanks.”

    You really could use a course in critical race theory. There is plenty of blame to go around for a problem like this. As a board member, you should know this and you have just revealed one of many reasons you should be voted out.

32. Mark, I voted for you bc I like having a different background (college) represented and not just K-12. But for the record; I am a Libertarian but not a POC, but would like to see more MAS in K-12 (big part of AZ history), less admin positions and standardized testing, more money in the classrooms and higher pay for the teachers.

33. Thank you, Dr. Stegeman, for engaging in this community discussion.

    As an observation: I find it noteworthy that your opposition on this thread uses pseudonyms, while pontificating about transparency.

    The bitter division in TUSD is palpable.

    Maybe those “Change the Board” people have a point.

34. Yawn. Another commenter who cannot think of arguments to combat those being deployed tries to discount what is said because it is being said anonymously. This is a standard issue “move” in these comment streams and is usually deployed in places (like this one) where a long string of valid arguments has been made that the complainer-about-anonymous-commentary does not agree with politically.

    Anonymous commentary, like other commentary, should be judged based on the validity of its content, not based on the anonymity of its source. This country has a long and distinguished history of anonymous commentary, including the Federalist Papers, including anonymous letters in the press by Abraham Lincoln.

    There is plenty of information available locally about the MAS controversies and Stegeman’s role in them, about Stegeman’s actions as a minority Board member, and about what the two main factions in the district have proposed in the way of policies on standardized testing. If you want to judge the validity of the opinions expressed on these topics by anonymous commenters, look it up. Two suggested sources for you: the video and minutes archives on the TUSD website and the press coverage available through the Arizona Daily Star website.

35. A note on the use of the term, “transparency”: elected officials in public institutions are required by law to be transparent in how they handle the business of the institutions they govern. Arizona law does not happen to require commenters on Tucson Weekly blogs to identify themselves by name when they submit opinions about business relating to public institutions. (Nor, for that matter, does Tucson Weekly policy require it.)

    This, Mr. Dohse, is one of the appropriate differences, too often forgotten these days, between what is required of “elected public officials” and what is permitted of “private citizens.” “Transparency” is a term that properly applies to what the government owes to citizens, not what citizens owe to the government or to other citizens. Why? Because the government takes our tax dollars and needs to be transparent about how they are applying them and because they make laws and policies that affect citizens’ lives. Citizens need to know how to choose the best leadership in elections, and to do so they need to know what elected officials have used their power in office to accomplish. (Or, in the example in this comment stream relating to Stegeman and his UHS-separate-site initiative, what they INTEND to use their power to accomplish, if they can get the electorate to re-install them in office and if they can obtain a majority on the issue.)

    And one more point of clarification: one of the commenters in this string with concerns about Stegeman’s record in office did not post anonymously. So the statement that Stegeman’s “opposition on this thread” used pseudonyms is not entirely accurate.

36. And, still, the anonymous voices complain about the “validity” of issues the public should consider …

    … while those anonymous voices remain, somehow, clueless to the obvious …

    … that the public has already voted …

    … and the public voted for Stegeman.

    Apparently the public thinks it already knows “how to choose the best leadership in elections.”

    Perhaps the public was suspicious of those anonymous voices that speak from hidden places.

    Perhaps the public is concerned about a hidden agenda driving the anonymous commentary.

    Maybe the public thinks it is YOU who is not being transparent, and concludes YOUR voice lacks credibility … or worse.

    That IS what the vote count indicates.

Comments are closed.