Shirley Agnos, associated with Arizona Town Hall since its inception in 1961, is retiring as president of the organization, effective July 19.
Since the early 1960s Town Hall has helped to foster a climate of self-examination among elected city, county and state officials and key business leaders. Journalists are invited to the three-day themed conferences, but are asked not to attribute quotes to officials without first getting permission. The idea behind the policy≠ To allow leaders to air ideas without fear of backlash.
Ms. Agnos was named 2003 Phoenix Woman of the Year by Valley Leadership and more recently was identified as one of “Arizona’s 25 Leaders & Legends” by The Business Journal.
Ms. Agnos will be succeeded by Phoenix attorney Tara Jackson. She will continue to serve as president emeritus during a transition period until formally retiring in July 2007. Ms. Agnos was interviewed by Arizona Capitol Times in her office on Feb. 10.
Tell me about the genesis of Arizona Town Hall. Why was it formed and who were the key players at the time≠
It was formed in 1961 by a group of about eight gentlemen who had been invited to a 1961 regional assembly in Santa Fe, New Mexico, of the American Assembly, which was started by Dwight Eisenhower when he was still president of Columbia University. Back then, he had brought together leaders from all over the country because he knew he was going to be running for president. The Arizonans who attended felt the only way to make the process better was to bring it home and do it on a statewide level. And now we’ve had a lot of Arizona communities start their own town hall. The more you bring it down to a manageable area, the better chance you have of seeing that the recommendations do get implemented. When the Arizonans came home, they went to Walter Bimson of Valley National Bank, Gene Pulliam (late publisher of Phoenix Newspapers Inc.), and Johnny Jacobs, who was, I believe, CEO of APS at the time. They put together a small group, including a couple of representatives from the Legislature, making sure they got both parties, and they sat down and said, “How are we going to make sure it works at the state level≠” At that time, the question of who would get the medical school was brewing, and the newspaper was running full page ads featuring opposing points of view on it and people were getting in a real fight about it.
You mean ASU or the UofA≠
Yes. They thought, how good to have an organization that would present to the public all the facts and stage a good, well-rounded discussion on some of the issues like this, and that would help the state mature.
Was the medical school the first issue that Town Hall tackled≠
It wasn’t the issue they chose, but that was what prompted their action. The first one [October 1962] was the state’s tax structure, which at the time was a real mess.
What else is new≠
Yes. The old saying of what goes around comes around. That was the first Town Hall. It had 73 participants, two women.
Were you one of them≠
No. I was working for Larry Mehren at Valley National Bank and he was in the throes of putting that whole thing together. That’s how I first entered into it.
How did it happen that suddenly you were the honcho≠
From the very beginning I was in on all that bottom-level planning. Larry Mehren was president, and when he retired from Valley Bank the Town Hall went with him as a private organization. He asked me if I wanted to go with him or stay with the bank. And so for the next nine years I was the executive director. And I became president in 1973.
What were some of the early issues≠
In addition to taxes, early issues were welfare, education — both K-12 and higher, and land use. And we even had one Town Hall on Arizona’s Constitution (October 1964), whether it needed changing.
What was concerning people then≠
I think it was that the Constitution was written at the time Arizona became a state and we had matured so much that perhaps some of the things in the Constitution were no longer appropriate. There was no huge burning issue. There were a number of them, but you look at it today, and you think maybe it’s coming around again. I got this announcement on a seminar being put on by the Arizona Supreme Court and (retired U.S. Supreme Court) Justice (Sandra Day) O’Connor on the balance between the courts and the other branches of government. You see some of the same issues coming around.
What have been the biggest issues≠
I think the three biggest ones were water, transportation and land use.
Why do these issues keep coming back≠
Mainly because our growth keeps going on so rapidly. Water — is there going to be enough≠ Transportation — can we build fast enough and manage some way to pay for it≠ In fact, the Town Hall coming up in April is going to take a look at trying to get people to look at things in perspective. What do you do when you have this explosive growth to make sure you have enough water 20 years down the road, and making sure you get the freeways built before they’re so congested that it doesn’t do any good≠
Mention a few issues that have been really resolved to your satisfaction.
You mean that will never come back again≠ I don’t know whether there is such a thing. Water is a particularly unique situation. Back at the time (Bruce) Babbitt was governor, we started in on the groundwater law. The Town Halls of that era probably were the precursors or the instigators of more legislation on water than any other one Town Hall topic has generated.
What gives you the greatest feeling of accomplishment≠
It is to see the people at a Town Hall come together and attack a topic on which they know many of them in the room disagree. But they are still willing to discuss it rationally and develop some kind of an answer that never totally satisfies everybody, but still it moves us forward. That both satisfies me the most and worries me the most about the future, because it’s harder and harder to develop that cohesiveness in a large body. They’re less and less willing to give up on their own viewpoint, no matter how narrow it may be. Consequently it brings us to a standstill quite a bit of the time.
Not willing to give up or negotiate≠ Is that what seems to be happening at the Legislature these days≠
Yes. For instance, one of the strong recommendations on any of the Town Halls having to do with Native American (water) rights has been to try and keep negotiations going so we don’t get locked in on court battles that go on for 30 or 40 more years. The Gila River Community accomplished that just this last summer. Some people were angry about it, said the Native Americans got too much, but others said, look, this is the situation that you have. Do you want to see it go 30 or 40 more years in court, or do you want to take a chance and seize an opportunity to fix it to a certain extent≠ On the courts issue, the Town Hall on civil justice (October 1988) was probably one of the most productive that I think we’ve had because it came at a time when Arizona was in a real quandary about what to do in electing judges in Maricopa and Pima counties. How do the people intelligently vote on so many candidates≠ And how do that many candidates go out and display judicial character but at the same time raise money to run for a partisan political office≠ People had said it would never pass because the outlying counties are going to be absolutely against the selection versus the election of judges.
And the rural counties still elect judges, right≠
Yes, they still do it, and that’s OK. They don’t have that many judges and they can keep track of those people.
Any Town Hall disappointments over the years≠
Oh, sure. One is cooking right now. People were comparing the demeanor of our congressional delegations back at the time of the CAP (Central Arizona Project) versus today, and trying to get our delegation to come together on issues regarding immigration. If there was as much diversity and pretty much bull-headedness among the congressional delegation back at the time of the CAP, on that issue, as there is today on the immigration issue, we wouldn’t have a CAP today. What do you think≠
You’re probably right. I’m not going to disagree with you.
As I pointed out to somebody recently in the Legislature who I knew was very opposed to one of the viewpoints that came out on immigration in that Town Hall (June 2005), the Town Halls make every attempt not to come out either opposing or aligning themselves with any current legislation. But they did say they believe that our borders need to be made secure, which is more of a reflection that is in (U.S. Sen. Jon) Kyl’s bill, but at the same time we need to develop some kind of a decent system that will handle the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that we have who are already here. They’re here illegally, but we need to find some kind of a workers program that will accommodate them, that will let us hire them legally. Rather than fighting about the two situations, the recommendation from the Town Hall was that the congressional delegation get together and get to a point where they can agree. Maybe they don’t buy each side of it wholeheartedly, but they develop something on which they agree so that they can take that agreement to the rest of the Southwestern border states and develop some kind of a Southwestern state caucus that would have some effect in Congress.
I recall when I covered a Town Hall there was a policy that comments made by participants were considered off the record and that reporters had to get the permission of a participant to quote that person. What was the purpose of that policy and is it still in effect≠
It is still a policy, but to this extent. It is not that you can’t quote what is said by an individual. At a Town Hall you can quote every word in every session, but we ask, and all we can do is request, that reporters do not attribute the quote unless they ask the person first. And we encourage everybody there to give that permission. The reason for it is to try and make sure that the people at a Town Hall are going to feel comfortable saying anything they want to say in those first two days of a session. They do sort of couch things sometimes when they see a situation bogging down, and they’ll play the devil’s advocate. Also, they may well be speaking what they believe on Monday at a Town Hall and learn enough that they change their mind on Tuesday. They feel that’s unfair because it could get plastered in the paper. The third day, when everybody has had two days to argue and we’re finalizing the whole thing, that part is completely open. We figure by that time they have learned what they’re going to learn, made the points they’re going to make and if they want to argue further it’s wide open.
You have announced your retirement and Tara Jackson will take over as president July 19. Yet you will continue to serve as president emeritus, helping with day-to-day operations until July 2007. Why such a long, drawn out retirement period≠
I’ll be here with her for two more Town Halls. I don’t think there are very many human beings who realize all the nuances that go into putting a Town Hall together, completing it, getting the word out afterward. It is laden with situations that could just blow wide open, or something could happen that could cause people not to respect it the way that I believe we have gotten them to respect it over 44 years. During the last 20 years, we’ve taken it on the road, doing post-Town Hall programs around the state. We meet with community groups, summarize what went on, show a tape of the “Horizon” TV show, and have three or four people from the area who were at the Town Hall speak. We go to 20 locations twice a year.
What do you plan to do with all your spare time once you have some≠
I’m going to be available to them for any special projects that they want done. Three things I love to do in my spare time are golf, painting and playing the piano. I have a summer home in California above Lake Tahoe, and I love to travel. There are a lot of things that could have been done here over the years if the organization had a larger staff, a lot of writing kinds of things and history kinds of things that are important to the organization that I’d like to do.
Thanks for your time, and good luck.
Thank you.