David Little, editor of the Enterprise-Record, took us to task in his column published April 22. He noted that his paper never wrote about a lawsuit in which it was named the defendant. Never, at least, until it reported the suit was dropped. Brought by San Jose attorney James Roberts last July, the suit said that the E-R’s free weekly advertiser, the Mid-Valley News, was not being delivered at the circulation rate promised to advertisers. Roberts dropped the suit last month when he realized it wasn’t going anywhere because E-R advertisers were not jumping on board the class action. We said in a story a few weeks back that the E-R had written about it. I guess we just assumed it did, seeing as how it was the defendant and all. Sorry David. We were wrong. Little’s also correct when he says we wrote about it, though I’m not sure we elevated it to a major story, as he claims. We had three stories—two short newslines and one essay in which CN&R Publisher Jeff vonKaenel told how he had helped orchestrate the suit. Those three stories appeared in July and August. We didn’t mention it again until the E-R took us to court to get us disqualified as a paper of record. We mused that perhaps our connection to the Mid-Valley suit was a motivation for the E-R’s wanting us to stop taking public notices.

The point here, obviously, is to offer an olive branch to David and the good folks at the E-R. Let’s get past this. David’s mentioned to me more than once that he does not consider us competitors—though I’m not sure how The Buzz fits into our relationship. And I think he’d agree that the worst thing that came out of these nasty legal wranglings was the fact that, once we started writing about it, the Mid-Valley News started littering our driveways, lawns and sidewalks again. Life in Chico was better when the MVN remained bundled and tossed under bridges off Humboldt Road, into trash cans in Bidwell Park and onto the piles of recycled newspaper at the Work Training Center. And for this we apologize.

The League of Women Voters sponsors the Otterson Drive debate Thursday, April 26, beginning at 7 pm in the Chico City Council Chambers. There will be a brief introduction by city planner Clif Sellers, followed by an introduction of the three participants for each side—Tod Kimmelshue, Steve Bertagna and Jolene Francis speaking in favor of building the $2.9 million bridge over Comanche Creek in south Chico, and Dan Nguyen-Tan, Robert Best and Randy Larsen against. Sally Armstrong will serve as moderator and ask each side two questions and a sort of mathematical word problem. Each team will have three minutes to answer. The questions: Should the Otterson Drive extension be built? What do you project will happen if the Otterson Drive extension is not built? The math task: Explain the financing of this proposed project. Expect some fast talking. Afterward the audience gets to ask questions. Then, at 8:45, each side gets five minutes to summarize its position.

The saddest part of Jonathan Studebaker’s services April 21 at the university stadium was the fact he was not there to appreciate the irony and humor that threaded through the proceedings. His brother Alden, a minister from Cincinnati, presided and gave the affair a rather generic treatment—"Lo though I walk through the valley …” It was like “Insert Jonathan Studebaker’s name here.” Jon had told me once that he and his brother weren’t exactly close. And then there was the skateboarder doing tricks on the running track across the field. (Jon didn’t care much for skateboards, and to have one performing by chance at his services was something that would have tickled him to no end.) Then there were the svelte women joggers who tried to circle the track but were turned away when they approached the services. Jon, who had a passion for attractive women, would have invited them to come on through and maybe stop and sit a while. And then there were the poignant reminiscences offered by Richard Trimmer and Phil Midling—funny, sad and right on the mark.