Foreign Trade Missions
China
In 1997, the first trade mission that I was involved with was to China. Our previous model was to have full trade offices to support in maybe just 3cities in the world like London, Hong Kong, and Tokyo, which is very expensive to rent space and hiring somebody with the necessary expertise and contacts. We hadn’t been doing too well on international business development with that model, so the model had been switched over during the early years of the Leavitt administration to having part time representatives in maybe ten to fifteen different countries who would be available on call, and they were high-level people that had a lot of connections in the government.
The representative we had for China was a guy named Shawn Hu. He was only about 30 years old and had been at Weber State University so he was a friend of Utah. This young guy was just absolutely unafraid of doing anything in terms of getting in to see high-level persons. We got over to China on the trade mission and Beijing was the first stop. Shawn had it set up so that Leavitt had to leave right away from the airport and go to be interviewed on Chinese National Television with an estimated audience of 400 – 500 million people. They were interviewing him about things that Shawn Hu had sold to the top levels of Chinese government that Utah previously had been a backwater in the Western United States that didn’t have much of an economy, but the brilliant Governor Leavitt had come in and made it a technology center and really got the economy going. So in the days afterwards, we met with these high-level officials and we got into the inner sanctum next to the Forbidden City which is where the top party people are and we got in to meet with the number three guy in the whole government. He said to Mike, “We’re especially grateful that you’re here, Governor, because we’re now at the point in our economic development where we have developed the coastal cities, and China is a lot like the United States. The East Coast is developed and our interior West isn’t as developed, and yours wasn’t either a long time ago. At first it was in the east, the Industrial Revolution, and then it went to the west. And we’re moving to the West, too, and your itinerary has you going out to Xian , the ancient capital.”
We went to the University of Xian and they gave Leavitt an honorary doctorate degree and he made a speech that was great. Whenever he’d make a speech to students at a university on our trade missions, they were just entranced, he was so great. The Communists would give a speech by some big-time guy coming in, sitting down and reading his speech, and then when he finishes everybody stands up and he leaves. Leavitt was walking around with a mobile mike, making eye contact, asking them questions, and throwing the whole thing open for questions after twenty minutes or so. And they just think this guy’s the greatest thing they’ve ever seen, which he is, this phenomenal leader who interacts with the people.
They held a state banquet for us in the Great Hall of the People at Tiananmen Square, which is quite rarely done. We’re in the middle of this banquet, and this Chinese guy gets up and he gives a toast, and so this other Chinese guy comes over to me and says, now when this Chinese toast is over, you’ve got to be the one to respond, because that’s the number two Chinese person here and you’re the number two Utah person, so the Governor can’t respond, you’re going to have to respond. I said, tell me, when Chinese make a toast, what’s their equivalent for Cheers or Salud or something like that. He said, it’s “goom bay”. So I tried to remember goom bay, but then I looked and I got a little rattled, because the only beverage in front of me was a glass of orange juice. And I thought this has got to be the first time that a state banquet in the Great Hall of the People has ever had a toast given in orange juice. Then I get up to do the toast and so I said a few nice words and then I was going to say goom bay, but instead I said gomb boo. All these Chinese guys that were at the table were so darn nice, they stood up and they go goob boo! And the Utah guys didn’t know the difference. I got away with what could have been the most embarrassing moment of my whole life.
The Chinese had us busy every minute, and Mike wanted to interact with the common people and feel their culture. So he would get up very early in the morning and walk around the cities talking with the people.
We went on a trade mission about every second year. They were really good for establishing our reputation and we’d always have a number of private industry leaders coming along that our guys would set up appointments for, because they couldn’t really afford or didn’t know how to startup a business abroad. So the business people would be off during the daytime doing their appointments when Leavitt would be meeting with officials and I would be kind of tagging along, trying to make sure everything went well.
South America
We went to South America in 2002 spending some time in Sao Paolo Brazil, and we got an appointment to go up to Brasilia and met with the Vice President of the country. Then we went down to Argentina and everywhere along the way we were received well. The President of Argentina at that time was Carlos Menem, and he was a controversial guy from one of their western provinces who was very flashy. Their economy was going pretty well right then, and they had been making quite a few improvements. We had a meeting with him in the palace, and right near his office was the balcony where Evita and Juan Peron would make their speeches. It was really fun being in there with him. Near the end of the conversation, there were a few remarks about golf. It turns out Menem really likes to play golf and Leavitt says, I do, too. And Menem says to Leavitt, what’s you handicap? And Leavitt says, it’s about a 10, but I don’t usually play to that. I don’t get to play very often. And I piped up right there and I said, don’t believe that, he’s a really good golfer. Menem said, what are you doing tomorrow morning? And we were scheduled to fly out to Santiago, Chile, the next morning, and we had a major function at the US Ambassador’s residence that evening where Leavitt, of course, was going to be the main attraction.
Menem said, you can come out to my country club, I have a cabinet meeting at my home in the morning, I will make sure it is over at about 10 o’clock and then we can golf. Leavitt was a little bit reluctant, but he finally said, I’m supposed to be in Santiago, but I just can’t pass up the opportunity to play golf with the President of Argentina. So Menem says, we will take my helicopter from my home to the golf course, then after golf, I will have my helicopter take you to the airport, so you should get to Santiago on time. We’ll have a foursome; I’ll get a couple other guys to play. So Leavitt goes over to Menem’s home at the end of the cabinet meeting and they go to the golf course, they might have even helicoptered to the golf course, I don’t remember that for sure. It turns out, when they get there to play golf and they’re going to have teams and Menem sides up with a professional and gives Leavitt his chief of staff who’s about a 20 handicapper to be on his team. So they have this little competitive bout and had a lot of fun, although of course Menem and his partner win. Meanwhile, I had to fly over to Santiago to hold the fort in case he got there late, and he didn’t get there until about an hour after the reception had started.
Menem was only about a year away from having to resign for various reasons. A couple of years later at about age 70 Menem married this young Miss World from Chile. He’s a very mercurial, colorful person in South American politics.
Challenges
Development and Maintenance Backlog
Under the Leavitt/Walker administrations, the Division adopted two forward looking strategic planning efforts, Frontiers 2000 initiated in 1996, and more recently, Vision 2010, initiated in early 2004. Both these documents identified the need for the Division to step up previously identified issues regarding deferred maintenance and capital development. With the advent of the 1990s, approximately thirty years after an initial investment in facilities and infrastructure, the Division found itself attempting to meet the needs of an expanding visitor base with an inventory of facilities rapidly reaching the end of their useful life.
In the late 1990s, Division leadership, working in partnership with the Division of Facilities, Construction, and Management (DFCM) undertook a comprehensive, system-wide survey of the Division’s facilities maintenance needs. Their efforts revealed that there was a $70 million backlog of maintenance and development needs. At the same time, annual funding for maintenance averaged about $2 to $3 million from various sources. Maintenance and improvements issues ranged from ensuring day-to-day visitor health and safety to addressing the evolving recreation needs of an increasing visitor base.
As the demand for maintenance funding greatly exceeded available funding, Division maintenance efforts were analogous to medical “triage” whereby facilities requiring attention to maintain visitor health and safety received top priority. DFCM delegated its maintenance authority to the Division on the condition that Parks meet mandated maintenance standards. The ongoing delegation of this authority is indicative of the resourcefulness and skills of Division managers and maintenance personnel to maintain facilities to acceptable standards in light of scarce resources.
Capital Funding Resources
Closely related to deferred maintenance was the need to expand and replace the Division’s capital facilities during the Leavitt/Walker years. With the advent of the Utah State Parks system in 1957, the Division initiated major infrastructure development programs during the 1960s. Much of this development occurred in large parks such as Wasatch Mountain, Utah Lake, Bear Lake, and Dead Horse Point. By the 1990s, much of this infrastructure was reaching the end of its useful life. In addition, changing trends in recreation use necessitated a rethinking about facility design. For example, campgrounds that once adequately met the needs of small campers or trailers of 1960s vintage could no longer accommodate the larger units that became “standard” in the 1990s. Likewise, with the rapid growth in Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use, emerging visitor preferences for interpretive experiences, and rapid growth in demand for large group camping experiences, the State Park system of the 1990s was faced with a whole new set of facilities and infrastructure needs.
To meet these needs, the Division entered partnerships with federal, state, and local agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, DFCM, county governments, and cities and towns to raise and leverage capital facilities funding. Again, with funding needs exceeding available resources, and in light of keen competition with other capital facilities demands for other state agencies, the Division was able to forge ahead with many significant capital development projects through careful planning and fruitful partnerships.
Reading Initiative
Need for a Reading Initiative
It was generally recognized that student reading achievement was not as high as it should be in Utah and needed to be addressed. Governor Leavitt and Lt. Governor Walker established the improvement of student reading achievement as a top priority for the 1999 legislative session. National reports that reading levels were declining in America were emerging and most people agreed that student success in reading was an essential priority (National Endowment For The Arts Announces New Reading Study https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/ToRead.pdf, Address Utah’s Reading Woes https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19981120b.pdf). The state responded with reading initiatives. Other states, like Texas, had moved aggressively with reading programs and had seen some improvement in reading levels, so public education officials were confident that reading initiatives would be successful in Utah as well. Governor Leavitt proposed eight million dollars to fund reading improvement in elementary schools in Utah. Schools receiving this additional state funding would be required to develop a school wide reading improvement plan and specify how they would utilize this additional state funding to improve reading achievement in their school.
Early Negotiations
Lieutenant Governor Walker was extremely supportive and involved in the reading initiative. The reading initiative became the centerpiece for the Governor’s public education proposals for the 1999 legislative session (Teachers Told: Get Kids Reading; Program Also Counts On Contributions From Parents, Community Volunteers and Libraries; Reading Program Unveiled For Teachers https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19980717b.pdf). Representative Jeff Alexander was asked to sponsor the bill in the legislature. The public education community was very supportive of this initiative and fully supported the Governor’s legislative proposal. The development and planning of the actual legislation included input from the public education community and research regarding other similar legislation across the country. Academic research on reading achievement was also included in the preparation for the proposed legislation.
As the legislative session was approaching an end, however, only three weeks remained and the reading bill had still not been introduced. The Governor’s staff and supportive members of the public education community worked with Representative Alexander, but there was a lack of consensus regarding several provisions of the bill. It was reported that some legislators were hesitant to support the legislation because they did not feel a reading initiative was necessary if schools would simply perform at a level that was expected. Some legislators argued that additional funds were unnecessary where teachers were already being paid to help students master reading. Another important issue to be resolved was that of school accountability for student achievement. Again, some legislators felt that teachers should be held accountable to teach reading, and if they were not already successful, no additional funding would ensure improvement. Such doubts and criticisms seemed to fuel questions of school effectiveness and accountability generally. These issues and other questions about funding became significant concerns for many legislators (Public Education Reforms Are Just ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW20000402.pdf).
Conflict and Resolution
Governor Leavitt was very eager to pass the reading initiative bill, so he organized a special meeting with several legislators. He asked Gary Carlston, his Deputy for Education, to invite Representative Alexander, Lt. Governor Walker, Representative Sheryl Allen, and Gary Doxey, legal advisor to the governor to a meeting to discuss the matter. This small working group met in the Governor’s outer office to discuss the bill. The discussion was polite, but little progress was being made during the early stages of that meeting.
The meeting suddenly became tenser as Representative Alexander pointedly stated that the reason the reading bill had not been introduced was because Dr. Carlston had not been willing to discuss school accountability. Dr. Carlston was shocked that Representative Alexander accused him of blocking discussion of school accountability and being the primary cause for the delay in creating the reading bill. The room was silent for approximately 20 seconds, and the discussion resumed with no further mention of Representative Alexander’s remarks about Dr. Carlston. After several minutes, the Governor turned to Representative Alexander and sarcastically said, “Since you’re the smartest man in the world, why don’t you go upstairs and you work it out.” The meeting ended abruptly after this tense exchange.
Governor Leavitt fully supported Dr. Carlston and they promptly returned to the drawing board to discuss how they could return the focus to the bill. Dr. Carlston and Representative Alexander spoke again, worked out their disagreements, and discussed how to get the bill introduced and approved.
Passing the Reading Initiative
Legislators, particularly Representative Alexander, wanted to build into the bill more freedom regarding the manner schools would use the reading funds. A classic policy struggle regarding local control vs. state mandated directives became the final hurdle to overcome. Early drafts of the bill called for schools to develop school reading plans specifying how those plans were to be developed before funds would be appropriated to them to the schools. A compromise was reached and the $8 million originally requested was cut to $5 million, and the legislation provided schools flexibility on the development of reading plans and how the funds would be spent. This legislation, however, led to additional funding support from the legislature at the request of Governor Walker.
The principal issue that emerged from the reading legislation process was not funding for reading, but rather school accountability, which is an important lesson about policy development (Office of the Governor: 2000 Legislative Accomplishments; Invest More, Expect More http://archive.li.suu.edu/docs/ms122/LG/ms122LG20000317.pdf). While the executive branch was focused on improving reading achievement in elementary schools, many legislators seized on the opportunity to push an agenda school accountability. Other states had enacted school accountability laws requiring student examinations and public reporting. A direct result of the wrangling over the reading initiative was the formation of a legislative school accountability task force. The following legislative session, the legislature enacted U-PASS, Utah Performance Assessment System for Students (Accountability for Utah Schools https://schools.utah.gov/file/03cda54e-e399-4dda-b0d6-2631e89b1182), which was endorsed by the Governor. As it turned out, the timing of the reading bill and passage of U-PASS was impeccable because both these initiatives prepared Utah for easy implementation of No Child Left Behind, which was initiated just one year later.
Charter Schools
Legislation
Although charter schools had not yet been introduced in Utah, Governor Leavitt was very interested in supporting their implementation. He believed that school choice for parents and some competition for regular public schools was important. During the summer of 1997, a task force was organized by the legislature to study the possibility of creating charter schools in Utah. This task force consisted of legislators, Governor Leavitt’s deputy of education, public education officials, parents, and citizens. Although the task force met throughout the summer of 1997 and examined charter school models, concepts, and potential legislation, they did not reached a consensus regarding the details of a legislative proposal when the 1998 legislative session began.
Governor Leavitt was generally perceived by the public education community as a strong supporter of public education. However, the Governor was also well known for being forward thinking about education, and it was not unexpected when the Governor proposed the creation of charter schools even though most of the public education community did not support them. The Governor’s position created an interesting dichotomy; because the public education community generally recognized the Governor as a proponent of a strong public education system, they did not want to oppose the Governor full force regarding his charter schools proposal. When the legislative session began, a detailed proposal did not exist, but the Governor listed the creation of charter schools as one of his education priorities for the 1998 general session of the legislature.
Opposition
As the legislative session progressed, various challenges to charter school legislation emerged and were debated: Should teachers be certified? How would charter schools be funded? How many charter schools should be authorized? What government entity should be granted authority to authorize and approve charter school applications? For what length of time should a charter be granted? To whom would the charter schools be accountable? What standards of governance would be mandated? These questions were very challenging to resolve due to the variance of charter school laws that had been enacted across the nation and the diverse political views that existed at the time. Capital funding was particularly challenging, as were considerations for non-wpu program funds. Also, the initial start up funding for these schools was a matter of concern. Moreover, legislators held very divergent views, although it was anticipated there would be sufficient support to enact some sort of charter school legislation. Public education officials were generally unsupportive or only slightly supportive as charter school legislation was being considered. Through all the debate, Governor Leavitt remained committed to gaining legislative approval for charter schools; he was open, however, to listening to the opinions from all of the stakeholders (Public Education Reforms Are Just ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW20000402.pdf).
Many legislators believed that the money necessary to start and operate charter schools should come from the regular public education funding and that state funding should follow the student to the school in which the student was enrolled. Others were doubtful that the charter schools could even be financially viable. The fear was that charter schools would fail quickly, thus sending their students immediately back to the regular public education schools. Legislators were also very concerned about accountability. Since the schools would not be accountable to a local board of education, a major concern was the entity to whom would charter schools be accountable. Debate among legislators became very intense.
The underlying questions discussed above illustrate general philosophical differences between the public education supporters and many legislators, along with the Governor’s own views of creating charter schools. A growing sentiment at the legislature, especially among most republicans, was that charter schools represented a more distinct form of school choice than anything being proposed at the time. Some legislators wanted charter schools to be free of many rules and regulations imposed on regular public schools including the certification of charter school teachers, the creation of a chartering agency or board, and opportunities to operate these schools with a business model that would be more responsive to patrons. Charter Schools were thought to be very different than the successful Centennial Schools Program that had been implemented during the previous years of Governor Leavitt’s administration.
Charter School Bill
Although the philosophical differences and structural issues were difficult to overcome, an agreement was eventually reached by the legislature. After much negotiation, Governor Leavitt proposed that charter schools would become a pilot program only, and the proposal was accepted by the legislature. Representative Brian Allen agreed to sponsor the charter school bill in the House. The legislation provided for eight charter schools during a three year pilot period and gave the State Board of Education authority to award those charters to successful applicants. The legislature appropriated an initial sum of $500,000 of start-up funds to be allocated by the State Board, which meant $60,000 per charter school to assist with start-up expenses. It was agreed that WPU funding would follow the student to the charter school (Legislators Appropriate $227.9 Million For Utah Education https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW20010301a.pdf). Charter schools were governed by a local governing board, parents were required to provide transportation for students, and no capital funds were appropriated to charter schools as part of this initial legislation.
Tax Credits
While legislators and other stakeholders were negotiating and finalizing the charter school bill, there were some public school choice advocates that wanted Governor Leavitt to consider tax credits and school vouchers, which were emerging as a principal public school choice option. Although Governor Leavitt did not particularly agree with the use of tax credits or school vouchers, he was careful not to entirely close that door. He commonly said that he would consider these public school choice options once Utah education needs were sufficiently funded (Charter Schools Clear Legislature; Voucher Plan Passes Senate, But Could Have Trouble In The House; Education Bill Creates New Charter https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19980228.pdf).
Public school tax credits were eventually enacted by the legislature under the Huntsman administration. Through a citizen’s initiative and months of rancorous debate, however, this legislation was placed on the ballot and overturned by the electorate. Governor Leavitt had effectively kept school choice on the table, but felt that students’ needs could be met more effectively using charter schools with more specialized roles. This was a significant position because Governor Leavitt was able to reassure the public education community that he was fully behind them, but he clearly communicated that there were some things that the public schools should be doing better.
Though Governor Leavitt maintained his support for public education and public schools, he recognized that families needed to have freedom to choose other schools, if they felt that certain schools were not meeting their children’s needs (Charter Schools at 10-year Mark https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW20020503.pdf). He was convinced that that charter schools represented the best choice and freedom, although he never foreclosed the possibility of going further with school choice. To make the incremental change, the Governor had to help all stakeholders understand that charter schools are, indeed, public schools that are publicly funded and publicly accountable. The Governor also recognized that pursuing tax credits and vouchers too early could undermine providing families the choice that charter schools could provide.
The implementation of charter schools would create major changes in Utah’s public school system. This reform gave parents the freedom to choose which schools their children would attend. Parents became more involved in proposals to start a charter school and also had the opportunity to serve on their governing boards. Charter schools now had the option to specialize in the sciences, arts, music, or to offer a more traditional curriculum. There was considerable variety in the first eight charter schools that were approved. One of the pilot charter schools was established for students that were disabled in sight. Another school, Tuacahn High School for the Performing Arts, was formed in St. George (Excitement and Misconceptions Surround Charter Schools; Leavitt’s Plan And The Subsequent State Funding For Eight In Utah Has Generated A Flurry Of Questions To Education Officials https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19980420.pdf, Big Apple Could Teach Utah About Education, Leavitt Says https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19930524.pdf, Office of the Governor: 2000 Legislative Accomplishments; Invest More, Expect More http://archive.li.suu.edu/docs/ms122/LG/ms122LG20000317.pdf). Even where schools chose to specialize, they were responsible to teach the Utah Core Curriculum and participate in state mandated student assessments.
Despite the obstacles, Governor Leavitt achieved his public education legislative priority in the 1998 legislative session by adding charter schools to the Utah public education system. The charter school bill did not pass until near the end of the legislative session, which is an indicator of the difficulty of this legislation. This was an important lesson in policy-making. Not everyone was completely satisfied with the legislation, but it opened the way for the introduction and growth of charter schools and public school choice in Utah. Every year since 1998, the legislature has considered changes to the original charter school legislation and the three year pilot of eight schools was short lived as additional schools were soon authorized.
Corrections
Introduction
Criminal Justice was a very important operation in the executive branch of Utah government. The most important thing for the criminal justice operation was to keep everything in check and to stay out of the newspaper. The operation is obviously necessary, but Governors do not like to discuss the details about what goes on. Governors Leavitt and Walker were smart; they selected very competent individuals to handle criminal justice and they expected their appointees to do the job. Our interaction with the governors, therefore, did not occur when things were going well; we met when there was a crisis, a problem, an issue that needed to be resolved.
Our department was different than work force services, health and human services, or natural resources; it was an organization that was charged to take care of the criminal element in our society–a necessary evil. Any elected official wants to stay as far away from that as possible.
Mike Sibbett was Chairman, Utah Board of Pardons and Parole with Governors Leavitt and Walker. He also served for two years as Chairman of the Council of Criminal and Juville Justice (CCJJ), on the executive committee of Utah’s Sentencing Commission and worked very closely with other cabinet members involved with criminal justice. Peter Haun was executive director of corrections, but previously, he was the chairman of the State Board of Pardons during Governor Bangerter’s tenure. Within a couple months of being elected, Governor Leavitt asked Mike Sibbett if he would step in as the chair, and Sibbett stayed as chairman his entire term and the entire term of Governor Walker.
|
Background of Departments
Mike Sibbett and Governor Leavitt have known each other for many years. Mike Sibbett was the executive director of the Utah Cattlemen’s Association in the 80’s. Mr. Sibbett knew the Governor’s father, Dixie, through the Legislature, and Mr. Sibbett teamed up with Governor Leavitt to help in Orrin Hatch’s and Jake Garn’s campaigns that Mike Leavitt ran. At one point, when Governor Bangerter was considering a running mate, Mr. Sibbett was on a short list along with Mike Leavitt and Val Oveson. Mr. Sibbett recalls a conversation that he had with the Governor at the Old Ambassadors Club in downtown Salt Lake when Mr. Sibbett said, “are you really interested in doing this?” Governor Leavitt responded, “geez, I don’t know I’ve got such a young family; I don’t know if I really want to do that in this stage of my life.”
Mr. Sibbett was appointed chairman of the State Board of Pardons, which was simply one aspect of Utah’s criminal justice system. The chairman worked closely with the executive director of corrections and during the two administrations, there were four executive directors of corrections: Lane McCotter, H.L “Pete” Haun, Mike Chabries, and Scott Carver. Corrections consisted primarily of all the prisons and adult probation and parole–parole overlaps with the State Board of Pardons and probation overlaps with the courts.
The group also worked very closely with the executive director of the Council of Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ). This director of CCJJ was a senior staff member as opposed to a cabinet member. Camille Anthony was the executive director senior staffer for the longest period during both the Leavitt and the Walker administrations. Following Ms. Anthony, Ed McConkie took the senior, Executive Director, staff position for a time.
The Utah Department of Public Safety worked very closely with Corrections and the Board of Pardons. Doug Bordrero.and Robert “Bob” Flowers were the two Public Safety Commissioners that worked with Governors Leavitt and Walker. There was also close workings with Juvenile Corrections and the Courts. Mental Health issues also brought Health and Social Service into meetings and coordination of policy.
One additional area of concern was the mental health system as it related to the criminal justice system. Lane McCotter was given the responsibility to deal with the mental health piece. On this issue, the department heads had some serious philosophical differences. The state hospital was tremendously overcrowded, and the county systems were not stepping up and taking care of the mentally ill. A tremendous number of the mentally ill were ending up in the criminal justice system—not that all of them were criminals, but their illnesses often led to some minor criminal activity because they were not receiving the help they needed. No one wanted to take responsibility for them.
|
Warehousing
A meeting was convened in 1994 with Governor Leavitt, Charlie Johnson, Governor’s Chief of Staff, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Sibbett, the director of the State Hospital, and the executive director of Health and Human Services. It was a meeting for which the group had prepared for at least four months. The decision that had to be made was what to do about the mentally ill in Utah that were winding up in state systems. It was a gut wrenching meeting where the participants collectively came to the realization that there was somewhere between 600-900 individuals somewhere in the system with serious mental illnesses, and the state had no place for them to go. The participants discussed whether it made sense to build out the state hospital to accommodate these people and hire adequate staff , which was would have been an astronomical expense, or whether the state should build a forensic center at the state prison to house the mentally ill, recognizing that this solution would humanely remove the mentally ill from society but perhaps not provide the services of a state hospital facility that families of the mentally ill were desperately requesting.
One complicating factor was that the state was trying to accommodate both low and high functioning individuals that were either a threat to themselves or society. It ran the gamut from extreme psychopathic schizophrenics and extreme bipolar cases to those that were just depressed and may hurt themselves or others. The one element of commonality among the mentally ill that the state had to deal with was that these individuals displayed antisocial behavior and were at a stage of mental illness where mental health professionals could not treat or deal with them in non-secure housing. Those in the criminal justice system felt the mental health professionals were not doing nearly enough to try and treat these individuals. It was a frustrating trend across the nation, not just in Utah, that mental health professionals were abdicating responsibility for the mentally ill to the criminal justice systems. That shift has never been reversed, and to this day prisons and correctional institutions are by far the largest theaters of the mentally ill, which is a tragedy of immense proportion.
Mr. Sibbett blames this trend on an entrenched body of research and instruction in higher education that has effectively “given up” because of the huge number of antisocial mentally ill individuals in our country that are not easily treatable. Mental health professionals have turned their backs on these people because they have large enough case loads, interesting clients, and they simply do not want to deal with the larger issue. As this debate rages on, Mr. Sibbett has become a very popular speaker at national conferences (when they dare invite him) because he is not afraid to discuss disease models versus cognitive models, and he challenges mental health researchers and professionals to abandon archaic philosophies to catch up with the reality of the times.
The decision to house the antisocial mentally ill in the prison in Utah was an excruciating decision to make, and candidly, it was driven by budget. The reality was that even if the state would have built a much larger hospital, there was not enough mental health professionals to staff a huge state hospital the way it needed to be staffed. The decision was made to get the funding, which the group was successful in doing, to build a state forensic housing unit at the state prison. Lane McCotter had to oversee the building project and the hiring of sufficient psychologists and MSW’s to work there. This task was extremely difficult because mental health professionals were used to working in state hospitals not state prisons.
Corrections has had to adopt a whole new mindset because it has never had the budget or the money to cover what really needed to be done by professionals to treat the mentally ill. Mr. McCotter wanted to develop a diagnostic center so they could identify those that could be turned around through therapy; he wanted to be able to extend treatment to those people. The others were simply being warehoused. That term was simply a euphemism for housing the mentally ill individual at the state prison. When the cost of warehousing was $45 a day versus putting them in a state hospital for $400 a day, warehousing was the only economically viable alternative, but it is not the best solution. Indeed, the stress of handling the mental health issues in corrections eventually lead to the resignation of Director McCotter after an inmate with serious mental issues died after being restrain in a professional chair designed to restrain those that were out of control.
The Case of Michael Valiant
|
In 1997, there was a 29 year old schizophrenic inmate named Michael Valent, and one of the practices of the prison dealing with the mentally ill was to put them in a restraining chair if the staff absolutely could not control the inmate and the inmates was hurting him/herself or someone else. Mental health experts, Phd’s, and psychiatrists recommended this protocol and Mr. McCotter went along with their strong recommendations. Unfortunately, the staff left this inmate in the restraining chair for a period of 16 hours, and soon after they released him from the chair and he was through with his episode, a blood clot hit his heart and he died. This story became very high profile. It was referred to by many as torture and inhumane treatment. It was one of the first times the public really got a glimpse of what correction facilities had to deal with in relation to the mentally ill.
This prisoner was too dangerous to release, but on the other hand, did he deserve that kind of treatment? Future governors and other leaders will have to face this issue that has been a constant struggle for the past 15 years or more. The issue has not been fully addressed and will not be resolved until it is. According to Mr. Sibbett, prisons should not be the catch-all for the mentally ill in society. Mr. Sibbett believes this is a statement that every single director of every state corrections department would support.
|
Board of Pardons
The mentally ill also posed the greatest challenge to the board of pardons. When they would review the files on mentally ill individuals there had to be an assessment of beyond whether they had served their time. The question always remained as to whether they were competent enough that they would not pose a threat or be a danger to themselves, their families, or society. Regardless of the guidelines and the sentencing there were individuals that would reoffend and be put back in the system multiple times. It was a sad state of affairs, and so the question remained what the state should do with those individuals. That is a very perplexing and heart breaking decision and there was always major disagreement in the cabinet and with senior staff over this issue.
|
Privatization
There was a great experiment that was started with Lane McCotter. The state privatized a facility at the point of the mountain called Promontory. The State brought in a national company that actually had local ties in Utah called MTC. It was quite a debate over privatization because the country was moving toward privatization, but Utah had never tried it. MTC had a contract for low level, non-violent, mostly third degree felons, or felons that had already received a release date within 12 months. They were not employed for high security incarceration, although the facility was placed on the north end of Draper.
The state built the facility, and MTC ran it. The construction was substandard, and the building resembles a large warehouse. It has large dormitories and was built to MTC specifications. MTC build facilities to minimize the expense in construction and constructed in a fashion that reduced the number personnel required to be on duty. So, the facility has huge dormitory rooms at night where inmates would come and sleep in bunk beds—almost like a military setup. One major problem that MTC encountered was that many of these prisoners were on work release and could bring all types of contraband back into the facilities. They lived in close quarters with other prisoners not authorized to leave the institution. Since it was impossible to control the trafficking of contraband, the lack of any therapy, and other issues, this experiment was abandoned.
Corrections budget exceeds 200 million a year in operating expenses, and with that budget, a director must make some pretty tough decisions, particularly in a budget crisis. One of the decisions that Pete Haun had to make when he was executive director, knowing he had to make budget cuts, was to cut the contract on the Promontory facility. Under extreme budget pinches, Mr. Haun made the decision to ship 200 of our inmates to private facilities of Texas within a six month window, and within that time corrections had 3 or more prisoners escape adding to the consequences of the failed privatization experiment in Utah.
|
Expansion
Mike Chabries replaced by Mr. Haun and immediately had to deal with the issue of a shortage of beds. The budget was not allowing the institution to increase the number of beds and expand the Gunnison or Draper facility, yet something had to be done. Mr. Chabries approached the board of pardons and requested the early release of 360 prisoners to free up beds. This was a controversial decision and was not a popular decision among the members of the board of pardons. Mr. Sibbett, the Chairman of the Board of Pardons, supported this option under a very limited budget and the full Board voted to release enough inmates to assist in Corrections major budget shortfall. Of the 360 early release inmates non came back to prison with serious new felonies. While this helped the prison out it put major workload issues on field parole supervision and on the Board of Pardons.
Corrections sent a list of a little over 700 names of inmates to choose from. Corrections and the Board established clear standards that there were to be no sex offenders or violent criminals, no disciplinary problems in the institution, and the individuals chosen had to have a release date already set sometime during the next two years.
The board of pardons went through this list and the first third were pretty easy to select. It became more difficult to go through the next third. The last third was gut-wrenching because the board had to try and figure out if they were really going to be a risk and if they would not create more issues for law enforcement. The media had a field-day with this story. Articles and editorials predicted that the early release would cause increases in crime and the board of pardons would be held accountable. This first experiment, however, went extremely well. The board did a great job screening those individuals, and even though they had some come back with board warrants, no major crime was committed by those early releases. The members of the board were all holding their breath. The Governor was holding his breath, too, because the Governor signed off on the plan. In the end, there was no other choice because the budget was simply not available.
The board of pardons did another early release with Mike Chabries, and both of those early releases ended up working pretty well. This experiment begged the question, therefore, regarding recidivism whether the amount of time a criminal spends in prison is an actual deterrent to future criminal activity.
Death Penalty
It seems to be easy for legislatures to act “tough on crime” by imposing longer sentences add enhancements and by adding consecutive versus concurrent sentences. What is not easy is for legislatures to add the budget to all the tough crime rhetoric and statutes. The question remains, when a criminal is locked in a 5×8 cell, is 30 days a long enough sentence, or 3 years, or 15 years? What is really the deterrent?
When people talk about deterrents they cannot leave out the most serious sentence which is the death penalty. Everyone that supports the death penalty would say it is a great deterrent because a murderer must pay the ultimate price for his crime. In Mr. Sibbett’s experience of reviewing over 130,000 (few have reviewed that many) he supports the death penalty. Both Governors Leavitt and Walker supported the death penalty as well. But, the more one looks into the death penalty, according to Mr. Sibbett, the more one realizes that using the death penalty strictly as a deterrent for the crime of murder is dubious at best. The most common types of murders fall within two categories according to Mr. Sibbett: murders of passion and calculated murders. With murders of passion, a husband walks in the bedroom finds his wife in bed with another man and grabs a gun and shoots them both. After it is over the husband asks: “What have I done?” Then there is the person that gets himself into a bar fight and grabs a bottle and hits a guy over the head and kills him. Murder may or may not have been the intended result; the person was merely acting on the spur of the moment. The death penalty is not a deterrent to these crimes because the perpetrators do not think about what they are doing; they just act.
Then there are the cold calculated premeditated murders. The death penalty is not a deterrent for those individuals either, because they believe they are so smart that they will never get caught. Those murderers never anticipate they will ever have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
What the death penalty does deter, according to Mr. Sibbett, are serious crimes from escalating, because perpetrators of serious crimes generally turn from that option for fear of paying the ultimate price. It is these criminals that the death penalty inhibits. Mr. Sibbett explains: “I cannot tell you how many sex-offenders, kidnappers, and armed robbers, when I asked them ‘why didn’t you kill the victim?’ they respond, ‘I didn’t want to get fried.’” The death penalty is a deterrent for the escalation of crimes, according to Mr. Sibbett, but not a deterrent for murder itself.
|
Firing Squad
We had firing squad in Utah as an option until 2003. While firing squads fell out of favor in this country, to this day Mr. Sibbett firmly believes the firing squad is the most humane way to execute a prisoner. He explains: “It is instantaneous. The individual is dead before he even hears the shot. Unfortunately, the media and the opponents of capital punishment made [firing squads] into an old vigilante, wild west means of vengeance that it was impossible to control the message. The issue became politicized and people forgot the reasons the inmates were on death row in the first place. Indeed, individuals on death row started repeatedly requesting the firing squad simply to put pressure on the state to do away with capital punishment altogether.”
The last firing squad execution was conducted in November of 2001, and the last prisoner to be executed was John Albert Taylor who raped and murdered a little 11 year old girl in Davis County. The system could not get a single reporter to focus on the brutality of the crime and the victim. It was a big event. It attracted national and network national news as well as international media. They camped out for a week. Every proponent of doing away with capital punishment imaginable was in Utah. Hollywood personalities and movie stars were speaking out on the issue. Petitions and letters from world and religious leaders were being circulated to stop the execution. The pressure was tremendous.
To make matters worse, this event occurred just prior to the Olympics. Utah was trying to court international favor, but yet, here was a firing squad execution. In a meeting with Governor Leavitt, Mr. Chabries and Mr. Sibbett decided they would support doing away with the firing during the legislative session that was to follow the Olympics. It was based on political reality and Utah simply did not want to battle the issue of how a criminal was going to be executed but change the media focus to why the person was on death row to begin with.
“It was a very difficult decision,” stated Mr. Sibbett. “No one has asked my opinion on lethal injection, but if there is inhumane way of execution the lethal injection is tough stuff. It takes over a minute and tremendous convulsions and tremendous pain based upon those convulsions before death sets in.” Of course, lethal injection creates a conflict for medical providers that take the Hippocratic Oath because they start an IV that eventually will take a life. It was very difficult to find the doctors to do it. Furthermore, a lot of these criminals have been drug addicts all their lives, which made it difficult to find a vein for the IV. Eventually, it is sometimes necessary to cut the individual open to find a suitable vein.
A firing squad has five 30-30 rifles, and only four with live rounds. The final round is loaded with extra powder so no one would know who had the blank and who had the live rounds. Mr. Sibbett continued: “If a person considers the size of the dime all four bullets would hit that mark none outside of that dime shape and it simply explodes the heart and that is the end of it; there is very little bleeding—it is done.
|
Olympics
Mike Chabries was the executive director of Corrections during the Olympics. One of the interesting things Utah did in preparing for the Olympics was that, starting in December, if there was going to be an inmate released, the release date was moved to March of 2002, after the Olympics. Utah did not parole people in December, January and February. The directors did not want to have individuals on the street that had just gotten out of prison. This was a very calculated decision. Furthermore, AP&P worked very hard to get parole violators off the street and back into prison. In the timeframe when the world was in Utah for the Olympics, the crime rate was at an all-time low. Utah really did not have any major criminal episodes.
All branches of law enforcement were all pressed into overseeing and helping to secure the games. The state utilized corrections officers, which has the largest public safety sworn police force in the state. There are more sworn officers in corrections than the Highway Patrol or the entire state department of public safety. Corrections literally shut down during the Olympics from our normal operations to take care of the security of all of the venues and to be out in the street. It was a big job for corrections to get everything up and running and operating again immediately following the Olympics. In hindsight, this was a strong and wise strategy that had a great outcome.
|
Gunnison Prison
Scott Carver took over for Mike Chabries and was charged to oversee the expansion of the Gunnison prison. He worked tirelessly with the legislature to ensure that the facility had enough beds because of the tremendous growth in the prison population. The main Draper Prison site located at the point of the mountain at the southern most part of Salt Lake County is clearly coming under the same population pressure that the old Sugar House prison had 60 years ago. Housing and Business in the Draper area is putting great pressure on moving the Draper prison location and the Gunnison expansion to assist in a more gradual transfer of housing was one of the major issue supporting Gunnison. In the next 10 years major policy issues will need to be made on the relocation of the main Draper prison. Crime will not end and everyday more of the population are sent to prison. Future Governor’s will need to be very careful on new criminal laws and sentences as legislatures are quick to add harsher criminal sentences with the budget to support the new laws into the next decade.
Summary for Corrections and the Board of Pardons
Both Governor Leavitt and Governor Walker selected outstanding Cabinet members to lead this very difficult governmental division of state government. Both allowed the Chairman and Executive Directors to use their deep professional background to advise and run criminal just without the Governor’s heavy involvement. To be as effective as possible the Chairman of the Board of Pardons and Parole, Executive Director of CCJJ, and the Executive Director of Corrections must work very closely to develop a strong criminal justice plan.
Leavitt’s Administration Relationship with Attorney General’s Office
First General Counsel
Robin Riggs was Governor Leavitt’s general counsel from 1992 to 1997. Historically, Robin was the first governor’s general counsel in the state. There was a proposal on the election ballot to change the constitution to allow the governor to appoint his own general counsel to be separate from the Attorney General’s office. In the past the AG’s office was the governor’s sole representation. That changed in 1992. The year before Robin came into the Leavitt administration, he was the executive director of the Constitution Revision Commission and they had talked about the amendment to that portion of the constitution. During the deliberations in arriving at that recommendation the Commission had interviewed AG and deputy AGs about that issue including Jan Graham, who at time was very much opposed to having governor be able to appoint his/her own general counsel; not knowing if that would have an impact on the relationship between Governor Leavitt and AG Jan Graham. The real historical nuance is that being the first general counsel for a sitting governor in Utah, Robin had to blaze a trail in terms of how that relationship would in fact work with the AG going forward. Every time there was interaction with AG’s office, there was no precedent that guided the process or the decision making.
Democratic Attorney General
Also in 1992, Democrat Jan Graham was elected as the Utah Attorney General, and she was the first woman elected to statewide office in the State of Utah. AG Jan Graham was elected the same year Mike Leavitt was elected as a republican Governor with a huge republican majority in the Utah Legislature. Jerry Jensen remembers, “I was Speaker at the Legislature before Jan and Mike were elected. I was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and had run for Congress, not well unfortunately. I had been in the legislature for four years and wanted to stay. When Jan called and offered me the position as Director of the Legislative Affairs with the AG’s Office, I did not know her outside of my legislative duties, but we had a good working relationship with each other. There was a Republican Legislature and a Republican Governor. Jan thought that having me take that role as a Republican, would help her office. The quality of the people in the AG’s Office and the Governor’s office were very capable people. There was no contention in these two offices. They were doing what was best for the State.”
Abortion Cases
In 1992, There was at least one abortion case that was pending in Utah that started with Governor Bangerter. Governor Leavitt and AG Graham inherited this problem and had to decide how to defend the abortion statute and all that it entailed. This was the first real disagreement between Governor Leavitt and AG Graham. They disagreed on how vigorously they should defend a statute when personal policies might have been different. Indeed, that issue was never resolved to the point that the AG said she would agree with the Governor. Since they could not agree, they started to discuss how they could work together despite fundamental differences in their philosophy and approach.
With the first abortion case, Governor Leavitt thought that he could personally mediate the issue, so he brought the plaintiff to the mansion to sit at the table to help him resolve the matter without further litigation. Plaintiffs in that lawsuit were highly impressed throughout the first few meetings, but Governor Leavitt’s attention was drawn to many other pressing issues. After awhile, Robin Riggs was meeting with plaintiffs to resolve the matter short of litigation without the Governor present.
Progress slowly broke down, meetings were conducted less frequently, and eventually, the lawsuit proceeded to the courts.
Jerry Jensen remembers, “Governor Leavitt really did try to resolve it. . . . The Governor put together a panel to try to resolve the issue. . . . There was a big concern with the doctors at the University of Utah who may do an abortion but not because it was elective, but because abortion is a necessary remedy for a woman under a life threatening condition. They were not doing elective abortions. There was a tension there because Jan was perceived as trying to sabotage the [abortion] bill, which was not true. Jan just wanted the [state’s] best defense put forward.”
In the second lawsuit, the AG’s office did not proceed aggressively with plaintiffs to find a resolution short of litigation. Instead, the AG’s office pushed the Governor to hire a local attorney as special counsel to oversee and litigate, as needed, the abortion lawsuits.
The AG’s office pushed for local counsel to take over the first abortion case, and Governor Leavitt resisted. But on the second case, he the Governor had extensive discussions with the AG’s office about the best way to represent the state’s interests in defending the law. It was decided that the Governor would appoint Mary Ann Wood as special counsel. This appointment was resisted by AG Graham, and there was much press coverage on these two women and their disagreements and political views.
Ann Wood was fired by AG Jan Graham, which caused a great deal more tension and press coverage. Many felt that the termination was personal. AG Graham had sent notice to Robin Riggs that she was going to let her go at a time when Robin and Jerry Jensen were both out of town. When they got back to town, Jerry got a call from Vicki Varella in the Governor’s Office who was extremely agitated and asked why the Governor’s Office had not received word about Mary Ann being terminated. AG Graham had stated she had informed Robin Riggs about the decision. While Governor Leavitt was holding a press conference on the issue, Jerry walked into the Governor’s office while the Governor was taking questions from the press. Jerry raised his hand to set the record straight. We wanted it acknowledged up front that the decision was made unilaterally by AG Graham when the others were out of town.
As it turned out, Jerry Jensen ended up arguing the second abortion case to the 10th circuit court. There was a lot of tension between the Governor’s Office and the AG’s office following that. It was clear that that the Republican Governor’s Office and the Democratic AG’s Office were on opposing sides of this issue, and the case, unfortunately, set the tone for the relationship between the offices thereafter.
Jerry Jensen recalls another event that caused some tension with the AG’s office and causes him some regret personally: “In one of the abortion cases in front of the 10th circuit, there was a motion or a request for a stay or something. When the decision came down from the court and the state had lost, Mike stated that they would have to appeal the case. Unfortunately, I was asked by the press about an appeal, and I stated I did not think it was a good idea. I honestly didn’t think it should be appealed, but if the Governor felt it should then, of course, I would agree with the Governor. This did not play well with the anti abortion/pro life groups, and Mike got upset. I requested an appointment with the Governor, and in the meeting Mike stated that he wanted to appeal.
I told the Governor I was not trying to override his decision; I was just handling the case the best I could, and I was not acting as a spokesperson for the Governor’s office. The press, however, conflated the messages and it appeared as though there was inconsistency.
Appointment of Attorneys General
Something that caused added tension between the two offices was the petition that went to the Constitutional Review Commission on whether or not to have an appointed AG or an elected one. There were 46 AGs elected in the United States, and the rest were appointed by the governor or some state body. Jan did not like the idea of the AG being appointed by a governor. Governor Leavitt, however, argued a good case for an appointed AG. The AG’s office had the deputy AG from Idaho and a former AG from Oregon, who was president of Oregon State University, to testify about the need to have an elected AG. Robin Riggs testified at the commission and acknowledged that good arguments could be made for an elected AG or an appointed AG. There was much open discussion over this issue and a bill was eventually generated to have the AG elected in the State of Utah.
AG Graham weighed in on this one issue: “The one comment I will offer is regarding the law the Governor asked for that severely clouded the relationship between the Governor’s office and the Attorney General’s office for a very long time.
The bill that Governor Leavitt asked the Legislature to pass (1998 I believe) sought to remove the power over civil litigation for the state from the AG to the Governor. The Republican dominated legislature acceded to his wishes and while it was not popular with the public, they passed it easily. It attracted national attention, and the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) was preparing to assist our office in a lawsuit to challenge the law, but the law was so unpopular with the people of Utah, the Legislature agreed to repeal it, so happily the lawsuit was not necessary. For several months, a top issue on the agenda of NAAG was “the Utah case”, and it was very unsettling to me and to the office to be at the center of such a negative issue.
As I recall, Greg Curtis was the unfortunate fellow in the Legislature at the time who agree to run the bill for the Governor. . . . He ended up feeling used and victimized as I recall, because the bill was so widely disliked by voters. The press was uniformly on the side of the independence of the AG’s office, as it had existed since statehood. It was a sad and difficult time for me and for the Utah Attorney General’s office. While it ended well, it was for a time a major concern and one which set back the cooperation between the offices for a long time.”
Tobacco Lawsuit
Around the year 2000, the big tobacco lawsuits had started around the country. Robin participated in the early discussions about a lawsuit to be filed on behalf of the state of Utah. For the most part, AG’s around the country were the ones heading up those lawsuits rather than the governors. So when Robin Riggs left his post, Jan Graham was in the middle of negotiations for Utah, and those negotiations ended up in a settlement with the tobacco companies that was driven exclusively by AG Graham. Governor Leavitt had expressed to Robin Riggs that he wished he had more control over the tobacco issue, and that the negotiations would not be entirely in Jan’s control. In particular he wanted to have more say and control over how the settlement went was to be spent.
The tension generated by the appointment issue became conflated with the tobacco industry settlements. On this issue, AG Graham stated, “[In my view], Governor Leavitt asked for the bill [taking control of civil litigation] because he was offended that he was not included in our press conference which announced the historic settlement with the tobacco industry. He wanted to be part of the victory party but unfortunately had not supported the litigation or even been willing to be involved in any way when we filed the case. I sought his public support of the case many times and he was resolute in failing to provide that support. After the case became a huge success, it didn’t seem appropriate to me to include him in something he was not part of. He was very upset–he wanted to stage it for the public as though I was advising him to approve the settlement and then he would announce in a press conference that he was accepting it.
But the reality was that I had already approved the settlement for the State of Utah and the press conference to announce that was going to take place the following morning without the Governor. This confrontation between us took place in his board room at a large table with most of his top staffers and mine, too. I don’t think anyone who was there will ever forget it. Governor Leavitt was very upset and the situation was rather tense. The meeting ended abruptly with an ominous statement that he would look into what authority I had to make such decisions without him. That is what sent him upstairs to Marty Stephens’ office looking for a legislative change to my authority to make final decisions about the State’s civil litigation.
I was very, very relieved when the bill [granting the governor power to make final decisions in civil litigation] was repealed. I did not intend to run for a third term, and I did not want to leave the office diminished from the powers it had when I arrived. One irony I recall is shortly after the bill was repealed, I placed a large ad in the newspaper thanking the people of Utah for preserving the independence of the AG’s office. The day the ad ran was the day of the tornado that ripped through the Capitol grounds and Memory Grove—a fitting end to troubling and fractious battle.
I wanted to offer this recollection personally because it was so important to me and to the office for which I held so much affection and respect. Otherwise, I am going to leave the telling of other stories to others. I congratulate you for undertaking the project and wish you the very best.”
Liquor Laws
Liquor Laws in Utah
Utah’s statutory philosophy is to limit and control the availability of alcohol
Utah is one of 18 control states in the country. A control state means that the state has a monopoly on the sale of alcohol whereby it has the power to limit and control its availability. During his administration, Governor Leavitt supported Utah’s philosophy as a control state, and he closely followed the statutory alcohol beverage policy of the state of Utah. This policy provides that Utah will not promote or encourage the consumption or sale of alcohol, but it will make it reasonably available to adults who drink responsibly.
The debate in Utah does not center so much on the basic philosophy of controlling the sale and consumption of alcohol. There is broad acceptance of the need to control alcohol as a dangerous product, especially in the hands of minors. The issue debated is mostly whether alcohol is reasonably available in Utah to adults, both residents and visitors, who drink responsibly.
Utah’s laws, by restricting the availability of alcohol, reduce consumption and the related public health and safety costs
A report entitled: “The Effects of Privatization of Alcohol Control Systems” prepared by Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation for the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association states on page 2: “It is well established by research that the availability of alcohol has substantial effects on alcohol consumption and alcohol problems. As state control of alcohol sales declines, alcohol tends to become more available. As alcohol becomes more available, consumption and problems increase. In fact, these increases are so predictable that it is possible to put a price tag on the impact to public health and safety.”
The sale of alcohol in Utah, except in state owned liquor stores and for 3.2 beer, is controlled by a quote system of licenses designed to allow an increase in the number of licensees based only on population growth. This policy is supported by two essential facts:
1) Alcohol is a mind altering drug that changes the way the brain functions. It creates a dopamine high which causes addiction. It shuts down the prefrontal cortex of the brain which causes people to act impulsively and make poor decisions. These issues are particularly acute with young people. Alcohol also impairs coordination and visual acuity causing many deaths and injuries.
2) Alcohol use is a health and safety issue. Government has an obligation to protect the public from the harms that alcohol can cause, which means regulation of how alcohol is dispensed.
Dram Shop laws deter criminal behavior
In 1992, the Dram Shop law amendments to distinguish commercial and non-commercial service of alcohol were put in place to deter commercial sellers of alcohol to serve alcohol in excessive amounts. In 2003, to further deter criminal behavior, the cap on damages that may be awarded to any person under Dram Shop law was raised from $100,000 to $500,000. The aggregate amount, which may be awarded to all persons injured as a result of on Dram Shop law violation, was raised from $300,000 to $1,000,000.
Governor Leavitt’s approach
Governor Leavitt understood that in Utah alcohol issues can be polarizing and controversial, particularly in a culture that is predominantly LDS and non-drinkers. Practically all citizens, regardless of religious beliefs or affiliation, however, agree that alcohol consumption is a public health and safety issue. Governor Leavitt’s involvement with alcohol issues was primarily in the realm of public health and safety. His philosophy was to allow the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission and the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control deal with the day to day running of Utah’s alcohol monopoly. His personal influence on the business of selling alcohol was mainly through the Commissioners he appointed to the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission.
The Leavitt approach reduced pressure to increase the availability of alcohol
Governor Leavitt’s approach to focus on the public health and safety issues concerning alcohol consumption proved to be a very effective way to reduce pressure from the alcohol industry and its supporters to increase the availability of alcohol. He understood that the greatest concern about alcohol for a majority of the people of Utah, including LDS and non-LDS citizens, is it negative impact alcohol can have on public health and safety. Nationwide research supports this conclusion.
In a U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) document entitled, “Drinking in America: Myths, Realities, and Prevention Policy” a national survey revealed that:
A large majority of Americans either do not drink or drink infrequently. For this majority, alcohol is an unimportant consumer product. According to the National Survey, about 46 percent of adults 21 years of age and older report that they did not consume any alcohol in the past month and an additional 26 percent report drinking once a week or less. . . . Binge drinkers [five or more drinks at a sitting] are 23% of the population, but drink 76% of the alcohol. [Among those who binge drink] frequent bingers are only 7% of the population, but drink 45% of the alcohol consumed by adults in the United States.
The belief that most adults drink in moderate amounts without problems translates into public policies that make alcohol readily available at low prices and permit widespread marketing that communicates only positive messages about alcohol’s effects. These policies in turn create an environment that encourages alcohol use and downplays its potential for harm to public health and safety.
Although we may think that our alcohol policies are simply helping to meet the demand from moderate-drinking adults, they are actually accommodating heavy and hazardous drinking by a small minority of consumers, many of whom are underage. Such policies undercut our efforts to reduce alcohol-related problems.
Most Americans either abstain from alcohol or drink very infrequently—less than once a week. Our public policies and social norms, however, do not reflect this fact and make alcohol readily accessible at low prices. Alcohol sales are dominated by a relatively small minority of the population who drink heavily.
Policies and norms that promote alcohol availability support and encourage these problematic drinking behaviors. Most Americans consume very little alcohol, so it is not surprising that large majorities of the population support stricter alcohol policies designed to reduce drinking problems.”
Alcohol legislation passed during the Leavitt administration increased public health and safety protection
The alcohol industry and its active sympathizers, which comprise a small minority of Utahans, did not have the support of the Governor or legislative leaders for any changes which would increase the availability of alcohol. Governor Leavitt’s approach to emphasize public health and safety concerns was adopted by the majority of legislators, and remained such during his entire administration. This approach for dealing with this issue was a great success.
An amendment to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Bill required that when alcohol is available to a consumer, food must be available for consumption as well. This restriction was added in 2003 along with an increase on beer taxes.
During Governor Leavitt’s service the negative social consequences of alcohol consumption continued to be about one half of that in surrounding states
The negative social consequences that include increases in drunk driving deaths and injuries, crime, violence, domestic and child abuse, and underage drinking and drug addiction all remained relatively low as compared to all of Utah’s surrounding states. Utah has long enjoyed considerably less public health and safety issues involving alcohol than is found in other states. While cultural factors play into these statistics, a prominent component for such low alcohol related public health and safety issues is undeniably due to the regulated levels of availability of alcohol.
The following chart shows that Utah enjoys approximately one half of the DUI related deaths that are found in surrounding states.
Utah DUI Death Rates in Comparison with other states:
| Arizona 45% | Montana 48% | Utah 24% |
| California 42% | Nevada 43% | Washington 47% |
| Colorado 42% | Oregon 41% | Wyoming 41% |
| Idaho 40% | Texas 48% |
Source: 2006 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment Alcohol- Related Fatalities; August 2007 DOT HS 810 821 NHTSA
The following chart shows that Utah enjoys approximately one half of the underage drinking and drug issues when compared in an 8 state average.
| Utah Avg. | 8 State Average or MTF* | |
| 12th Grade Ever used Alcohol | 38% | 73% (MTF) |
| 12th Grade 30 Day Alcohol use | 19% | 45% (MTF) |
| 12th Grade Binge Drinking | 12% | 25% |
| 6th Grade Intent to use drugs | 20.3% | 41% |
| 12th Grade Intent to use drugs | 19.2% | 45% |
| Needs Alcohol and/or drug treatment | 9.4% | Not Available |
| Parents Attitudes Favor Drug or alcohol use | 17% | 41% |
Posted on Utah Department of Human Services Web Site: www.hsdsa.gov/sharp.htm.
Governor Leavitt and the E.A.S.Y. Program
The Leavitt Administration laid the groundwork for the passage of the E.A.S.Y. (Eliminate Alcohol Sales to Youth) program, which was passed a little over a year after he left office. The E.A.S.Y. program provides permanent funding to educate the people of Utah about the dangers of underage drinking. It also provides money for additional enforcement of existing laws. The legislature provided approximately $1.7 million annually to be appropriated as a cost of doing business in this area, and it takes the revenue from alcohol sales. This money is used to educate the public about the consequences the physiological and psychological damage alcohol can cause young brains, particularly as young people are most susceptible to binge drinking. The funds also help to step up law enforcement to eliminate underage drinking. The legislature recognized that the state of Utah, because of its monopoly of the sale of a potentially dangerous product, has the responsibility to provide this education and support.
Utah’s alcohol laws and the 2008 Winter Olympic Games
https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19990828.pdf
https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW20020218.pdf
As Utah prepared to host the 2002 Winter Olympics, the advocates of increasing the availability of alcohol predicted that Utah’s liquor laws would cause major international embarrassment to the state and its people. Governor Leavitt and the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission ignored the pressure to make alcohol more available. The Olympic Games were a tremendous success and brought luster to Utah’s international reputation. There was very little if any notice or comment on Utah’s liquor laws.
Utah’s experience with the Olympic Games supports Governor Leavitt’s unwillingness to make alcohol more available because unsupported concerns that current liquor laws are detrimental to Utah’s economic future and growth. Even if it could be shown that Utah’s liquor laws resulted in a negative impact on economic growth, any advantage in economic development would be far more than off-set by the huge social and economic costs which result from increased alcohol availability.
Conclusion
https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW20001121b.pdf The people of Utah were very fortunate that Governor Leavitt during his entire administration was able to increase emphasis on public health and safety, and to limit the availability of alcohol with the huge social and economic costs that follows.