A major success of collaborative government and working with stakeholders was the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). This initiative involved reducing regional haze in the West by reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and fine particle pollution, all air pollutants that diminish visibility. Since regional haze is, by its very nature, a regional problem, the solution depends on a regional state and tribal collaborative effort. Ursula Kramer recounted, “The WRAP spent significant amounts of time developing the regional collaboration approach. Developing a mission statement, bylaws and organizational structure that were acceptable to the many stakeholders was challenging, but the finished product showed the time and effort was well spent. The organization is so effective that WRAP has expanded and is still working today.” The WRAP partnership board included the governors of states and the governors of tribes. Governor Leavitt was adamant that tribes should have a place at the table. Ursula Kramer explained the situation: “Reduced visibility and regional haze problems were directly impacting the tribal lands, so it was appropriate to involve them.” The tribes did not have air quality data, but the National Park Service had a lot of data for tribal land. In addition to recognizing the importance of the state-tribal partnership, WRAP established technical and policy committees with a designated balance of tribal, state, industry, environmental and other stakeholders. All of the decisions were based on consensus. At first, it was a challenge, but in the end, partners worked hard to accomplish meaningful, workable consensus decisions. WRAP left a legacy. It became the West’s model for collaboration. Brad Barber developed an Enlibra tool kit that was distributed by the Oquirrh Institute. The kit had extensive information about estimating environmental impacts by running different scenarios and models before implementation. The kit provided a way for local governments, which do not have vast resources, to better consider environmental impacts of decisions and identify the most effective and cost efficient solutions. The process gave them an opportunity to identify where the problem areas were and build agreement on the solutions for air quality and other environmental considerations. Ursula Kramer spoke further about the importance of trust and collaborations, “I think to this day a lot of agencies still struggle with collaborative approaches. I am still often amazed when an agency is doing a rulemaking or permit that, in my judgment, ought to go out for public review or community discussions. Lots of areas around the country are still pushing those out without any stakeholder involvement. I think it is hurting the whole process. It goes back to the trust issue. When you don’t work together, the community won’t have a sense of comfort with what you are doing.
Utah History Encyclopedia
The Utah History Encyclopedia was published in 1994 as a joint project of the Utah State Historical Society and the University of Utah Press with funding provided by the Utah Centennial Commission.
It includes more than five hundred entries written by two hundred seventy historians and writers on a variety of subjects, places, individuals, and events in Utah history. In his letter published on the back of the dust jacket of the volume, Governor Leavitt wrote: “Utah is a state rich in history and tradition. In 1896 Utah became the nation’s 45th state. This book, supported by a grant from the Utah Centennial Commission, provides fascinating information about Utah’s first 100 years of statehood.
From the Utah War to the Utah Jazz, from Philo T. Farnsworth to Flaming Gorge, this reference work describes the people, places and events that have shaped this state and made it what it is today.
Planning
Comprehensive Planning to Meet Future Development Needs One of the key management decisions made by both Division Directors Courtland Nelson and Mary Tullius was to initiate the development of comprehensive resource management planning (RMP) efforts for each state park. The Division’s RMP process rapidly expanded during the Leavitt/Walker years. Each RMP was stakeholder driven, and incorporated the expertise and recommendations of park users, local business leaders, local governments, natural and cultural resource experts, and Division staff. In addition, through public meetings and through extensive visitor survey methods, these planning efforts incorporated the public’s input and recommendation. This provided the Division with a more representative picture of true visitor needs. These efforts led to more efficient planning and programming for future capital facilities. Through the stakeholder-based planning teams and through the public outreach efforts which were integral to each planning process, the Division was able to better capture the needs of park visitors, and translate these needs into facilities that provided the public with a safer and more satisfying visitor experience. Resource Management Plan (RMP) Process Developed and Utilized in Utah State Park System The Division RMP process evolved over several years, beginning in the early 1990s. It was an effort to develop a more rational and pragmatic method to describe and comprehensively plan for state parks on a park-by-park basis. It described the park in more scientific terms to justify alternatives for improvement, expansion and management. To expedite this process, DNR divisions agreed to provide timely professional and scientific data about selected state park properties; e.g., hydrology, geology, land ownership, geomorphology, biology, cultural resources, water rights, public safety, flood control, land use analysis (site and contiguous properties), endangered species, demographics, economic profiles (impacts/trends), GIS maps and data bases, and environmental concerns, among others. In addition, each park had a current park user survey imbedded in the data base; e.g., park use, recreation activities, preferences, etc. resulting from random, consistent park surveys managed by the Parks and SLC headquarters planning/development section. Broad-based public participation was crucial to legitimize the process and findings. Teams and committees were formed to formulate ideas, prioritize strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the park (SWOT Analysis). Key “stakeholders” (those affected by the park and plan recommendations) included park management, law enforcement, water users, park users, concessionaires, local governmental officials/representatives, Legislators, tourism providers, special activity groups (boaters, hikers, trail users, etc.), cultural resource specialists, federal land managers among others. Findings and recommendation were presented to the Board of the Utah Division of Parks and Recreation and DNR after 8 to 16 months of preparation. Continual dynamic site and user changes required RMP updates every three to five years to ensure protection of the resources, and relevancy to Board, department, and state policy. Plans were published and promulgated; i.e., hard copies, Internet and CDs Development and Application of the State Park Evaluation System Description: In the late 1980s and early 1990s the division responded to legislative requests for some type of system to evaluate that, which should or should not be a state park. The Division recognized the dynamics of ongoing major demographic changes in terms of leisure activities, park use, user preferences, increases in certain ethnic groups, major technological advances in recreation equipment and attire, major interest in health and fitness, and a keen interest in trail-related opportunity in state parks and urban areas. The public was demanding renovation and physical improvements in state parks, as well as additional high-quality state park areas; i.e., sanitation, campgrounds, public safety, trail heads, trails, water and wild land access. January 1995 saw the completion of the Final Report: Utah Division of Parks and Recreation Telephone Survey, by the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, USU, Anderson and Blahna. The report indicated strong support for the notion of preserving natural conditions in parks. Designations of new state parks were deemed to require strong local and political support, including designating parks with historical or cultural values, and parks in or near urban areas. These major findings were included in the proposed state park evaluation system. The State Park evaluation system (MAUT—Multi-Attribute Utility Technology) was field tested and reviewed by the Division of Parks, Recreation at the University of Utah, BLM, State Lands, Wildlife Resources, Division Law Enforcement, and Park Operations. A staff team with varying expertise and experience spent 12 days field-reviewing and gathering data for the state park evaluation process. They reassembled to weight, prioritize and rank-order 43 state parks and properties. Parks in similar categories were ranked against each other; e.g. Scenic Parks such as Dead Horse Point, Heritage Parks such as This Is the Place, Boating Parks such as Jordanelle, and other recreational parks such as Antelope Island and Wasatch Mountain State Park. (See Utah State Parks & Recreation: Park Site Evaluation System, Multi-Attribute Utility Technology (MAUT)—A System and Process to Qualify and Differentiate Between Competing Existing or Potential State Park Resources for Utah State Park Status, March 2002, T. Green, 57 pp.). A decision tree format weighted “Positive Environmental Qualities” (9); “Positive Social Qualities” (9); and “Positive Administrative and Management Qualities” (9) for each State Park; i.e., a total of 27 key variables. In August 2000, the Utah State Legislature Interim Committee on Natural Resources and the Division of Facilities Construction and Management had directed State Parks to perform a system-wide evaluation for each state park Weighted values or scores were summed to differentiate between the four categories or types of State Parks, differentiating or illustrating “less valued parks” against “higher valued” state parks. The evaluation system will be modified and recalibrated (ongoing) to reflect current park standards, needs and policies in future years, as conditions require.
National Governors Association
National Governors Association
The National Governors Association (NGA) is a bipartisan organization of the nation’s governors. NGA has a system of rotating chairs of NGA. When the Chair is a Democrat then the Vice Chr. is a Republican and vice versa. The chair and vice chair each serve for one year in their positions, with the vice chair becoming chair at the conclusion of the chairs term. Gov. Leavitt served as vice chair to Gov. Carper (D-Delaware) from 1998-1999 and was named chair when Gov. Carper’s term concluded in August 1999. He served as chair from August 1999 to July 2000. Gov. Paris Glendening (D-Md.) served as vice chair with Leavitt. As Chairman, Leavitt focused on “Strengthening the American State in the New Global Economy”. A new NGA task force was created, “State Strategies for the New Economy”. Throughout the course of the year, papers created from the Task Force were released by Governors in their states. They were available on line and were widely read. The annual winter meeting was one of the highlights of Leavitt’s chairmanship. The plenary session with Thomas Friedman, the New York Times foreign affairs columnist, was one the most interesting and interactive sessions NGA has ever had. On the final day of the winter meeting, the first ever and historic meeting with the nations’ governors and the US Senators took place in the Russell Senate Caucus room. The discussions were divided into three major subjects: Governance in the Cyber Century: the convergence of Technology and Globalization; the Federal-State Partnership: a Historical Look; and Federal-State Programs: New Models for the 21st Century. The purpose of the meeting was toinitiate a discussion and lay the groundwork for consideration of how to create a dynamic forward looking state-federal partnership. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott(R-Miss.) and Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) and NGA leaders Leavitt and Glendening led the discussion. Moderators included Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Governor Grey Davis (D-Calif.) and Senator George Voinovich(R-Ohio). An NGA paper, Governance in the New Economy, served as the background for the meeting. While this meeting was a success and led to Federalism hearings, Leavitt had hoped that this would become an annual event. The Feb. 29, 2000 joint meeting was very successful. However, it has not been repeated. Leavitt concluded his Chairmanship with the annual meeting in St. College Pennsylvania in July 2000. Highlights were the final speech as President to NGA by President Clinton and a Govs. only session with Alan Greenspan. Even though the NGA is a bipartisan organization, there have been times when it has become somewhat divided along party lines. During his Chair, Gov. Leavitt was able to keep the NGA a relevant, bipartisan organization that was called upon often during Congressional deliberations on issues affecting the states.
Utah Statehood Centennial Ambassadors Visits
Ambassadors who visited Utah during the Utah Statehood Centennial Ambassadors Visits Program
His Excellency Raul Enrique Granillo Ocampo, Ambassador to the United States for Argentina – Jan. 2-12, 1996 His Excellency Adriaan Jacobovits de Szeged, Ambassador to the United States for Netherlands – Feb. 26-27, 1996 His Excellency Le Van Bang, Ambassador to the United States for the Socialist Republic of Vietnam – Feb. 27-28, 1996 His Excellency Stephen Kapimpina Katenta-Apuli, Ambassador to the United States for the Republic of Uganda – March 4-6, 1996 His Excellency S.
Nathan, Ambassador to the United States for the Republic of Singapore – March 18-20, 1996 His Excellency Li Daoyu, Ambassador to the United States for the People’s Republic of China – March 20-22, 1996 His Excellency Einar Benediktsson, Ambassador to the United States for Iceland – April 12-13, 1995 His Excellency Nüzhet Kandemir, Ambassador to the United States for the Republic of Turkey – April 30-May 1, 1996 His Excellency Knud Erik Tygesen, Ambassador to the United States for Denmark – May 6-8, 1996 His Excellency Dermot A. Gallagher, Ambassador to the United States for Ireland – May 9-10, 1996 His Excellency L. John Wood, Ambassador to the United States for New Zealand – May 30-31, 1996 His Excellency Mukendi Tambo AKabila’, Ambassador to the United States for Zaire – June 5-6, 1996 His Excellency John Biehl, Ambassador to the United States for Chile – June 11-12, 1996 His Excellency Jesus Silva-Herzog, Ambassador to the United States for Mexico – June 16-18, 1996 His Excellency Helmut Tuerk, Ambassador to the United States for Austria – June 19-20, 1996 His Excellency Carlo Jagmetti, Ambassador to the United States for Switzerland – June 20-21, 1996 His Excellency Franklin Sonn, Ambassador to the United States for South Africa – June 24-25, 1996 His Excellency Tuliameni Kalomoh, Ambassador to the United States for the Republic of Namibia – June 26-27, 1996 His Excellency Sione Kite, Ambassador to the United States for the Kingdom of Tonga – June 28-29, 1996 His Excellency Pedro Luis Echeverria, Ambassador to the United States for the Republic of Venezuela – July 8-9, 1996 His Excellency Hiem Phommachanh, Ambassador to the United States for Laos People’s Democratic Republic – July 18-19, 1996 His Excellency Kunihiko Saito, Ambassador to the United States for Japan- Aug. 24-25, 1996 His Excellency Tuiloma Neroni Slade, Ambassador to the United States for Western Samoa – Sept. 5-6, 1996 His Excellency Fayez A. Tarawneh, Ambassador to the United States for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan – Sept. 5-6, 1996 His Excellency Gyorgy Banlaki, Ambassador to the United States for the Republic of Hungary – Sept. 11-15, 1996 His Excellency Fernando Andresen Guimaraes, Ambassador to the United States for Portugal – Oct. 7-8, 1996 His Excellency John McCarthy, Ambassador to the United States for Australia- Oct. 11-12, 1996 His Excellency Arifin Mohamad Siregar, Ambassador to the United States for the Republic of Indonesia – Oct. 11-13, 1996 His Excellency Benjamin Edgar Kipkorir, Ambassador to the United States for Kenya – Oct. 15-17, 1996 His Excellency Kun Woo Park, Ambassador to the United States for the Republic of Korea – Oct. 22-24, 1996 His Excellency Tom Vraalsen, Ambassador to the United States for Norway – Oct. 24-26, 1996 His Excellency Carl Henrik Sihver Liljegren, Ambassador to the United States for Sweden – Nov. 7-9, 1996 His Excellency Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Ambassador to the United States for Estonia – Nov. 7-9, 1996 His Excellency Ojars Eriks Kalnins, Ambassador to the United States for Latvia – Nov. 7-9, 1996 His Excellency Alfonsas Eidintas, Ambassador to the United States for Lithuania – Nov. 7-9, 1996 His Excellency Andre Adam, Ambassador to the United States for Belgium- Nov. 11-13, 1996 His Excellency Berhane Gebre-Christos, Ambassador to the United States for Ethiopia – Dec. 10-11, 1996 His Excellency Raul Ch. Rabe, Ambassador to the United States for the Philippines – Dec.16-17, 1996 His Excellency Var Huoth, Ambassador to the United States for Cambodia – Feb. 13-15, 1997 His Excellency Nitya Pibulsonggram, Ambassador to the United States for Thailand – Feb. 25-27, 1997 His Excellency Yuli M. Vorontsov, Ambassador to the United States for Russia – Feb.
Ambassador’s Experiences
Ambassador’s Experiences
There were a lot of interesting and fun experiences while hosting the ambassadors. For example, the committee tried getting the Swedish ambassador to come to Utah three times and was turned down each time because of his busy schedule. Dr. Peterson recalls that someone passed along a suggestion to get the Swedish ambassador to come. He suggested that Dr. Peterson invite the Baltic ambassadors to visit as a group. He felt that the Swedish Ambassador wouldn’t miss the opportunity of coming if the other Baltic ambassadors were here. Dr. Peterson contacted them and suggested that they come together as a group. The four ambassadors came to Utah together. The closing event for the Baltic ambassadors was a dinner and performance by the BYU Ballroom Dance Company under the rotunda at the State Capital Building. President Thomas S. Monson, First Counselor, and President James E. Faust, Second Counselor, in The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attended. Also as part of their visit, the ambassadors learned that Neil Diamond was in concert in Salt Lake City and someone was able to get them tickets to go to the concert. They all got good seats and had a great time. The Korean ambassador came in October. He about shook Dr. Peterson’s arm off when he arrived. The ambassador said, thank you, thank you, thank you. He said that he and the other ambassadors would get together and talk about their trips to Utah. Before his trip to Utah, he would listen to the ambassadors talk about Utah, but now that he had the opportunity to visit Utah, he could partake in the conversation. The ambassadors who visited Utah under the Utah Statehood Centennial Ambassador Visits Program were able to experience the Governor’s Protective Service, was greeted by a host that had ties to their country and generally spoke their language, had meetings with Governor Leavitt, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and business leader. The ambassadors were amazed when they arrived at the airport to return to Washington, D.C. at all they had done in a day and a half. Utah again was able to exceed expectations. Governor Leavitt, in particular, was great in hosting the ambassadors. He is so warm and genuine and has such a great smile, and ambassadors were always enamored by him.
Olympic Torch
On a crisp early morning just as the sun was rising, Utah welcomed the Olympic flame to state soil at the base of Utah’s oldest icon, Delicate Arch. As an elder from the Ute Tribe waved an eagle feather and tossed red Utah dirt to the four winds, another Ute elder chanted a prayer to Deity and passed the Olympic torch to his granddaughter, a high-school soccer player, who got the flame started on its 1,050 mile run through the state. The ceremony took about five minutes. It was magnificent.