Chemical Weapons Incineration

Chemical weapons incineration was a hotly debated topic in Utah prior to the Leavitt administration. Dennis Downs, former Director of the DEQ Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, the agency that regulates the Incinerator, worked on this issue from the very beginning. “At what is now known as the Deseret Chemical Depot in Tooele County, there was a stockpile of chemical weapons, including nerve agents and mustard agent. These chemical weapons had been stored there for many years–starting clear back to the 1940’s. The State of Utah had approximately 43% of the nation’s stockpiles of chemical weapons, secured, stored and monitored in earthen bunkers in the south area of the Tooele Army Depot, now designated Deseret Chemical Depot (DCD).” These chemical weapons and agents were never used by the military in combat, but the stockpiles were built up in case they were needed. In conjunction with an international treaty on chemical weapons destruction, the commitment was made by the federal government to destroy all of those weapons.

Because of the extreme risk, due to the types of chemical agents involved and the deterioration of the weapons and containers, two decisions had been made prior to the Leavitt administration: 1) the chemical weapons and agents would be destroyed at Deseret Chemical Depot, because the risk of leakage and exposure to the public was too great to allow transportation to another facility out-of-state, and 2) leaving the chemical weapons and agents in storage posed greater risk to the public, from detonation or leakage, than the risk of exposure from incineration. “It was decided that the Army would build a chemical weapons disposal incinerator at Deseret Chemical Depot, including using the lessons learned from the successful destruction of chemical weapons at the Army’s incinerator on Johnston Atoll, in the Pacific. The incinerator in Utah, known as the Tooele Chemical Destruction Facility (TOCDF), required a lengthy permitting process through federal and state regulatory agencies; the permit process was initiated in 1989 to build that incineration facility. Completion of construction and surrogate testing of the facility occurred during Governor Leavitt’s administration; construction was complete in July of 1993; surrogate testing and trial burns, with non-lethal chemicals, occurred through June 1995, and the incineration of chemical weapons began in August 1996.” Utah was the first continental disposal sight, but there were five other storage facilities with stockpiled chemical weapons and agents in the United States. “There was a desire to transport chemical weapons and agents from other sites to Utah for destruction, rather than build incinerators or other destruction facilities at the other stockpile sites. However, Governor Leavitt refused to allow weapons to be transported to Utah. He said storage facilities needed to destroy their own weapons. Despite persistent, ongoing efforts to change that decision, Governor Leavitt refused to allow additional stockpiled chemical weapons and agents to be shipped to Utah. Ultimately, Congress refused to allow stockpiled chemical weapons to be transported across state borders.” “The first weapons to be destroyed contained GB Agent, a nerve agent. One thousand pounds were destroyed, which was eight percent of the stockpile. In March of 2002, the destruction of all of the GB agent, in weapons and ton containers, was completed,” Dennis noted. “That was very significant because the GB was the bulk of chemical agents that we had stored here and it was probably the most dangerous as far as toxicity; it presented the greatest hazard. Next began the destruction of VX chemical agent, another nerve agent, which started in March of 2003.” That was the year that Governor Leavitt went to EPA. At the time he left, about 2% of the VX stockpile had been destroyed. The stockpiled VX is now all destroyed.

The Deseret Chemical Depot is now into the mustard agent campaign; mustard is a blister agent. As of late 2009, 61% of the mustard agent had been destroyed. Cumulatively, about 82% of the total stockpile has been destroyed. It will probably take about another two years to complete that campaign, and then all of the stockpiled chemical weapons and agents will be gone. Looking back, Dennis recalls lessons learned, “I think one thing that was crucial to this process was the “homework” that was done and the “on-the-ground” work that was done, not only by the Army, but the regulatory agencies including our agency and the EPA. We all made sure that everything was in place and would operate properly before the actual destruction of the weapons began. This went a long way to help the public understand that storage of those chemical agents created a higher risk than destroying them. And, the longer they were stored, the higher the risk level, so just getting it right the first time and having a safe operation was well worth it, whatever minor time delays occurred because of being thorough.” A Citizen’s Advisory Commission on Chemical Weapons was established by the Governor’s office when the facility was constructed. This was suggested by the Army and was a commission of twelve people who represented state regulatory agencies, the public, and Tooele County. They have met every other month for all of these years. Their purpose as a group is first, to keep the Governor advised, and second, to hear citizen complaints so there would be a forum for the public to express concerns. Concerns were aired publically to the Commission and the Army. “That has proved to be quite a good program,” according to Dennis Downs. “There was also a document system put in place to make sure that the public could easily access records, the large amount of documents and data, associated with permitting, operating, and inspecting the facility. The Division transitioned from a paper system to a totally electronic document system, which facilitated faster, more efficient and complete access to information.” There were legal challenges to the permit and operations of TOCDF. The Sierra Club filed a lawsuit to stop the program, because they didn’t believe that incineration was a safe method for disposal of these weapons. There was a group called the Chemical Weapons Working Group, from Kentucky, which joined with the Sierra Club in the lawsuit. The Chemical Weapons Working Group opposed any destruction by incineration at stockpile sites throughout the country. There were administrative appeals before the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Control Board, the first step in the legal challenge to the state permit. Those appeals were not successful; the Board upheld the permit and in the subsequent appeals to the Utah Court of Appeals, the Board’s decision was upheld. Importantly, throughout the operation of the incinerator at the Deseret Chemical Depot, the public has continued to have access to information, questions are raised and addressed, lessons learned are incorporated, inspection and monitoring continues to ensure safe operations, and the risk to the public from stockpiled chemical weapons has been significantly reduced and will soon be zero. This has been accomplished in an open, public process, with multiple federal, state, and local agencies working to accomplish a common goal: the safe destruction of chemical weapons.

Youth Corrections

Canyon Lands Multi-Use Home – transferred to Youth Correction The Leavitt administration took office in 1993 from his election. One of the first decisions that came about as a result of Governor Leavitt being online was whether to transfer all youth serving facilities in the state of Utah to the division of Youth Corrections. The majority were already under the auspices of youth corrections. However, in Blanding, Utah, the Canyon Lands Multi Use Youth Home was run under the direction of Mel Laws who was a Youth Correction’s employee, but the facility was being funded by The Division of Children and Family Services. It was determined that the facility would be transferred to Youth Corrections. Governor CCJJ Cammille Anthony Work option Some months later, in the beginning of 1994, discussions were being held because of the increase in gang activity and gang affiliations throughout the Salt Lake County area and in some smaller areas in the State of Utah. And it was determined by the Governor’s judicial staff, Camille Anthony at CCJJ and Gary Dalton and others that a work program would be important so that kids could be sentenced to an option of a community alternative other than a secure facility.

Juveniles Test Security, Patience at New Facility Draper Genesis Center Gearing Up to handle Youth Work Program – https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19940502.pdf Planting Seeds for a Better Future Garden Labor Cultivates Sense of Self-Discipline, Pride in Troubled Teens Work Detail Helps Teens Pay Debt: Salt Lake Tribune – http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.li.suu.edu:2048/pqdweb?did=19417458&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=1670&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Layne McCotter – Lone Peak location – Genesis Work Program In negotiations with The Department of Corrections, Layne McCotter being the director, it was determined that the facility called the Loan Peak Facility out at the prison site could be used for a work camp. That program came to be known as the Genesis Work Program. It was named that way because it was the beginning. It was the start. It was a community alternative program with approximately seventy beds. The male young people would be housed there and during the day would go out and work in the community. The restitution that they earned in that experience would go to pay off their fees, their fines, and other obligations they had in the community. Grand opening of a premier work camp program This was a much greater option and opportunity for the courts that they never expected and to this day it has grown into one of the premier work camp programs in the nation. Females have since been added to that population. As a part of the grand opening, the governor went out and mingled with the youth. Basketball court shoot-off with Governor Leavitt Out on a basketball court, one of the kids challenged the governor to a shoot off and told him that if he won the shoot off then the governor would have to release him. Governor Leavitt took him up on the offer and beat him so that he didn’t have to release the young kid! There were a few people that were concerned that the governor might miss the foul shot and the kid would ask for his pardon out of the corrections camp, but the governor scored more baskets than the young person did. Day and night monitoring –receiving centers focused on community alternatives Toward the later part of 1994 day and night reporting center s and receiving centers were opened across the state to facilitate the monitoring of use and to provide alternatives to confinement in secure detention. In other words, some kids didn’t have to be arrested and taken to detention centers; they could be taken to receiving centers. Such centers were opened in Provo and Ogden. They also contracted with the one in Salt Lake County which still exists today and is one of the national models of receiving centers in the country. Community options were good, but need for beds was severe Those receiving centers were important because they focused on community alternatives as opposed to hard beds being built. All the while, the departments were having these discussions about community options; the need for beds was severe. They had not built any in the state of Utah in decades. Since the 1980’s at least. That was when they had built small secure facilities which left only seventy beds in the state of Utah for the most serious of the juvenile delinquents that were sentenced to Youth Corrections’ custody. By the beginning of 1992, just prior to Governor Leavitt’s ascension to the governorship there was an additional ten beds of secure care added at Decker Lake Youth Center which brought the statewide capacity to eighty beds. Building Plan for youth corrections The new beds were filled within a month and once again the entire system for secure care was at its capacity. The Governor, noting this, called the task force together and had juvenile justice representatives (judges and others) meet together and come up with a plan which became known as The Building Plan for Youth Corrections. He championed the building of a number of buildings.

By the time the Governor left his governorship, there were additional facilities and almost two hundred and eighty beds available for the communities’ to use for kids who were out of control and who were delinquents in trouble. Riot at SL County Detention Center The year 1994 also brought a very unique experience. In January of 1994 there was a riot at the Salt Lake County Detention Center. This was a fifty-six bed facility in Salt Lake. It was housing more than one hundred kids on a daily average. It was also one of the facilities that needed to be repaired and pealed out or replaced. When it came down to it, that riot resulted in the injury of a staff member. The Legislature thought, whether jokingly or not, that the riot was staged to bring attention to the plight of Youth Corrections and their need for additional beds (see – Detention Center Answers, Please: Salt Lake Tribune – https://www.proquest.com/docview/288625588). UConn Huskies The Governor asked in an early morning breakfast meeting what the need for Youth Correction’s beds was and asked if the most important thing was the building of a new facility in Salt Lake County, or would it be one in Davis County which at that time had a very small facility that was old and not well kept? A decision was made to build one in Farmington and privatize it and then to build out the Salt Lake County Facility. So in 1995, a facility in Washington County called the Youth Crisis Center was opened. It was a multi use center. It housed both youth service kids that were sex offenders, delinquency kids that were in detention, and it had a small fixed bed observation and assessment center. It would become what we call the model multi-purpose use facility in the state of Utah and other states took note of that and have built multi-use facilities such as this. It was clearly a Utah invention, if you will, and it proceeded in other counties later on. Washington County Youth Crisis Center opened and Farmington Bay Youth Center is privatized The Washington County Youth Crisis Center then opened in 1995 followed shortly thereafter by a new sixty bed Farmington Bay Youth Center which opened in Davis County. It was just west of Lagoon area. The Governors decision to privatize youth facilities was not well met. There were a lot of state employees in youth corrections who were very unhappy with that decision, but the Governor and Gary Dalton directed that this be done to alleviate the continual hiring of state staff and to see if privatization could in fact work. So the two sites that were selected for privatization was Farmington Bay in 1995 and in 1997, the largest facility in Salt Lake County was privatized. No state employees lost their jobs; they were all transferred into existing facilities and retrained or retooled to work in other aspects of the system. Today, the experiment was viewed to be successful as the state still continues to contract privately for those two secure facilities. Youth Parole Board – Gubernatorial Appointment/ Executive Appointment At the same time in 1995 it was determined that the Youth Parole Authority Members, those board members who can release kids from secure care much like the adult board of pardons can release from the prison, that those appointments would no longer be made by the board of youth corrections, but in fact that would be made by a gubernatorial appointment. The Governor had the right and the responsibility to appoint individuals to the Division of Corrections board. Youth Parole Authority members became an executive appointment by the Governor rather than an appointment by the Board of Youth Corrections. Master plan At the same time in 1995 a task force was appointed by the division director, Gary Dalton, to review and update 1980’s master plan. The division had existed for over fifteen years without a review of the master plan that started it. It clearly needed to be updated as to facilities, programs, organization, and as to linkages within the community supervision area. Serious Youth Offenders Legislation 10 deadly sins

State v. Mohi – https://casetext.com/case/state-v-mohi

Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States – https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/library/publications/juvenile-justice-reform-initiatives-states-1994-1996

The Impact of Serious Youth Offender Law – https://socialwork.utah.edu/_resources/documents/171.pdf

Violent Teens Soon to be Tried as Adults Utah Not Only State Exchanging a slap on Wrist for Prison Time Adult Courts to Try Violent Youths: Salt Lake Tribune – https://www.proquest.com/docview/288650453

For the Record: Salt Lake Tribune- https://www.proquest.com/docview/288625390

The serious youth offender legislation also passed in 1995 and it was enacted to expedite the transfer of violent and chronic juvenile offenders to the jurisdiction of the adult courts and correctional system. This was premised upon an outbreak of gang violence and the shooting at the triad center by the Mohi kid. An incident where a teenager open fired on individuals coming out of the parking lot and killed two of them. It was seen as an important opportunity to have serious youth offenders transferred to the adult system. As a result, safe guards were put in place so that the kids weren’t just placed in the adult system, but that they would have to pass the scrutiny of a juvenile court judge who determined that they couldn’t benefit from the juvenile system anymore and therefore were bound over to the adult court. This serious youth offender legislation that was enacted was dubbed the ‘ten deadly sins’ because the panel and the juvenile justice task force that took it on identified not only age parameters but ten aggravated cases or charges that would be considered the ten deadly sins for which the youngster could be transferred to the adult system.

Utah Board of Juvenile Justice Annual Report – https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/166597.pdfTackling Juvenile Crime Group to Study Guidelines on Punishment Juveniles: Group to Study Justice System: Salt Lake Tribune – https://www.proquest.com/docview/288715737

Juvenile Justice Task Force – https://le.utah.gov/Interim/1997/HTML/0926jjtm.htm

Judicial Task Force In 1996, The Juvenile Justice Task Force was appointed by the Utah State Legislature. The issues for the previous three years continued to rise in terms of community unrest and the issue of gang violence and the legislature decided that they wanted a full review of how juvenile justice was conducted in the state and they appointed a task force. The group had a mandate to examine all aspects of Utah’s juvenile justice system. It was a very tenuous group. There was a lot of tension. There was some finger pointing, and there were feelings that the resources were not equitably distributed between the courts, corrections, and juvenile justice. The findings during the same year of 1996 of the master plan task force were presented to the board of youth corrections and signed off by the Governor. The primary recommendations to the master plan were to change the division’s mission statement to reflect a greater concern for public safety and the principles of the balanced approach which is to hold offenders accountable, to protect society, and to ensure individual competency for success in each individual. Regions Created out of Master Plan Finally, in that master plan update they recognized the division’s need to structure is service delivery a little differently. At that time it had an amalgamation of services that were at the state’s central core. They were pushed out to the three independent regions; one for the north, one for the central of Salt Lake Tooele summit area, and one for the southern part of the state were put in place. Those were important service delivery changes because they then dealt more closely with county commissioners and with local jurisdictions of government. The Governor was very pleased with that approach.

DYC Annual Report (see page 23, 37, 38) – https://jjs.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/DYC-ANNUAL-REPORT-FY-2001.pdf

Partnership Youth Corrections and Forrest Service Strawberry Work Camp At the same time in the summer of 1996 we formed a partnership between the division of Youth Corrections and the U.S. Forest Service to establish another work camp. This one was dubbed Strawberry Work Camp. It was placed in some old work barracks out by Strawberry Lake and it became a summer program since the winter months were too hard to access the area. It became a location for female offenders to do work camps. That was a very well received project. They cleaned up the Strawberry lake area. They built fences. They put up snow drift fences and for the most part it was highly received and the juvenile court started asking for more female work camp sites. Salt Lake Valley Detention Center built for the future This brings us to 1997 and the aging fifty-six-bed Salt Lake detention center is finally replaced by a privately operated one hundred and sixty bed Salt Lake Valley Detention Center (see Salt Lake Valley Detention Center – https://schools.graniteschools.org/yess/directory/salt-lake-valley-detention-center/). That detention center was built with the future in mind and was plumbed so that in the future it could be built out to over one hundred and ninety-two beds. When it was initially opened the beds of one hundred and sixty filled up dramatically fast. The concerns were that we would need the additional beds immediately but as things have moderated, those one hundred and sixty beds still stand and are usually full at 80% capacity at any given time today. The building that that had replaced, and that was formally operated by Cornell Connections, who also provided adult corrections and halfway houses so they were a well received partner in the detention arena, was then converted into a long term secure facility. It was remodeled and modified and it continues to be a fifty-six bed facility and is primarily used for long term secure care with specialty areas. It has a women’s ward in it. It has a sex offender ward in it and this became an important notation; that sex offenders in long term secure care, could not just be put in a facility with other men, they had to be segregated, treated, and handled differently. One size does not fit all special gender programming/special sex offender programming At the same time, the division of Youth Corrections did a survey and process change around gender issues and decided that females needed to be treated and have their own programs in a different way. Again, one size fits all did not work for the various specialty programs or specialty populations in youth corrections and so females were targeted for special gender programming and sex offenders for special sex offender programming.

The Utah Network of Juveniles Offending Sexually – https://www.nojos.net/home

Juveniles Who Have Sexually Offended – http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184739.pdf Kids & Sex: A Formula for Abuse Kids and Sex: A Formula for Abuse but Offenders Can be Helped: Salt Lake Tribune – https://www.proquest.com/docview/288579195

NOJOS- Network of Juveniles Offending Sexually At that time, the Division, under the direction again of Governor Leavitt and his staff, organized and started what was called NOJOS which stands for the Network of Juveniles Offending Sexually. Special emphasis was placed on training staff providers and others who dealt with juvenile sex offenders. This was a collection of treatment providers lead by a division of youth corrections employee named Dave Fowler and his compliment piece was a Juvenile Court worker named Bryan Matsuta. The two of them, between the court and youth corrections, established this network. It’s still viable today. It still does great work. They have a catalog of criteria for how you treat juvenile sex offenders at a very young age. Two Unique Features added 1. Plethysmograph This also prompted the beginning of two unique features in the beginning of youth corrections. One of them was for juvenile sex offenders. We started using on a limited basis, a plethysmograph. A plethysmograph in treatment is a feedback machine that is hooked to the male genitalia and then when the person is read stories or certain stimulus applied the erection suggests that they are being aroused and you can deal with their treatment issues. The plethysmograph was an issue that was highly sensitive in the treatment circle. It hadn’t been used a lot with juveniles but with the board of youth corrections approval it was authorized and used in a limited fashion. It had a great benefit in the treatment field. It was recommended by the NOJOS group(See – DYC Annual Report page 56 – https://jjs.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/DYC-ANNUAL-REPORT-FY-2001.pdf). 2. Special Function Officers The second element that became real crucial toward the middle of 1997 was because of the continuing violence in the community. It was determined that even though youth corrections parole officers or case managers were not post-certified, they were not law enforcement trained, they were in a department of human services. It was determined that they still needed some kind of law enforcement training. The governor and the board of youth corrections approved the hiring of special function officers. They were hired as a member of the division of youth corrections but they were gun toting badge wearing law enforcement officials and their main prospect was to go out and find kids that were on parole or that had gone AWOL (Absence Without Leave) who were not living up to the conditions of their parole. It was an interesting issue that the juvenile court raised in that they thought that AWOL status was a standard for which kids could subscribe to and that they could go on the AWOL status as almost a program benefit. AWOL as a result of the special function officers dropped from 12% of our community supervision down to 2%. We caught the kids and returned them to justice and provided a public safety in the community as a result of that. Those officers continue to function for the division today (See DYC Annual Report – https://jjs.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/DYC-ANNUAL-REPORT-FY-2001.pdf). New Sentencing Matrix

An Evlauation of Utah’s Early Interviention Mandate: The Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines and Intermediate Sanctions – http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/197047.pdf Intermediate Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders: A Utah Juvenile court Case Study – http://www.criminon.org/studies/fase.pdf

At the end of 1997 the Utah sentencing commission promulgated the new set of sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders. A sentencing matrix was put in place. It was very controversial for the courts because the judges didn’t want to be told how to sentence kids. The mitigation factor was that everyone agreed that the sentencing guidelines had to be in place, but it left room for the mitigation so the judges could use it but weren’t held to it. As it turned out, most of them have accepted it, adopted it, and continue today to use the sentencing guidelines for determining where the youth might go. It is highly recommended but not mandatory. The guideline’s aimed to reduce delinquency through the application of earlier and more intensive sanctions. The guidelines proposal calls for the creation of a new disposition option for the juvenile court, known as “state supervision”. So it wasn’t just that a matrix was put in place, now the court and the new juvenile justice system would be given money to support what the sentencing option were. That was called the “state supervision”. Over six million dollars in one year was put into that. That was unheard of. The governor championed that and actually recommended that amount of money in his budget that would go into State Supervision. That sanction combined a range of non-residential interventions provided by the District or the Juvenile Court Probation. Residential treatment would be provided by the division of youth corrections for these delinquent youth ( See Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines – https://justice.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/JuvenileManual2004.pdf). Six-bed Female O and A Facility In the same year, a small, six-bed, specialized, observation and assessment program for females opened in Salt Lake City. The only “O and A” in salt lake at that point was a 32 bed boys facility. We opened an additional six beds for females. Copper Hills Youth Center Finally, the highlight of 1997 was a privately operated program called copper hills youth center. It opened in region two which is up north and it provided the division with an additional 24 beds for observation and assessment (See Copper Hills Website – http://copperhillsyouthcenter.com/). Price Multiuse Facility In 1998, a ground breaking ceremony was held for a 32 bed multi-use facility that will replace the current six-bed facility in Price. The six-bed facility in Price was under condemnation. It never met the office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention guidelines. The federal government was quite unhappy with the use of that facility in price. A new juvenile court judge had been appointed by the governor and he was quite concerned that we were violating children’s rights by putting them in this six-bed facility. It is now a 32 bed multi-use facility. It provides 16 detention beds, 16 non-secure beds for sheltered care and observation and assessment. Ogden, Logan, and Vernal Facilities During the first part of 1998 the division entered into contracts that were awarded for the construction of an additional 72 secure beds at Millcreek which is in Ogden and 32 bed multi-use facilities in Logan and Vernal. By the time we have finished the vernal facility we have now plastered the state of Utah with multi-use facilities in most of the rural areas; Logan, Price, Richfield, St. George, Blanding. Any location where it was too far to transport kids. Local communities were ecstatic over this change and the issue of juvenile corrections is always at the front of the discussion. Education was important, roads were important, and there was a massive build up of transportation, but when you go into local communities they wanted to talk about juvenile justice issues. The Logan and Vernal facilities both include detention beds and non secure program states to replace those smaller facilities (see Multi Use Facilities – https://web.archive.org/web/20140313044054/http://www.jjs.utah.gov/multiuse-facilities.htm).

Archway Youth Service Center Offers a Safe Haven for Troubled Teens – https://www.deseret.com/2010/6/1/20118572/archway-youth-service-center-offers-safe-haven-for-troubled-kids

Archway Youth Services Center While those were under contract to be built, we also opened Archway Youth Services Center up in Ogden. It is the first youth services program that is directly operated by the division. The other is in Salt Lake County and is privately operated by the Salt Lake County Government. It is called the Salt Lake County Youth Services Center, today. Archway was critical. It gave additional non-secure bed components in the community and was well-received.

Everyday Heros; Acts that Count: Salt Lake Tribune – https://www.proquest.com/docview/288835724

Slate Canyon Youth Detention Center – colored tile issue At the same time in Provo, we had the old Provo detention center that sat on the hill just outside of Provo and converted it to a new day treatment program for kids that are in the community that are struggling and they get continued support for community based programming and what makes that possible is that there is a brand new building in Provo that came to be known as the Slate Canyon Youth Detention Center.

This was well-received also. It is built right next to the court. It is state of the art. The interesting thing about that is that we built it did a grand opening and we went to the legislation shortly after and they complained. When we asked them what they were complaining about (since they had authorized it), one gentlemen, who shall remain nameless for this record, said “The problem is that you have colored tile in that facility. Kids don’t deserve colored tile.” We were taken back about that because we didn’t think anyone took look at the distinct style of the building. We also had to come back to report to them that the colored tile does not cost any more money than the standard brown or grey tile. They were upset that the colored tile had been used in the bathrooms. Paramount So you get a new Slate Canyon facility of over sixty beds and now we are up to ninety-nine. We opened another program in Ogden called Paramount. It is a program that serves the unique needs of adolescent female offenders. It is like an observation assessment center, but again following our custom of dealing with sex offenders differently and females differently, this program was specifically gender based for females (See DYC Annual Report page 47 – https://jjs.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/DYC-ANNUAL-REPORT-FY-2001.pdf). Overall Division Growth during Leavitt Administration With the division growing as large as it had, we are talking about a budget that went from forty million dollars at the beginning of the Leavitt administration to almost over eighty-nine million dollars. It went from small facilities that were overcrowded and under almost federal decree a couple of them came to federal law suits that were put aside with the buildings were built. The issue is that we had to have training for staff and then the division started what was called the Divisions Training Center and Academy for staff. It continues to this day. It is located in the old Juvenile Court building out on 35th south. The division runs its own academy for new employees and refreshes the training and is headed up by a training group of four or five people. It did ensure a more cost efficient and cost effective training process. Increased efficiency in the Observation and Assessment Centers At the end of 1999 the legislature did something to increase the amount of kids in the O and A. The kids that originally were coming were to stay ninety days, but the recommendation was made by the division of youth corrections that rather than them building another Observation and Assessment center, we would do the evaluations in half the time. So we doubled the populations going to O and A, because we reduced the length of stay from ninety days to forty-five days.

This was put into law; a single extension of fifteen days could be requested by the juvenile court if the O and A director asked for it. We doubled the opportunity for O and A by just reducing the services. The Governor was very pleased with that.

Veteran Repetitive Chard to Head Youth Corrections- https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW20000818a.pdf Persuasive Calls Help Chard get Director’s Job – https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW20000818b.pdf

First politician to the head of Youth Corrections Blake Chard By July of 2000 the construction was completed on the multi-use facilities in Logan, Vernal, and Price. Each facility had beds for detention, shelter, observation and assessment. They also replaced their existing smaller centers. Also in July, Blake Chard became the director of Youth Corrections (see Chard Named Director for Youth Corrections- https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW20000818.pdf). He was a legislator who had an interest in Juvenile Justice and the Governor appointed him. Blake was the first real ‘political’ appointment. The Governor appointed a politician to the head of Youth Corrections when before, all of the previous directors had been professionals in the field of Juvenile Justice and had expertise in that field. It was a water shed moment. The Governor then left the state about four months after that for his appointment to the Bush Administration. Fourteen new Juvenile Court Judges 90% appointed by Governor Leavitt From 1993-2000 the governor appointed fourteen new juvenile court judges. So real was this issue of more juvenile justice, more facility, and more judges that the state of Utah went from seven in Salt Lake County to fourteen and then state wide they went from twenty-one to twenty-three Juvenile Court judges. Governor Leavitt was responsible for appointing probably ninety percent of the current Juvenile Justice Judges that sit on the bench today.

Research

Introduction There has been a long history of collaboration on research projects between the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation (Utah State Parks) and Utah State University’s Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism (IORT) that began in the late 1970s when IORT was founded and continues to this day. This was especially true during the time of the administrations of Governor Leavitt (1992-2002) and Governor Walker (2002-2004) in Utah when Courtland Nelson served as Director of Utah State Parks. IORT and Utah State Parks have mutual interests based on the mission statements of each, with a common goal of enhancing the quality of life of Utah residents and visitors to the state through the provision of quality outdoor recreation opportunities and experiences.

With respect to IORT, in 1998, the Utah State Legislature approved Senate Bill 35 to provide continuing funding to Utah State University to establish and support an interdisciplinary program of research, extension, and teaching to provide a better understanding of the relationships between outdoor recreation and tourism, natural resources management, community economic vitality, and quality of life issues for the citizens of Utah. Then Utah State Parks Director Courtland Nelson was very supportive of this bill to “reinvigorate” IORT. Because Utah State Parks is responsible for protecting, preserving, and managing many of Utah’s natural and heritage resources through Utah’s State Park System, there is an inherent need for information generated through rigorous research on which to base the development of management decisions, policy and planning, and implementation. During this timeframe, IORT was able to provide research-generated information for Utah State Parks, in order to assist the agency in meeting its needs and fulfilling its mission. At the same time, Utah State Parks, as a partner in collaboration and cooperation with IORT, assisted IORT in fulfilling its own mission. IORT’s Research Charge includes the following:

1. Identify research needs in outdoor recreation and tourism for local communities, counties, travel regions, and natural resource management agencies in Utah.
2. Define relevant issues in outdoor recreation and tourism and help coordinate public and private sector efforts to study and solve problems.
3. Identify and generate supplemental research funds from state, federal, and private sources.
4. Provide a clearinghouse for research data and publications of findings and professional papers.
5. Collaborate with scientists and professionals in Utah, the West, and elsewhere, to develop affiliated research and report findings to enhance the knowledge base in outdoor recreation and tourism.

IORT’s Research Focus includes two broad areas:

1. Studies of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Participation in Utah

Goal: Understand outdoor recreation and resource-based tourism in terms of supply and demand, and user behavior, impacts, perceptions, and attitudes, to generate information relevant to the decision making processes of public land management agencies and other stakeholders in order to provide quality experiences for the citizens of and visitors to Utah.

- Focus on outdoor recreation and resource-based tourism.
- Generate empirical data useful for decision-making and policy formulation and implementation.
- Analyze current visitor use and predict future trends, along with implications for changes in outdoor recreation and tourism development and public land management policies in Utah.

1. Studies of Social, Economic, and Environmental Benefits and Costs of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism for Travel Regions, Counties, and Local Communities in Utah.

Goal: Understand social, economic, and environmental benefits and costs for regions, counties, and local communities in Utah to help maximize positive aspects of resource-based recreation and tourism development, minimize potential negative aspects, and mitigate unavoidable social, economic, and environmental impacts.

- Focus on the role outdoor recreation and tourism play in local community development.
- Generate empirical data useful for decision-making and policy formulation and implementation.
- Specific areas of focus include:

a) role of outdoor recreation and tourism in economic diversification; b) social, economic, and environmental effects of outdoor recreation and tourism in resource dependent communities; c) present conflicts and potential opportunities for synergistic approaches between traditional commodity-oriented uses of public lands and newer pressures for outdoor recreation and tourism; d) relationships between outdoor recreation-related public land management policies and local economic development.

Issues Challenging Parks during the Leavitt/Walker Years

Trophy Deer Hunting on Antelope Island The Resource Management Plan, policy and practice of the park was to manage the park as an animal viewing area and reserve (outdoor wildlife museum). There was a move to open the island to trophy hunting of the deer, with permits selling for large amounts of money. Although the practice of allowing a few guided hunting opportunities to help manage the Bison herd had been taking place for several years, the expanded hunting idea did not fit with the RMP or the existing wildlife viewing activity, which was taking place on the island. A lengthy process of public involvement and input including lobbying of the legislature, from support group (Friends of Antelope Island) took place. This group was opposed to allow hunting on the island. There was also pressure from the Governor’s office and some legislators to open the island to trophy hunting yet the majority of public opinion was opposed to such a program. The decision ended up in the hands of the Utah Board of Parks and Recreation who voted not to allow any expanded hunting program to take place on the island. Closing State Parks As operation and maintenance dollars were getting harder to find and the legislature and governor’s office were looking at ways to cut the costs of state government the idea of closing some of the less used state parks became a mandate to parks from both the Governor’s office and the Legislature. This did not seem to make good sense to the Board of Parks and Recreation as our society was becoming more affluent with more leisure time the use of our recreation facilities was reaching capacity, the board felt we should be looking at additional opportunities and recreation areas not reducing those opportunities and facilities. This requirement began a very difficult and heart wrenching process. The division had created a program, which, allow them to evaluate proposals for new park (MAUT—Multi-Attribute Utility Technology explained later in this paper). This process allowed new proposals to be evaluated based on a comparison with existing park areas. It was decided to use this process to rank the parks and possibly close those that had the lower scores. Public meetings were held in the communities near the parks being considered for closure. Through these public meetings it became evident every park had their supporters. These supporters were those who had a great appreciation and interest a specific park area. The Otter Creek State Park and Piute State Park, both located in Piute County were on the list for possible closure. A public meeting held in Piute County was attended by over 80% of the adult population of that county, as well as other supporters from outside the county. These people came to plead with the Board not to close “THEIR” parks. After this public meeting process it was decided to look for parks that would not be closed, but turned over to someone else to manage thus keeping the recreational opportunity available to the public. Although this seemed to be a win/win solution it was not well accepted by Governor Leavitt. The parks that were transferred were; Minersville State Park transferred to Beaver County, most of Jordon River State Park to Salt Lake City and Fort Bonaventura State Park to Ogden City. Another lesson learned was that when federal Land and Water Conservation Funds are used and/or Land is acquired through to Recreation and Public Purposes Act, it becomes almost impossible to walk away from the park and facilities. This is due to the agreement made in the process of acquiring the development funds or recreational lands. Minersville State Park for example literally required federal legislation championed by Congressman Chris Cannon to transfer the lands and facilities from the state to the county. Efforts to Privatize There was a strong push to privatize government services and Utah’s State Parks were looked at closely. The wonderful golf courses managed by Parks have always been something desired by private enterprise, however they are one of the few service that help pay for the lower revenue generating parks such as museums. It was discovered that without these revenue positive operations the division would need a much larger general fund appropriation to operate the other revenue negative facilities. The Rails to Trails State Park in Summit County was turned over to a private foundation to operate.

Silicon Valley Alliance

The Governor was really technology efficient and knowledgeable, more than perhaps any other previous governor. He knew Bill Gates and a lot of the other top people in the world of IT. I knew he once in a while went down to Silicon Valley, so I said, why don’t we concentrate one of your trips to Silicon Valley on developing Silicon Valley as a place where we can attract business to Utah because we have a really good tech environment up here, but we need more headquarters and high paying jobs. It’s not reasonable to expect Silicon Valley Companies to move their whole headquarters up here, but we can certainly get them to move some of their operations because things are so much cheaper in Utah and there is much less congestion, housing prices in Silicon Valley were going through the roof, and their freeways are snarled. So we did that early 1998 up until the bubble burst at the end of ’99 and early 2000. The Governor committed to go almost every month to Silicon Valley and we’d set up appointments and meet with various companies. We eventually got Wilson Sonsini, the foremost law firm in technology to establish an office here. We almost got Silicon Valley Bank, and they’re in here now. And we got a number of companies, including E-Bay and Intel as a result of that effort and Leavitt spearheading it. The Governor was so amazing! There was this one company in Redwood City, that had about 2200 employees and we wanted to get them to move some of their operations up to Utah. They had gone public a couple of years before. Their head people were making a presentation for the Governor, and they went to quite a bit of work for this presentation, all on PowerPoint. After a while they could kind of tell the Governor wasn’t listening very intently. They asked the Governor if he already knew some of these things. “Well, yes I do. In fact, I’ve been a shareholder ever since you guys went public.” He understood all the technology this company was doing because he’s into that. Absolutely blew these guys away! Not only did he have the prestige of being a governor, but he had the prestige of being a tech governor.

Hill Air Force Base

The Formation of the Hill DDO Committee In 1995 Hill Air Force Base (HAFB) was placed on the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list. The purpose of BRAC is to reduce unnecessary infrastructure in order to save money and better allocate Department of Defense resources. Major General Dale Thompson, Commander of HAFB, was very concerned about BRAC and the possible consequences to the Base. He shared his concerns with members of the Weber Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Committee, in particular the Chair, Vickie McCall. As a result Hill/DDO ‘95 was formed and charged with defending and protecting the missions of Hill AFB and Defense Depot Ogden (DDO). Core members of the first committee included; Vickie McCall, a Realtor with Real Estate Exchange; Lee Carothers, Regional Manager of Utah Power and Light; Scott Trundle, Publisher of the Ogden Standard Examiner; Scott Parkinson, President of the Weber Chamber of Commerce; and Dee Livingood, President of Big D Construction. The Committee recognized the urgency and the scope of work that needed to be done and sought to broaden the Committee’s membership by recruiting additional members who brought unique talents and expertise to the table. It was also determined that to be truly effective it would be necessary to hire someone who understood the BRAC process, had military experience and was well respected as an effective leader. Major General (retired) Mike Pavich, the former Commander of McClellan AFB in Sacramento, California, had recently moved to Layton and agreed to become the Chief Executive Officer of Hill/DDO ’95. The Committee quickly grew to about 20 and had representatives from Weber, Davis and Salt Lake Counties. There were mayors, County Commissioners, bankers, public relations experts, business owners, legislators and representatives from the Governor’s office to include his Chief of Staff, Charlie Johnson. Marty Stephens, a then new Utah State Legislator later became the Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives. The Committee also benefited from the Congressional Delegation, in particular the leadership and experience of Congressman James V Hansen. Initially, the Committee met once every few weeks, but soon realized how complicated and political the process was. There were many weeks when members of the Committee met three and four times on various issues. It was also determined that it would be in the best interest of the Committee to establish some autonomy and become a non-profit organization in order to raise funds. Bylaws were drafted and the Committee was approved for a 501(c)(3) designation. Funding was indeed critical to the success of Hill/DDO’95. The need to meet payroll, hire Washington lobbyists, travel to the BRAC meetings and publish articles and run ads was important to the success of the Committee. Early on, funding came from corporate donors, cities and counties. The office or Workforce Development and Economic Development from the Governor’s office also recognized the importance of this Committee and provided additional financial support. Members of the Committee made several visits to Washington D.C–always accompanied by Congressman Hansen. Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett, Rep Karen Shepherd and Rep Bill Orton also understood the importance of saving both Hill AFB and Defense Depot Ogden (DDO) and offered their full support. The Committee traveled to Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio to visit with the leadership of Air Force Material Command and Langley, Virginia for meetings with Air Combat Command. The Committee tried to learn from and reach out to every military organization doing business with Hill and/or DDO. One of the major problems the Committee dealt with was the complacency and lack of knowledge as to the economic impact Hill AFB had on the State of Utah. Few understood the importance of Hill AFB and DDO to the overall mission of the Department of Defense. It was especially frustrating to see how little was known about the uniqueness of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) and it’s impact on our nation’s ability to train and test sophisticated weapon systems. It has been referred to as Utah’s national military jewel. Early on there were members of Utah’s Congressional Delegation who failed to fully appreciate the logistical and strategic benefits of preserving and protecting Hill AFB. They certainly didn’t understand the impact to Utah’s economy. Because of the lack of familiarity both locally and on the national level, the Committee feared decisions would be made based on skewed statistics. The Committee learned early on that the general consensus in Washington DC was that of the five AF Depots, Hill, McClellan, Kelly, Warner-Robbins and Tinker, Hill AFB, regardless of superior efficiencies and mission, would be the easiest base to close. Decision makers were pushing the politically expedient option. Although, the Committee thought they truly understood and knew the value of Hill to the State of Utah and the defense of our country, it determined that if the case could not be made to save Hill, and if in fact, it was in the Nation’s best interest to close Hill, the Committee would support such a decision and move towards re-use of the land and facilities. However, as the group gathered the facts, they concluded that Hill AFB and DDO indeed, were the most efficient and had the most productive workforce of all competing bases. The issues were complicated, difficult and at times seemed overwhelming, but the Hill/DDO’95 Committee was committed to the cause and vowed to fight and protect Utah’s military bases. The Committee benefited greatly from the leadership of Governor Mike Leavitt. The Governor recognized the importance of Hill and DDO to the State and ordered the University of Utah to conduct an economic impact study as to the importance of Hill AFB and DDO to the State’s economy. The results of this study suggested that if the State’s largest employer, Hill AFB, was to close it would resemble the economic times of the Great Depression especially in Weber and Davis Counties. The study was never released to the public because of concerns the negative impact might have on Utah’s economic development recruitment and retention programs. The report was of grave concern to Governor Leavitt and he vowed his full support and that of the Governor’s office to work with the Committee, the Legislature and the Congressional Delegation. Worth mentioning, was a meeting organized by the Hill/DDO Committee. The group decided it was important to provide an informal forum whereby the Governor, the entire Congressional Delegation, and members of the Hill/DDO Committee could meet with senior AF Depot leadership. General Ron Yates, Commander of Air Force Material Command and Major General Lester Lyles, Commander of Hill AFB were invited to attend a dinner held at the home of Ms Deborah Tanzi. The informal setting provided opportunities for open discussion and candid questions/responses without fear of press repercussions. This covert meeting probably caused some neighborhood concerns as the Highway Patrol monitored all traffic and the limos certainly did not go unnoticed. It was determined that Governor Leavitt would be the spokesperson for the dinner discussion and he was charged with asking some critical questions. Mike Pavich wrote position papers and he and Rep Hansen coached Governor Leavitt in advance of the meeting. For the most part this was the first time the Delegation and certainly members of the Committee had the opportunity to see Utah’s new Governor in action. Governor Leavitt was at his best! His keen knowledge and relaxed demeanor provided an atmosphere that allowed the Generals to respond without fear of retribution. It was during this meeting that we learned if a depot was to be closed, General Yates would offer Hill AFB because it was most likely be the easiest. Keeping the 388TH On a number of occasions the Committee had met with people and dealt with issues that were both challenging, complicated and politically charged. As an example, Vickie McCall received a late night call from a DC insider suggesting that the 388th Fighter Wing at Hill AFB would be moving to Cannon AFB, New Mexico within a couple of months. Vickie called Rep Hansen and asked him to investigate. To his surprise, the news was accurate. Rep Hansen and Senator Hatch summoned General Holly, Commander of Air Combat Command, to Washington DC to meet with the Utah Delegation. The movement of the fighter wing would have disastrous consequences to Hill and certainly would undermine the Base with on-going BRAC deliberations. If Hill was to remain viable it needed to have the depot, a fighter wing, and an active Reserve mission… in essence a three-legged stool. If one leg was removed the base/stool would tumble. The situation was critical and General Holly was determined to consolidate the F-16s at one base–Cannon. Rep Hansen and Senator Hatch were acutely aware of the importance of the 388th to Hill and more importantly of the Utah Test and Training Range to General Holly and indeed the United States Air Force. It was at this meeting Rep Hansen put the “cards on the table” and told General Holly that if he was intent upon moving the 388th he would introduce legislation giving UTTR wilderness status. Rep Hansen, was a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, but also a ranking member of the Public Lands Committee. This was not an idle bluff and Congressman Hansen informed the General that his old friend Wayne Owens had previously introduced a bill to convert the test range into the Utah West Desert Wilderness Area. The range, which is bigger than New Hampshire and Vermont combined, could be turned into wilderness eliminating the military’s access and use. General Holly responded to Congressman Hansen by saying: “You wouldn’t do that.” Congressman Hansen threw a draft bill down on the table in front of the General and said: “Here’s your copy. I’ll introduce it tomorrow.” Congressman Hansen went on to explain how the environmentalist community would love such an opportunity, and they would certainly have the support of President Clinton. Congressman Hansen continued by saying “I’m dead serious.” Pointing to Senator Hatch and Bennett he said: “These two senators will handle it in the Senate,” and both responded with nods of support. Congressman Hansen said “If I don’t hear from you by two o’clock, I’m gonna drop it in the hopper and personally send a copy to the White House.” The trump card was played and Utah and the nation won. General Holley backed away from pulling the 388th from Hill. After months of waning, the BRAC commission decided to put all five depots on the closure list anticipating two would be closed. The Committee had to do more than just defend Hill they now had to compete and understand the competition. The nascent Hill/DDO 95 Committee had now become a group to be reckoned with. It was a sophisticated, knowledgeable lobbying group having substantial resources and a superb leader directing the group, General Pavich. The Committee also retained a marketing firm and hired an influential lobbying firm in Washington D.C. Doors opened, visits were made and the Committee learned that while the BRAC process was officially a non-political process, it was in the end a political game. Take the politics out of the equation and Hill AFB and Defense Depot Ogden would certainly survive. During the BRAC process Alan Dixon, a BRAC Commissioner, inserted into policy that the economic impact of closing a base to a community must be taken into consideration when decisions are made. This consideration was particularly important to Utah. When the BRAC Commissioners visited Utah, the streets were lined with school children beginning at the SLC airport all the way to Hill AFB. Officially, this should not weigh on the decision of the Commission, but the support of the Utah residents certainly registered and did not go unnoticed. In the end, the BRAC commission convened in the Hart Building on Capitol Hill to announce the bases offered for closure. The Chairman put the names of the bases up on the screen in order of best to worst. Hill AFB ranked number one, followed by Warner Robbins, then Tinker AFB. Kelly and McClellan were destined for closure. The former Governor of Texas, George W. Bush, was said to have turned 15 different colors and said, “You can’t do that.” Everyone laughed. The last obstacle in the process was President Bill Clinton. He was very concerned with California losing a base and began discussing privatization in place in lieu of closures. After all, California had 52 electoral votes and Utah had only 5. Moreover, Utah was the only state where Clinton came in third. Ross Perot actually had more votes than Pres Clinton. Clinton wanted to move 90% of Hill’s operation to McClellan under an executive order which would have effectively reversed the decision of BRAC. President Clinton made a statement at McClellan and said “I will find a way around the law.” Congressman Hansen’s staff immediately began writing an amendment into the Defense Authorization Bill citing legal precedent that would prevent the President from circumventing the BRAC process. Some members of the Utah Delegation were concerned about putting Utah in further jeopardy by pitting Hill against the Whitehouse. Congressman Hansen’s attitude was that Utah had no choice. Hill was good for America and it was critically important to the economy of Utah. Governor Leavitt felt the same way. The Defense Authorization Bill The 1995 round of closures was the closest Utah has come to losing Hill. If Clinton had privatized Hill’s workload and moved it to McClellan Hill certainly would have closed. Blocking Clinton’s privatization plan took a great deal of political wrangling. Clinton’s privatization plan was leaked to Congressman Hansen by Rudy DeLeon, who worked for the BRAC Commission. Some of the staffers convinced Rudy to show the memo to Congressman Hansen. Congressman Hansen got together with Duncan Hunter, Bill Johnson, and other Congressional colleagues and crafted an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would keep President Clinton from acting outside the law to get around the BRAC closure of McClellan. The amendment was attached to Defense Authorization Bill and it passed through committee. Congressman Hansen found Democratic allies such as Solomon Ortiz and others that who were military minded and traded some favors with members of the Natural Resources Committee to get the House version of the bill passed. The Senate passed its own version of the Defense Spending Authorization Bill. In conference, Senator John McCain from Arizona initially threw his support behind the Hansen Amendment for the final bill. After he spoke to President Clinton, however, he came back to the committee and warned if the Hansen language remained in the bill, the President would veto it. Senator McCain made a motion to remove the Hansen language from the Bill. Congressman Hansen remembers thinking: “You know what, just veto the damn thing. I’ve worked for 17 months on this and I’m going to stand tall. I did everything I could for the state of Utah. I fell on my sword 50,000 times to get to this, and we’re not moving, we’re not budging.” Fortunately, the Democratic Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland, joined in the cause. Senator Cleland did not want the President working outside the process to intervene with base closures. With his support, the Conference Committee passed the bill with the Hansen amendment. Congressman Hansen recalls the Arizona Senator storming out of the committee meeting, slamming the door, and cursing. Senator McCain likes to get his way, according to Hansen. Congressman Hansen assumed the reason Senator McCain was so angry was because he had likely worked out a deal with the President to kill the Hansen Amendment in exchange for something else. Soon thereafter, President Clinton sent some of his staff to meet in Jim Hansen’s office. They wanted to negotiate a compromise. Jim responded to the staffers: “Where’ve you been? We’ve seen you in the committee meetings whispering in the ears of the guys who were against us. But, why didn’t you come and talk to me? That would’ve been a lot easier than sitting there talking to Ike Skelton and those guys that want to support the President; then we could’ve gotten this thing resolved.” Congressman Hansen sent the President’s staffers to talk to Bill Johnson, who was known to have a very short fuse.

Bill told the staffers to get the hell out of his office. The staffers went to Speaker Gingrich after that. About an hour after they left his office, Congressman Hansen got this call: “Jim, Newt. I got a bunch of the guys from the White House up here wanting to compromise this thing. What should I tell them?” Congressman Hansen explained to Speaker Gingrich: “Well I’ll tell you what we told them. We told them to get the hell out of here.” Speaker Gingrich responded: “I’ll tell them the same thing.” Congressman Hansen added: “Tell them to go ahead and veto the bill.” Knowing the President would look ridiculous if he vetoed the Defense Authorization Bill for this one base, Congressman Hansen felt a veto would be impossible. Sure enough, the President signed the bill. Credit to Mike Leavitt A lot of credit for saving Hill AFB has to be given to Mike Leavitt. This issue was dropped into his lap abruptly after taking office, and he became a quick study as to the importance of Utah’s military bases. He articulated his arguments in an impressive manor and dedicated a great deal of time and resources to the cause. He volunteered Charlie Johnson, his Chief of Staff, to work with the Hill/DDO Committee. Governor Leavitt made the base closing issue his number one priority and encouraged the Legislature to do the same. The Governor’s work was masterful and without his efforts, Hill Air Force Base would not have likely survived. While the work of the Governor, the Congressional Delegation and the Hill/DDO 95 Committee was ultimately successful in saving 23,000 jobs at Hill AFB, it was not able to save the Ogden Defense Depot in the 1995 round of base closures. The loss of DDO cost the community and State 1,200 jobs. The partnership between the Hill/DDO 95 Committee and the communities, the Governor, the Utah Legislature and the Congressional Delegation is to be credited for saving defense jobs and preserving a long history of military excellence in Utah.

Additional Resources

Utah Comes Out Ahead in Base Race https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/base04.pdf LAWMAKER SEES $10 MILLION TO PROTECT HILL https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/base03.pdf Union Suing Defense Department https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/base07.pdf CLINTON’S CATCH-22 Base-Closure List A Hot Potato That Still May Burn Utah Base Hit List Could Burn Clinton or Utah https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/base08.pdf Focus Shifts From DDO To Saving Hill https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19950524.pdf BASE-CLOSURE NEWS IS GOOD, BAD IN UTAH https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/base05.pdf BASE CASE LOOKS OPEN (HILL) AND SHUT (DDO) `BASE‘ BALL: HILL LOOKS SAFE AND DDO OUT https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/base01.pdf UTAH BASES WIN BIG BATTLE, BUT CLOSURE WAR NOT OVER UTAH BASES WIN KEY BATTLE IN CLOSURE WAR https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/base10.pdf HILL’S FUTURE AT RISK, UTAHNS LEARN https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19931109d.pdf HAFB PANEL WILL BEGIN D.C.

New Century Scholarships

Conceptualization Governor Leavitt’s service on the Utah State Board of Regents helped him to understand the higher education system in Utah and its critical role with respect to economic development. The governor saw the power of new technology as a means to provide greater access to higher education for Utah’s citizens (Headfirst into High Tech https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW20031207.pdf). In addition to broadening access to higher education, the governor believed there were ways to accelerate completion of a university degree for qualified high school students. Concurrent enrollment had been very successful in Utah, just as the Advanced Placement courses had been (NACEP http://nacep.org/). Governor Leavitt believed that qualified high school students, through concurrent enrollment and informed advisement, could simultaneously earn their high school diploma and an associate degree by the time they graduate from high school. Governor Leavitt envisioned offering a state funded scholarship for the last two years at a state institution of higher education as an incentive to high performing high school students. The Governor proposed the New Century Scholarship for all program participants that would cover 75% of the students’ tuition to earn a bachelor’s degree at a state funded institution of higher education (Governor Seeks 6.9% Boost For Higher Ed https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19991211.pdf). Indeed, in November 1998, Governor Leavitt met with county officials, mayors, county commissioners, and public education officials in Rich County to discuss local government and educational issues. The day went well and upon adjourning, the local high school officials wanted the Governor to meet a student who had moved to Rich High School from Georgia. This student had taken a large number of concurrent enrollment classes, earning a large number of college credits, and could have earned an associate degree while completing high school. Speaking with the student convinced the Governor’s about the viability of the New Century Scholarship. The Governor, coming from a business background, was particularly interested in building in incentives and efficiencies into the school system.

The New Century Scholarship embraced that philosophy. Benefits of the New Century Scholarship There is an important policy lesson to be learned by the New Century Scholarship. First, the Governor believed that the state could realize savings by more efficiently managing the transition between the public education and higher education systems, which would also greatly benefit individual students. This program, if managed appropriately, could provide a way for students to earn both an associates and bachelor’s degree at a young age without placing a large financial burden on the student or the student’s family.
The scholarship would save the state money as students would complete their degrees more quickly cutting the cost of students being on a college campus two additional years. Another positive spinoff of this project was that small high schools began to offer advanced courses via distance technology. Interested and qualified students in smaller high schools were able to enroll in advanced courses even where there may be only a few fellow classmates at their location through the state sponsored EDNET system (Technology, Equipment Outdated in Utah’s Colleges https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19930206.pdf). This element of the program was particularly important, especially in rural areas of Utah, because the Governor was committed to use the EDNET system to offer the best educational opportunities to all students across the state regardless of the students location or school. Therefore, every student in Utah was eligible to take advantage of the New Century Scholarship program. Higher education officials had reservations about the program because the program had the potential of decreasing enrollments and awarding degrees when the institution did not maintain full quality control over the course of study. Higher education officials were finally persuaded to jump on board, and they eventually spoke in favor of the proposal during the legislative session. The legislature was fully in support of the program and the legislation was enacted and funded (Lawmakers Vow to Support Leavitt’s Centennial Schools https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19930119a.pdf). 21st Century Schools Program Believing that the Centennial Scholarship program had been successful but had been taken as far as it could go, Governor Leavitt proposed the 21st Century Schools program in 1998 (Shaping the Future: The Promise and Potential of the 21st Century https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122SP19980119.pdf, Big Apple Could Teach Utah About Education, Leavitt Says https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19930524.pdf). He wanted to provide incentives and rewards for schools that were willing to be more accountable for the results they achieved. The Governor felt that incentives were better than mandates as the era of school accountability was gaining ground nationally. The 21st Century Schools initiative provided incentives for schools to receive additional funds from legislative appropriation for meeting some rigorous standards (Search Begins for Schools to get Centennial Funds https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19930603f.pdf, Higher Education Officials And Legislators Get Cordial https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19980717.pdf). Matthew Initially, only a small number of schools could apply to become a 21st Century School. These self-selected schools were required to establish five goals for which they would be held accountable. Three of the goals were to be academic in nature and were to improve student achievement. Two goals could be in other related school areas. Successful schools that provided evidence of meeting their goals would be rewarded $50,000-$125,000. Participating schools had three years to meet these goals (Leavitt Hails 85 Centennial Schools https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19930626.pdf, Leavitt Delighted At Progresses Shown in 2nd Year of Centennial Schools https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19941004b.pdf). This program lasted only a few of years although it was well-conceived and philosophically in harmony with the Governor’s desire to use incentives (Doubts Fly On Centennial Utah Schools Senator: Centennial Schools Fall Short https://spcoll.li.suu.edu/eadfiles/Xe1kcH8BnM5_0W5sJ69V/ms122NW19950420b.pdf). The 21st Century Schools program was intended to be a transition between the Centennial Schools program and the enactment the reading initiative and U-PASS. As stated, the following year, the federal government enacted No Child Left Behind, which changed the school accountability landscape entirely. The idea of self governing accountability and providing incentives for achievement built into the 21^st Century Schools program essentially disappeared with No Child Left behind because No Child Left Behind sought to achieve accountability through identifying poor performing schools not meeting federally established requirements, and yet, provided no rewards or recognition for school that excelled in meeting or exceeding the established standards.
While it may not be accurate to use the word “failure” to describe No Child Left behind, many experts, states, and commentators consider it a failure (No Child Left Behind Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act).

Utah Foster Care Foundation

Developing the Utah Foster Care Foundation Key to achieving the improved outcomes for foster children that Governor Leavitt wanted to accomplish was having a pool of quality, trained foster parents who could open their homes and their hearts to abused and neglected children. Each year, through the Division of Child and Family Services, the state would undertake major outreach efforts to recruit potential families. Despite best intentions and plans, the efforts fell far short. The number of available foster parents continued to decline while the number of children in state custody had reached an all time high of nearly 2,350 and it was increasing at an average annual rate of 8 percent. As Governor Leavitt explains it, “The only people that were signing up to be foster parents were a few really devoted, noble souls, and then a lot of people who just wanted the money.” Because of this problem, Governor Leavitt approached the churches in the state and said, “I’ve just got to have help here. We’ve just got to get better and bigger numbers of foster parents. The number of calls we were getting [to provide foster parents] was off the chart. The number of children we were responsible for was growing by the day and the state makes a lousy parent for children. We had to find some good people who were willing do this.” The Governor then led the development of what would be a major departure from traditional approaches to this issue. Officially announced at the 1997 ALERT Summit, Leavitt declared, “Every child in Utah must have a parent or other caring adult in their life. We must start by caring properly for our own children, but more is required. Today, the state of Utah has only one third the number of foster families needed to care for children in crisis. These children need safe havens when they have been beaten, neglected, or abused. This is hard and often inconvenient, but it is the essence of human service. Today, I call on Utah families to come forward and offer their homes to foster children.” He further offered that by the fall of 1997, he and Lt. Governor Walker would unveil a plan to transfer the bulk of foster family recruitment and training from a state agency to a community effort that would be able to harness the power of Utah schools, churches, and civic organizations to address this problem. The Governor personally invested time in securing private sector support for this effort. Gracious Utah donors, (most of whom desired to remain anonymous) put up a million dollars each to assist with start up of what became known as the Utah Foster Care Foundation (UFCF). The Governor also approached a retired private sector executive, Richard Shipley, and asked that he volunteer his efforts to assist a group chaired by Lt. Governor Olene Walker in developing the overall business plan for creating the public, private, community partnership. Richard accepted the challenge and did a remarkable job developing the processes and structure and is a true hero in this story. UFCF was created as an intermediary between community organizations and churches and the state allowing them to step forward to assist and yet maintain an arms-length distance with government. In the 1998 session, the Legislature enacted legislation to authorize the Division of Child and Family Services to contract with a private, non-profit organization to recruit and train foster parents. In October 1998, UFCF was incorporated and entered into a contract with the state wherein the Foundation agreed to do the recruiting and training of foster parents. buy UFCF used churches as a key resource for recruitment. This way, the separation between church and state was maintained for the benefit of the churches and the state. This model worked incredibly well and is still a national model. When Governor Leavitt left office, there were between twelve and thirteen hundred foster parents—double the number of foster parents at the time Governor Leavitt took office. Although he would have preferred to avoid the mess, Leavitt recalls: “One thing that came from this [litigation] that I feel quite satisfied about is the progress we made in recruiting foster families and upgrading the quality of families that were willing to take in foster kids.” Indeed, at the State of State Address, Governor Leavitt made a tradition of highlighting foster parents and what they had contributed, and this would encourage even more people to become foster parents. Robin notes that an organizational and management cultural change was instituted throughout the Leavitt administration to make decision making and operations data- driven. This forced DHS to analyze its data leading to the use of performance based contracts. This cultural element was imbued into the contract with the UFCF. The agency realized the recruitment and selection of foster parents needed to be more closely tied to the needs of the children in its care. Previously, a more general and haphazard approach to recruitment and selection meant that available foster families were not being matched to the children in need of placement based upon cultural background, geography, or special needs. DHS stopped doing mass and generalized marketing and recruitment and started doing targeted recruitment. This shift sustained success for the program because more families had better experiences and children found themselves with the type of foster parents that would serve them best. This fundamentally changed the recruitment and retention of foster parents.