Get Sound Analysis

RadioWest Transcript: October 5, 2000

SNOW: We open with comments from the candidates, describing their goals for the future of education in Utah. Governor Mike Leavitt begins.

LEAVITT: Education is improving in our state every year. There still is a great deal of progress to be made. Over the course of the last eight years we have increased our investment over 85 percent during a time when we've only had four and a half-percent more students. We've used that additional investment to reduce class sizes, to increase our teacher pay. We're able to give our students the technologies of the day and our test scores, particularly in the area of college entrance are improving. Over the next four years we'll continue that momentum. Class sizes need to be further reduced. We need to use the surplus to pay for textbook deficits that we have in various places around the state. Our teachers, we need to move to the point that they are able to be competitive with professional salaries in other areas. Accountability continues to need to be improved and I propose by the end of this school year that we have a system where every student can be tracked by their parents on the Internet or by telephone on a daily basis for their assignments, their attendance, their citizenship, etc. Two other areas; reading, every child needs to have the additional help required to get them at grade level; and lastly, we need to improve the graduation rates among ethnic minority students. Those are the points in which I think we've continued to move forward on. Again, our schools have improved dramatically over the course of the last eight years with respect to funding and we're making progress on test scores. We need to improve our schools every year.

ORTON: Thank you. As I have said many times, education is my passion, it is the reason that I am running for Governor. And I will admit to having a parental parochial interest. I have a five-year who just entered kindergarten. I have a three-year old son and regardless of who takes the oath of office as Governor in January, my children and your children and the other half-million children in this state are still going to be in the school system. And so I am committed to doing what it takes to fix and fund the education system in this state in the next four years. It's not going to be easy, but we can do it, and we must do it. Now, we all agree that lowering class size will in fact improve learning, it will improve education. We agree that teachers need to have higher, more competitive salaries. We also agree that textbooks have to be available and not just on a one-time basis. We need to be continually funding the textbooks and the technology. We need to bring discipline back into the schools and classrooms. Without discipline you cannot learn. So these are things where there are similarities because there are no new silver bullets to fixing the education system. It's been studied, it's been debated, and it's been tested all over the country. We know what will in fact improve education. I think the difference between myself and the Governor is that the Governor has had eight years to do it. Eight years ago the Governor promised the top on his agenda was to provide the state with "a world-class education system." He also promised in his first inaugural address to devote every possible dollar to education. Now if you look back over the last eight years we need a reality check. Ask yourself, ask any teachers who know, ask any parents who know, do we have a world-class education system? Have you seen class sizes drop? Have you seen teacher pay go up? That's the reality check. I'm committed to doing it and I will serve just one term because I think you can get more done in four years committed to the public interests than you can in eight or twelve years of fund raising, campaigning, bowing to the special interests. And so the things that need to be done in education will be done in my administration.

SNOW: Let's turn to the panel. Who would like to lead off with a question? Lynda, I know you're chomping at the bit. Lynda Horne.

HORNE: I'm hoping I can offer a silver bullet. I have three children who are in the school system right now. And after years of volunteering in the schools and seeing the lack of substance in the days at the schools I became very frustrated. And I pulled my children out two years ago and took them to private schools. It was an agonizing decision because it was something we could still afford to do. Because we are not wealthy our family has really struggled to make ends meet so that we could do this. But it was something we were willing to do to see that our children received a good education. The UEA has a monopoly over this state and as you know monopolies generally put out poor products. I think the only way to make a product better is to introduce some competition. And at the same time, perhaps, give parents more of a choice. There is a bill, I believe, that will be proposed in the next legislative session that will give parents $1,000 tax credit for each child that they decide to put in private schools. So that rather than being an elitist system, it gives all families the opportunity to move their children to where they perceive better education to be. And I would like to have your responses on this issue.

ORTON: Thank you. Clearly there are many steps. There are some innovative ideas like Charter schools. In my proposal we have a number of new innovative ideas that are being tested around the country. We're proposing something that we call charter classrooms, which I would be happy to get into more detail if people are interested. The main question that you raise is injecting competition through a voucher or a tax credit to allow people to go out to the private schools. The problem with that approach is that first of all it depletes resources from the public school system. Secondly, even if you gave a credit or a voucher for the entire $3,900 per pupil that we're spending to educate each child in the state now, if you have the entire $3,900 credit it still wouldn't be enough to pay the tuition in the private schools.

HORNE: I disagree. At private school I am paying dollar for dollar what the state is.

ORTON: Let me try to make the point, you may find a private school and I don't know which one. I'd like to see a private school that you can put your child in for $1,000 per year, even $4,000 per year. So look at the average cost of tuition in private schools in this state, a parent would have to, even if you got the entire $4,000, a parent would have to put several thousand dollars into tuition for a child. And as a result only those people who have a significant amount of income can afford to take their children and put them into those private schools. Then you end up with very well funded private system and a more poorly funded public system. So as a result of that I oppose those kinds...

HORNE: But in the next ten years we will have such an explosion in the public school system of population that if you take just $1,000 out of the $4,000 and give it back to parents you have $3,000 and an empty seat for each child that doesn't come in.

LEAVITT: I believe that private schools are a very important component of our system of education. We have about 2 percent of our children being educated there. It's my belief that as Governor it's my responsibility to assure that public schools are well managed. I support the use of public money in public schools. I would support the implementation of the scholarship program, where poor children would have opportunity to have the benefit of private schools where they would choose to do so. I would like to spend a moment, however, in talking about our quest as a state for world-class schools. I do not share Mr. Orton's pessimism about our public schools. We are making progress. We have invested substantial money in our schools over the course of the last eight years, almost $800 million a year more. Our class sizes aren't as small as we'd like them to be. However, we do have 75 percent of our students in the first, second, and third grade in classes that are under 25, that's progess. We still have progress to make, but we have made substantial progress. Our teachers, our teachers are underpaid. Eight years ago they were making an average of $29,000, they're now making $38,000. The proposal I've put on the table would move them to $43,000 a year. The Salt Lake Tribune recently had an article that demonstrated that among neighboring states we are number two only to Colorado. Now we shouldn't, in my judgment, be comparing salaries of teachers to other states, we ought to be comparing ourselves to other industries because that's whom we're now competing with. And teacher's salaries need to be competitive with other industries that require a college degree. We're making progress, more to be made, but to suggest that we're not making progress in our schools belies the facts.

ORTON: Now, we can debate the numbers all day long and you will find different numbers from different sources. And I would very much like to see the support for a $39,000 average teacher salary in this state. I would very much like to see support for the claim that we have increased education spending by 85 percent in the last eight years.

SNOW: Put this debate to rest. The average teacher's salary without benefits was $28,072 the November that Mike Leavitt was elected was to office. Last year it was $36,690 and if you multiply that by this year's expected salary increase, the average teacher's salary without benefits now would be $38,700. Total state spending on public education has risen 85 percent through Leavitt's term in office, but that number doesn't account for inflation. Our next question comes from teacher, MaryAnn Bowers.

BOWERS: There are several things that I want to say, first off, complement both of you on making this an issue because for many years up until this point it hasn't been. My mom has been fighting for this for years, so this is nice. Reality check, love that word, because one I would like to invite both of you to shadow me for a day. And I can guarantee that, however much my pay has gone up, which I do appreciate that, it would go up even more if you had to do my job for 24 hours. I want to talk about accountability and how you feel about standardized tests, I know that is part of accountability, but I want you to address the idea that you cannot test on standardized tests problem solving skills, critical thinking, global thought, and basically thinking outside the box.

BOWERS: Approximately $500. I get approximately $2 per student, per year. That's for novels, pencils, paper, crayons, scissors, erasers, Kleenex, anything these kids could possibly need I get $2 per kid and that's being generous. The majority of it comes out of my pocket. Also, like you said class size would solve the majority of our education problem. I only have 45 minutes and 35 kids and it takes me 10-minutes to take roll and check for uniforms. So there's not enough time.

BOWERS: I want to know they feel standardized testing is really going to prepare these kids for the future and how are we going to hold students, teachers, and parents accountable for their students. I only have these kids for 45 minutes a day. What are we doing with the parents at home?

ORTON: Thank you. With regard to the first issue of standardized tests, I agree with you 100 percent. What we need to be doing is designing assessment methods to determine whether the child is able to comprehend and use the topic that is being taught. The concern I have with these standardized tests where we create one comprehensive test at the end of the year and based on that test we're going to give the class or the teacher a grade. We're going to give the school a grade. We're going to label it appears to me that what the state passed for accountability is a labeling statute where we're going to take tests then label the school or the teacher as whether they're meeting the objectives or not. Assessment is an important tool in improving education, but the purpose for assessment has to not be labeling, it has to be identifying where the problems are so we can focus the resources to solve the problems. That's the purpose for assessment and testing. And if it's otherwise, teachers will simply teach to the test so that they don't have a bad grade individually for being an unsatisfactory teacher and so forth. And that's my concern about accountability the way it currently is in this state.

SNOW: So are you proposing alternative assessment at the end of let's say senior year in high school?

ORTON: No, I don't think-you don't come in with one assessment at the end of a senior year. We ought to have assessments as we go throughout every year to determine whether this child is grasping those specific concepts. We've got to rethink education.

BOWERS: Well as it is in the classroom, I'm giving upwards of five assessments a year.

ORTON: Then what we need to find out is, are those assessments giving us the information necessary to determine whether those students are able to apply the information they're learning. Have they learned it in an application format? And if the assessment is not adequately telling us that information we need to eliminate that assessment and find the assessment that gives us the information we need. And I would like to come back and address your other point.

ORTON: I am absolutely committed to lowering class size, not just one or two students in grades one through three. I'm committed my plan will lower class size by five students in every classroom across the state. And so that is one commitment I am making. As far as salaries go, most of the income that has gone to teachers over the last several years has gone into paying the escalated cost of providing healthcare benefits essentially. And so teachers end up not really getting very much additional, it's just keeping pace with health care costs.

LEAVITT: With respect I'd like comment on seeing what teacher's go through. I am now a handful away from having been personally in 250 schools in our state. I visit a school almost every week, I meet with teachers, I meet with the administration, and I meet with the students. And I think I have a pretty good sense of what's going on in our schools. One of the first things that I responded to after having visited schools was this need for teacher supplies. When I became Governor, teachers were receiving nothing for supplies. With respect to accountability, may I say I believe passionately that we ought to be measuring in our schools how much students learn. We can only know that if we measure it and measure it on an individual basis. I believe that there is a chain of accountability in our schools. That it doesn't just include teachers, it includes parents, it includes the students, it includes the teacher, and the administration. We have to have a defined standard against which we are measuring. It was interesting to me as I got into the schools and say 250 of them visited, I've got a pretty good idea of what's going on that we were in fact measuring different things than we were teaching. We have a core curriculum, but we don't test the core curriculum. So, I've set about working with the Legislature and the State Office of Education in creating a core curriculum that defines what every student needs to know at every point along the way. And then we've created criteria reference exams that are different than national standard exams that measure what a child knows against the core curriculum. Once we know that, we can determine if the student is making progress or not. And I believe that that's the way we measure student progress. Now I've proposed that by the end of the next school year that on the Internet or on the telephone a parent should know whether or not their student is meeting that criteria. Not just in terms of their own performance, but how is their school doing? Parents have a right to know that and they need to have information in a private way. May I also suggest that an important part of that is measuring consistently, we don't want to get to the end of a student's school career and find out they don't have the basic skills. I have implemented through the Legislature, a basic skills exam that will be given now at the end of tenth grade. If a student is not able to meet the standards, they will have to take it again. If they don't make it in the eleventh grade they take it again. The time has come for us to end the idea of moving people out of high school who don't have basic skills. If they don't pass it, they need to take it again. And we need to stick with them until they do.

ORTON: I have a concern. The accountability that you cite, the only thing that is done it appears, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I've read the Accountability Statute what is done with the information from the test is to label the school or the teacher, or whatever, as whether they have met the objective. We can go down to an elementary school where they speak 20 different languages and I can tell you without taking any of those tests that you're going to have lower scores there. It's going to show up that's where a problem is. So we go to the accountability process, we label the school as having a problem, then what? What do we do? Where is the plan for fixing those problems? The accountability says nothing about what you do once you label the school or the teacher.

LEAVITT: You invited me to correct you if you're wrong, I'll take your invitation. The school, our accountability package does not label the schools, what it does is identifies the students, the individual students, who are having challenge and provide the information on the areas in which they are deficient so we can improve them. We will have, by the end of the next year, a system that have first of all, standards, criteria reference exams, means of being able to measure success provided to parents and that's how you create progress, is that you measure one student at a time.

TOM PARTRIDGE: Gentlemen, if you could, we've been talking about some very good ideas here, the reduction in classroom size. I'm interested to know how this might be funded in a state with perhaps the largest family size in the United States of America, certainly the youngest population. It seems to me that you're faced with two possible alternatives. One would be, if you're going to increase funding, in fact, to request an increase in taxes or secondly, to shift the allocation of tax moneys. What are your plans with regards to increasing funding? You both mentioned that you're interested in doing so.

LEAVITT: Well I have an eight year track record to demonstrate how we have done it, how we have increased education funding by 85 percent, as I indicated earlier, during a time when we've only had four and a half-percent more students. So, we have been moving substantial-more increased investment into education. There are actually combinations of two things that have to be done. One is priority; last year we were able to get 7.3 percent by making it a substantial priority, we have every year. There are the things that have to be done in state government, aside from education, we have to build roads and we have to care for the human service needs of our state. We have to balance the needs that we have for education against the fact that there are other needs. Two things we have to do; one is make it a priority; second is expand the pie. True economic expansion, we have done that. Tax increases in my judgment should be made the last resort not the first alternative. We have in the past succeeded and we will again. I estimate that we will increase our investment in education over the course of the next four years somewhere between $450-600 million a year, a year on top of the nearly $800 million that we have already increased. And we'll do that by expanding the economic pie, we have a vibrant economy and we'll continue to have one in my judgment.

ORTON: I hate to keep arguing numbers, I've looked at the numbers you gave me Mike and this is actually ten years education appropriation, it's not eight. That's the '91 appropriation figures.

ORTON: We'll go over it. Anyway, in response to your specific question of where do you get the resources. The Governor has indicated it's all going to come from economic growth. In fact I believe the economy will continue to grow, it has been, and as we grow in the economy we will have more revenues to devote to education. But if you look over the last eight years we've had the strongest economy in our state's history. And if the last eight years is the best we can expect for education, if you're not going to fix and fund the system in the strongest economy when are we going to do it? If it's the best that you have to hope for then I think we're in deep trouble. Where do you get it? I think that you also can look to the existing surpluses. Over that last eight years where we've increased funding somewhat, we've also had almost $400 million of surpluses in the school funds that were not spent on education. We have increased the growth of government spending over the last eight years, in a period that we've had roughly 20 percent total inflation. We've had increase of government spending almost 100 percent. So by reducing the size the growth of government spending you can also then divert resources into education. We have also changed the constitution to allow funding from the school funds for higher education. Up until '96 all of the school fund had to go to public Ed, we've diverted almost $600 million from the school fund into higher Ed, which previously had to be funded through the general fund. Also, we have to look at our priorities, we have to prioritize from the highest to the lowest. I would fund education first. And as I get down through the priorities of the spending when we run out of money before we run out of things to spend I would then analyze and if these lower priority things are not necessary I would eliminate them. If they are necessary I would go to the Legislature with options and they could choose where the revenue comes from. But there are many options you can look at, our financial management plan, our debt service, we have an AAA rating, I wouldn't suggest doing anything to risk that. But, in fact, we have a lot of room there that we could in fact bond for a slightly longer period of time on roads. We could bond for a slightly higher percentage rather than paying 60 percent in cash out of the general fund to build the roads. You could increase the bonding level; you could increase the term of the bond. That would not risk our AAA rating. We also have $400 million of sales tax exemptions each year that the state could look at as an option.

ORTON: Well, let me read off some of the sales tax exemptions that we have. Now some of these maybe a good public policy.

SNOW: Have you decided ones that you know you don't think are? That you know you would want to eliminate?

ORTON: I can't imagine why we would have no sales tax on car washes. Is washing your car a higher priority than educating your kids? Yet car washes have a sales tax exemption. I mean there are dozens of others.

ORTON: Every exemption that you have in the tax requires you to have a higher rate of tax on the other things that are taxable.

LEAVITT: Well, I just think that it's important that we recognize that litany of generalities provided not a single concrete suggestion of how we can put revenue into the schools, except for tax increases. We're going to reprioritize. We go through that every year. It's spoken like a guy who's never balanced a budget.

ORTON: I was on the U.S. Congress Budget Committee and I wrote the budget that balanced the federal budget.

SNOW: You're listening to Mike Leavitt and Bill Orton, candidates for Governor. We'll return to our debate after this.

SNOW: We return to our citizen panel debate with our governatorial candidates Bill Orton and Mike Leavitt. And a question from panelist Lynda Horne.

HORNE: I am spending, truly, $4,000 per child to educate them in a fabulous private school. The state is spending the exact same amount per student. Their class sizes are smaller, they don't have fabulous gymnasiums, they don't have swimming pools there. They don't have sports equipment. But their priorities are first and foremost educating the children the basics and they do that very, very well. Isn't there some way we can reprioritize rather than throwing more and more money at the system? Can't we first look at the system and say this is where we're going to spend the money first?

ORTON: Absolutely. That is at the heart. My plan for reforming the education system, first of all, changes the way we educate children. We still put children... all of the six year olds go into the class for one year and we have a certain amount of things we teach them and then we move them to the next year. With technology we now are going to have the ability to create individual education plans for those children. We will be able to download information, textbooks, for that child's course of study. That can save the revenues it costs. It also focuses on priorities. All of the things we do have to focus the resources we have into the classroom because the only place that learning takes place is in the interaction between teacher and pupil. And so I would start out with an audit of the school system and determine where we are spending all of those resources. Are we top heavy with administrators? We would cut waste. Again, it's all focusing the resources we have into that relationship. That's why lowering class size is the first best thing you can do because it create a better interaction between teacher and pupil. But we have to face the fact that lowering class size is going to cost resources. And that's why the first part of our discussion focused upon additional resources and where you get those resources rather than just putting more money into the system and then saying to the system, "Figure out where to spend it," is not the solution.

LEAVITT: May I say I feel like we have a very good beginning on this conversation in talking about accountability. But I think the discussion also focuses one of the substantial differences between Mr. Orton and I with respect to education. I don't believe that education ought to be managed at the state level. It ought to be managed by individual local school boards to make those decisions. For the state to suddenly begin to make decisions on how every dollar is going to be spent in the schools is a mistake. But the whole idea of accountability, in my judgement, is the way we improve individual school performance. Establishing a standard, and then measuring every student to see how they're measuring. And then making it clear how the school is performing underlies accountability. If we hold the schools responsible, but not just the school-- our entire community, this isn't just about teachers, or about school-- it's a chain of accountability. It's parents taking responsibility for homework and reading with their children. It's students having part of this. Students have to be made aware that they're responsible for their own learning. That's the reason why I would not give a high school diploma, a high school graduation diploma, to a student who can't pass a basic skills exam. They can get a certificate of completion, but they need to be a part of the accountability system. Let me... and the means by which every students' learning is measured, and by the end of this school year we'll have that. And at the same time, make publicly known how our schools do.

SNOW: Let me just start out here that there's some other topics that I know people want to bring up and we're running close on time. So those of you that have questions that don't relate to education now is your moment to jump in.

Marta: Governor, did your father's membership on the Questar board of directors have an impact on your decision on House Bill 320 (the Questar bill)?

LEAVITT: No. I did that because I thought it was in the best interest of the state.

Marta: Because, sorry. But if I were in your place, it would have an impact on my decision. So that's something that is still...

LEAVITT: I never had a conversation with him about it. I was not aware of any impact it would have on him. It was a market decision that was made after the fact. I did it because I felt it was in the best interest of the state.

ORTON: I would like to comment, I believe the Governor, I do not question him personal integrity or question that there were any kind of economic motives in that bill. I support the Governor in his response, but I would differ with the Governor on whether it was a good idea for the state. I believe that the role of the Legislature and the Governor is to debate the issues, come up with good legislation through the legislative process and enact good legislation into law. The public debate should take place before the bill is enacted and before the bill is signed. And if bad legislation comes through, it should be vetoed and sent back to be improved before it is signed. And this public debate that we've had over regulation or deregulation is a debate, that certainly is a viable debate, that we ought to have and you can come down on one side or the other. You can look at San Diego and decide whether deregulation of the electric utilities was a good idea. Rates have gone up over 300 percent. So the whole issue of deregulation is something that certainly we should have a public debate on. But the problem with that bill is it eliminated the watch dog committee that protected the consumer. That elimination of that watch dog committee is a bad public policy decision. For that purpose I would have vetoed the bill.

LEAVITT: May I just point out that the bill made no change, no change at all until July of 2001. I made a public commitment that the discussion would go forward, it needed to go forward, and it did. The Legislature has made a decision, it will in fact, it will be an independent consumer advocacy group, I've appointed them. I have appointed a chairman. I have made it clear that if the bill does not pass I will call a special session of the legislature, we will have independent representation on consumers.

ORTON: But what recourse do the consumers have, with all do respect, if that doesn't take place? When you also promised that you would call a special session of the legislature to deal with the issue of guns in churches and schools.

ORTON: And didn't call the session. But the problem is, if in fact it is not dealt with before the election it does go into effect in July of 2001. That is the law, it is law right now. There's just a delayed implementation date. And so if they do not make the change, if they do not reverse the bill, if they do not reinstate the committee on consumer services before the election and the same people are elected and then they decide that they don't want to touch it. And the Governor decides he doesn't want to have a special session, what recourse do the consumers have? That's why I've said if you're going to have a special session, do it before the election. It should have either been vetoed or be repealed.

LEAVITT: Let's talk about special sessions for a moment. I think it's important to recognize that special sessions are only valuable if you can agree on something. I want to make clear that, with respect to the special session on guns, I made it clear I was willing to have one if we could accomplish something. It became clear the Legislature would not agree with my position, therefore, we did not have one. I have made it clear that I will call a special session when it's productive. We can disagree on whether or not we ought to have competition in utilities or not. I believe we should and ultimately the consumers will benefit from that. But, let's make clear the only reason to call a special session is if there is a needed change and at this point we'll get the change. The Legislature's already made that decision and it will be implemented.

ORTON: But what if there's not an agreement? And then you don't call a special session because there isn't agreement between the Legislature.

LINDA THORNELL: I would like to ask you about implementation, not on that issue, but in general. Mr. Orton I'd like you to answer first and then Governor Leavitt if you would. I would like to know how in one term-four years you're going to get your programs, your ideas, your desires actually implemented and made a reality. And Governor Leavitt, instead of answering that one, I'd like to know how you want to do the third term differently than the first two, that you're going to accomplish what it is that's on your agenda that you want accomplished. How are you gentlemen going to make it happen?

ORTON: Thank you. The Governor likes to draw analogies so let me draw one. Like in what has gone on in the past eight years to someone who goes out and plants a garden in May and then walks away from it. Then comes back in October looking for the harvest, well there's nothing there. If you ignore the garden, if you don't weed it, if you don't water it you can't anticipate getting the harvest. The way you get it done is by doing it. Now, how do we differ? I believe that in one term you are actually freed up from the political pressures of worrying whose going to run against me, of having to go out raising millions of dollars of campaign funds. Of campaigning, and going out and spending so much time and effort and concern in the politics instead of the substance of actually doing it. The way you do it is through leadership. Look at two of the Governors in this state that are heralded as the best we've had. Look at Scott Matheson, look at Cal Rampton, they were Democratic Governors with Republican majorities in the Legislature. They were able to accomplish many things through leadership. You step forward; you put in a plan, but then you follow up on the plan. You go in and you work with the legislatures. If they won't work with you, you'll also have the power of the veto. Force them back into work with you. So it's a matter of commitment, it's a matter of focusing on just the public interest, and nothing else. There's nothing else that will focus your attention like knowing the day you're going to die. So you focus your attention, you know you only have a certain amount of time to do, and you step in and do it looking only at the public interests. Which is what I've promised I will do.

LEAVITT: I'm asking the citizens of the state to allow my service to continue because I don't believe I'm finished, but I would like to do an analysis of how we're doing. I ran in 1992, and said I'd like to have jobs in this state, better jobs. How are we doing? In the ten years since 1990, eight of which I've been Governor, we've gone from 29th in household income to 8th. We've had 275,000 jobs, not just jobs, but better jobs. For the first time in decades we're seeing wages improve against inflation. I think it can be said that we're making very good progress. There's still more to do, but we're making very good progress. There's good momentum and I want to keep the momentum we have going. I've said that we would improve our schools and we've moved toward world-class schools. I've already belated the fact that we are substantially improving. We improve every year. You don't get there in one year, you keep moving, you keep relentlessly improving every little thing you can find and you continue to hold people accountable. We're making progress. I said that we would keep the quality of life we have here. We have had a historic investment in our roads, I-15 it's ahead of schedule; it's under budget. We have 42 other projects going. We've been able to bring health care to children. When I became Governor I said it's not reasonable for us to have children who don't have access to health care. Today, every child in this state has access to basic health care. They're not all insured, but we're going to get them and the last eighteen months we've had 18,000 additional children whom now have health care. I said we would reform the welfare system. We had 20,000 families on public assistance. We have, today, just over 6,000. I think we've been able to dramatically reduce, not by just sticking with the old system, but by dramatically streamlining the system. Now I still think we can do better. I want to have additional service because we're making progress. There is great momentum. The issue of this campaign is whether we're making momentum, having momentum in this state whether we continue or whether we stop and go a different direction. This is a remarkable time and I want to keep it going because I believe this is a time and period when we as a state are on the brink of an enormous transition. When I'm done with my service, I would like people to look at our state and say, they made the transition into the information age and they met every challenge and did not waver. Most of all, let them know that we did all of this looking to the next generation. That's why I want to be Governor for four more years.

DARIUS GRAY: Governor Leavitt, if I may? Not just admonition of the accomplishments of the eight years, but not everyone has shared in the economic growth of this state or this country. For a major change of topic, we have a sovereign nation out here in the west desert. They want to share in the economic growth of this country. Why are you opposing their efforts to be able to share it?

SNOW: This is, of course, the Goshute Reservation, in the high-level nuclear waste.

LEAVITT: This is a public safety issue to me. I believe public safety is the single first obligation of government. Let me suggest that I believe that the Goshute's deserve and need to have every assistance we can provide them. We need to provide them with education, we need to help them find jobs, and we need to do what we can. But they're also part of this state; they've got to be part of the neighborhood in which we live. The high-level nuclear waste that they want to move out there is legally hot for 10,000 years. They want to move it into concrete bunkers in the open desert. This week we had the third incident in two years where we've had cruise missiles running astray in that same area. We have 44 percent of the nation's chemical munitions and earth and bunkers out there. How much of the target or mischief do we want to be?

GRAY: If they are looking for economic benefit, are you prepared to provide some other source for revenue?

LEAVITT: I'm prepared to assist them in education, in finding jobs, and building an economic base. But not at the cost of the public safety of 2 million people. We'll continue to resist that with every tool we have; environmental, legal, but we will be helpful as we are in every community of the Goshute Indian. This is not an issue of pinning the Goshutes against the state. This is an issue where 11 large utility companies want to move high-level nuclear waste on their back yard into ours. We need to help the Goshute's, but at this point this is a public safety issue.

ORTON: It's a little late to say we need to help the Goshutes. Had we been doing that over the last several years, we wouldn't be in the problem we are today with them scrambling trying to find some way to bring some economic value into their community. It's not just the Goshutes -- the Utes, the Navajos, they've all been ignored. We have been out looking to economic development for the Wasatch Front. We've been looking to economic development for industries and yes, they're good high-paying industries. But if you look at the relative need of the systems in the economic development, where are our priorities? I do not favor bringing-having Utah become the dumping ground for nuclear waste.

GRAY: So, you being Governor, you would not have a different position than the Governor.

ORTON: If I were Governor, I would oppose bringing the nuclear waste in here also. But I would be out with the Goshutes actively doing something, not just saying now we'll help them out, without any action to it.

SNOW: What about bingo or gambling? Would you consider opening the state or opening that possibility on the Goshute Reservation, either of you.

LEAVITT: No, I would not. We have a constitutional prohibition against gambling. It would not be in the interest of the tribe or the state.

BOB VANDEGRIFT: Governor Leavitt, my question is, 30 percent of the residents of the Utah are not LDS and you appointed Matthew Durrant and Michael Wilkins to the Utah Supreme Court within a few days of each other. Don't you believe that at least one justice should be someone other than LDS in order to obtain diversity?

LEAVITT: I believe that members of the court should be appointed on the basis of their qualification, without respect to their religious beliefs, or their race, or for that matter any other characteristic other than their capability.

VANDEGRIFT: Okay, that's what I expected you to say. Now, the five justices most likely will agree with each other when it comes to issues, such as, polygamy and capital punishment. I don't see diversity. Do you truly believe, and this is for both of you, that justices are not affected by their religious persuasion on issues such as polygamy and capital punishment?

ORTON: I would be happy to respond by saying that as I look over the last eight years history of appointments, whether they are to the bench, or whether they are to commissions, or whether they are to the Board of Regents, or whatever, the appointments that have occurred over the last eight years have been unique in only one way, that there are very little differences between them. There is no diversity. And I believe that it is not a lack of qualifications of people that have diverse backgrounds and ideas.

LEAVITT: Let me just respond that over the course of the time I have been Governor I have made thousands of appointments, some to the judiciary, others to boards and commissions. I think if you go back and look at it, you'll find out that they were roughly proportionate to the community. With respect to judges, I have done now 300 judicial interviews. I have looked people in the eye to determine the nature of their character and the nature of their judgment. I also have been careful to assure that people I appoint to the bench are going to interpret the law, not make the law. And I stand by the appointments and feel very good about them. They have been highly lotted by the entire community as capable, able justices.

ORTON: They are capable, able justices, but the problem is the selection process that submitted you the seven names. That's where the process has gone foul and that's where we need to change and we need to be out there looking. Because I am not convinced that there are no women justices, that there are no minority individuals, that there are no non-Mormon individuals who have equally as high qualifications as those you have appointed.

LEAVITT: Well, look at my record of appointed judges, you will see that there are many minorities, many women, and proportionately I have appointed more women than I have men with respect to the number of candidates that I have received. I have a very good record on judicial appointments, one I am proud of, and will stand the scrutiny of time. It is a very solid bench.

LINDA THORNELL: What do you each consider your greatest challenge in the next four years, on a new issue, I don't want to hear education or transportation. A personal challenge in terms of relationships or communication within government, or implementation of programs. I don't care what order you go.

ORTON: I think my single greatest challenge is becoming Governor. The Governor has raised 37 times more money than I have and now it's 50-50. So, my single greatest challenge is getting there. As Governor, I think the greatest challenge is to be able to pull together, not only the team, but also the public opinions, the cooperation of the Legislature to move this state forward in a common purpose. But that also, I believe, is my greatest strength. I believe that my strength is in my reputation as being non-political, being independent, really looking at issues and trying to make the best decision and avoiding politics. And so I think the greatest challenge is to hold together the Legislature in a common bond, get the people behind it agreeing that this is the direction we need to go. I believe my greatest strength is in doing that very thing.

LEAVITT: I'm going to point to two things. The first is, I think very clearly the greatest challenge, balancing and competing demand. We have an economy that needs to continue to grow because there are 25,000 new workers every year. That means we have to be, not just fueling education, but transportation. There are human service needs, to care for a child who is in need, that's a responsibility state government needs to step up to. And it can't be seen alone. It has to be seen as part of a larger balance, balancing this generation with the next generation. Balancing rural needs with urban. Balancing highways against education. Balancing the need for human services and the individual responsibility of people. I've wrestled with these problems for the last eight years. I see finding that balance is the most important responsibility that a Governor has.

VIC ROBLEZ: Governor, one thing that's been bothering me since you announced to run for your third term, is that I heard you eight years ago, and you were an advocate of term limitation. And you indicated at that time you would only run for two terms and I wondered what's taken place to change your mind?

LEAVITT: Well, we changed the law in this state. We concluded that we need to have a term limit and it would be three terms. I was a little surprised at the end of my second term myself. I wanted to continue, but I do. Because I believe I've never been more able to do public service than I am right now. There's never been a time when I've had more opportunity to contribute than I do right now and I believe I can keep the momentum in this state going. I have the energy, enthusiasm; I've never been better at this job than I am today.

ORTON: If I could just read to the Governor his own words of eight years ago, he said, "that because of the perks and building advantages of incumbency the only way to retire some of them is through term limit. We might lose a few good men, but the new blood and new thinking would be worth the loss." And if the voters can't trust their politicians to keep their promises that's what creates cynicism in government. So, I will tell the voters, on the day I am inaugurated I will give you my resignation, effective four years later. And so I will keep my promises.

LEAVITT: Mr. Orton points to the fact that earlier in our discussion that one of the great Governor's we've had in our state was Calvin Rampton, a three-term Governor. And I'm sure Bill understands about our prospectives change. I have an article here in November of 1991, where Bill is quoted as saying, "I'm not interested in running for Governor, because I am no administrator, I don't enjoy that type of work, and I'm not particularly good at it. But I am a legislature." And my guess is, Bill, your prospective on that has changed a little bit in the last few years.

ORTON: Not necessarily. I'm willing to do it because you're not doing what needs to be for education and that's why I'm here.

Marta: I have another thing to say. We don't need another nuclear waste site on the Goshute Reservation. I agree with Mr. Orton, now after eight years somebody should say no. I'm going to provide you with, with the education. I mean it really makes me kind of like upset to hear this from the Governor, "I will provide it". What have you done in the last eight years? This is one question. The other question is in order for you to get my vote or our vote, are we going to be represented in this state? Do we, we diversity, are we going to be represented? That's my question.

ORTON: On your last question of whether you're going to be represented in my administration, the answer is absolutely yes. I have a record on my staff, the people that have worked with me; I have a strong record on diversity. I seek out people with qualifications who have diverse backgrounds because I believe that by hearing your ideas we actually can improve the quality of our government. Improve the quality of our services. So I have a very good record and I'm willing to stand on my record of reaching out to the diverse components of our community and I would continue to do that. On the Goshute, I think I have already answered it, I think our problem is that we have not been reaching out and doing what we could do, we can and must do better.

LEAVITT: With respect to the Goshutes, let's put this in perspective, there are less than 50 people who live about 40 miles from the nearest town. It's very difficult, under any circumstance, to build an economic base in that circumstance. They're not the only area that struggles economically in remote areas. I don't believe it is the role of government to guarantee anybody a job. We have a responsibility to help. I think we have a responsibility to educate them and we are willing to do all of those things, not just with the Goshutes, but with other remote and rural areas. Where has the federal government been? Where's the Bureau of Indian Affairs in all of this? They have a responsibility as well. They stated federal responsibility. This is a public safety issue. It is not reasonable for us to put the better part of 2 million people in our state at physical risk by having a legally hot nuclear waste 40 miles from where we sit today, just for the economic benefit of a very small group of people in a tribal nation, many of whom don't support it themselves. The Goshutes themselves are divided on this issue, as well they should be.