Utah Tomorrow Strategic Planning Committee
Members Present:
Rep. Afton Bradshaw, Cochair
Sen. Joseph L. Hull
Rep. Beverly A. Evans
Rep. Daniel Tuttle
Mr. Brad Barber
Mr. Eric Leeson for Mr. Becker
Mr. Gary Carlston
Mayor Tom Dolan
Mr. Gene Moser
Dr. Dianne Nielson
Ms. Kathleen Clarke
Members Excused:
Sen. LeRay McAllister, Cochair
Sen. Craig Taylor
Mr. Kim Burningham
Commissioner Kent Petersen
Staff Present:
John Q. Cannon,
Research Analyst
James L. Wilson,
Associate General Counsel
Angela D. Kelley,
Legislative Secretary
Note: A list of others present and a copy of materials distributed in the meeting are on file in the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.
1. Call to Order - Chair Bradshaw called the meeting to order at 10:16 a.m.
2. Committee Business -
MOTION: Rep. Tuttle moved to approve the minutes of May 19, 1998. The motion passed unanimously, with Rep. Evans, Mayor Dolan, and Mr. Carlston absent for the vote.
3. CCJJ Update on Modifications to the Justice Section of the Utah Tomorrow Report - Ms. Jennifer Hemenway, CCJJ, said her office has met twice with various agencies who have an interest in the Justice Section of Utah Tomorrow. She stated that these agencies will be looking at the Justice Section more thoroughly in August, then in October the suggested changes from this group will be presented to the Utah Tomorrow Committee.
4. Presentation for Management Committee of July 14th - Mr. Wilson said there was a proposal in the May meeting for the chairs of Utah Tomorrow to meet with Legislative Management in July to discuss the prospect for next year for the interim committees meeting with agencies to review goals, objectives, and performance measures.
Mr. Mark Bedel, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, distributed a summary titled "June 25, Meeting of Utah Tomorrow Agency Representatives." He explained the issues of the summary, which included the relevance of Utah Tomorrow to agency planning, the format of the report, and reporting of data.. He also distributed handouts from the Internet, titled "Oregon Shines II," "Oregon Benchmarks," and "Minnesota Milestones." He said that Oregon's benchmarks are similar in format to those used by Utah.
Chair Bradshaw noted the summary states that the goals in the document are too broad, and often impossible to achieve.
Mr. Barber suggested that some type of penalties or incentives might be effective for Utah Tomorrow.
Mr. Moser stated that he has observed the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) taking Utah Tomorrow very seriously, and that the staff at DEQ set goals and objectives to raise their agency to a higher level.
Dr. Nielson said there was a rule made at DEQ that there would be no measures made or offered to the public in which data could not be collected. She noted that DEQ uses Utah Tomorrow in a broader sense to drive the department, not just for appropriations. She suggested that Utah Tomorrow may need to define what success is.
Sen. Hull said there is a lack of trust toward Utah government. He also stated that the Utah Tomorrow Strategic Planning Committee was formed to educate the public, and could be used by agencies to promote the good things they are doing.
Rep. Tuttle suggested that Utah Tomorrow can help people to understand the needs of agencies, and should not be used simply to get more money.
Mayor Dolan noted the need for implementation. There must be integrity in the measures, and the measures must be accepted by the executive branch, then trusted by the Legislature.
Mr. Barber suggested the need for accountability and buy-in.
Mayor Dolan reported that the concepts driving Utah Tomorrow are being used in Sandy City.
Ms. Clarke said that, as a deputy director, she was not engaged in Utah Tomorrow, but it helped launch planning efforts in her department and its divisions. Unfortunately, it seems to have become bifarcated with different entities making requests for different information. There is a need to coordinate these efforts and bring them together. She also suggested that Utah Tomorrow needs to be simplified, perhaps with fewer goals and performance measures.
Mr. Robert Rolfs, Utah Department of Health (UDOH), said that UDOH is committed to using performance measures to plan and evaluate his office's progress and to communicate the progress and priorities to others outside of the department. Utah Tomorrow has sometimes been
tangential, however, as it doesn't fit well with UDOH planning. He suggested that Utah Tomorrow
has suffered from a lack of focus and has perhaps been too ambitious. Is Utah Tomorrow a statewide
plan? Or is Utah Tomorrow a plan for government? There could be mechanisms to institutionalize
review of progress by agencies and perhaps fewer measures using graphical presentations.
Mr. Jeff Burks, Utah Office of Energy and Resource Planning, said his office has been
involved in the collecting and reporting of Utah Tomorrow data for quite some time. He said the
discussion should focus on whether the goals and objectives are valid, not if the data is valid. He
stated that the goals and objectives were developed about six years ago and that Utah Tomorrow may
not have kept pace as goals and objectives have required modifications. Although Utah Tomorrow
is sometimes perceived as a "makework" project, it has been successful at raising the level of
consciousness about planning. It may be time to reconsider the charge of the committee, or perhaps
time to let Utah Tomorrow go.
Mr. Don Carpenter, Associate Commissioner of Higher Education, said he would like Utah
Tomorrow to be more meaningful for higher education. There is a disconnect between Utah
Tomorrow and agencies' long-range planning, and agency planning usually takes priority.
Chair Bradshaw said that the committee has struggled with the education section of Utah
Tomorrow because it has been difficult to get the Strategic Planning Task Force for Public and
Higher Education involved in the plan.
Mr. Luke Smart, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, suggested simplifying the
document and reemphasizing process.
Mr. Brad McGarry, Department of Human Services, agreed with other agency representatives
comments, but noted that Utah Tomorrow has been used to evaluate the future of a division within
his department.
Rep. Evans commented that Utah Tomorrow has obviously had an impact, but needs to be
reevaluated with an emphasis on process. Things have evolved and changed over time, and the
process has become somewhat cumbersome.
Mr. Burks, said that if the committee can define who the client is, then the document will
appear much different. He said that right now the document is trying to be all things to all people.
He also said that some of the information in the document may no longer be relevant.
Dr. Nielson asked whether Utah Tomorrow records history or drives future policy.
Mr. Bedel said that the agencies' responses were clear that a state planning document is
valuable and important, but that it must be useful and relevant. He said that the committee has given
agencies deadlines for submitting recommendations for their goals, objectives, and performance
measures. He questioned if the committee wanted to continue the process as it is, or make changes
to the process this year.
Mr. Cannon questioned if the committee had enough information to make a presentation to
Legislative Management on July 14, or if the committee needed to discuss further options.
Chair Bradshaw suggested that Sen. McAllister read the minutes from this meeting, and it
can be decided at that time if Utah Tomorrow still wants to go to the Legislative Management
Committee.
5. Scheduling of Future Meetings -
The committee will meet again on July 28, 1998 at 1:00 p.m.
6. Adjourn -
MOTION: Rep. Tuttle moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:52 a.m. The motion passed unanimously, with Dr. Nielson and Ms. Clarke absent for the vote.
[Back to the Interim Directory][Back to the Monthly Schedule][Back to the Committee Listing] Utah State Legislature