I am dismayed by the widely reported but false claim that Gov. Mike Leavitt did not support the tobacco lawsuit. Having been intimately involved in the lawsuit from its inception, first as an attorney in the Office of the Attorney General and then as an employee of the State Health Department, I want to correct the record.
One of the proudest moments of my life was spent at the side of Utah's attorney general in September 1996 when she announced the filing of Utah's lawsuit against cigarette manufacturers.A large percentage of my time during the previous year as an assistant attorney general representing the State Health Department had been spent investigating the merits of Utah joining Mississippi, Florida and Minnesota in what promised to be an epic battle against a previously undefeated foe.
Revelations from within the cigarette manufacturers provided hope that the suspected conspiracy by the tobacco companies to hide the truth about their product from the public could be proven in court. However, no one anticipated that cigarette manufacturers would eventually settle and agree to significant restrictions on the marketing of their product, as well as pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Utah.
The pleasure I have taken in reflecting on the role I played in this cause has been substantially soured by the allegation reported in the media that, if the decision had been up to the governor, this lawsuit would not have been filed. I have no doubt that even if the Public Attorney's Act had been law in 1996, the suit would have been filed. There is no question that the governor supported the lawsuit, and the State Health Department played a major role in its success.
Attorney General Jan Graham repeatedly stated in 1994, when Utah first seriously considered filing suit, and again in 1996 that she would not file suit without the support of the governor. In June 1996, months before the suit was filed, eventual outside counsel from South Carolina Ron Motley, accompanied by Attorney General Mike Moore of Mississippi, came to Utah for the express purpose of answering remaining questions that the governor had about what might happen if the litigation did not go well.
I wrote the letter on behalf of the attorney general inviting Moore and Mr. Motley to this meeting. The letter states that the governor had already announced his support, subject to these questions being answered. After the meeting, there was no question in my mind that Leavitt supported the litigation.
The State Health Department, as directed by the governor, provided indispensable information in support of the court pleadings. This information could not have been obtained for the litigation without the governor's support.
Moving forward to November 1998, as an attorney now working for the State Health Department, I was vitally interested in media reports about a possible settlement in the works to replace the failed 1997 settlement. Information from the Attorney General's Office was very limited, and copies of the actual agreement were embargoed. Fortunately, Internet sources provided very complete and accurate information on the agreement.
Graham met with Leavitt at 11 a.m. on the day she announced the settlement to the press a few hours later. I attended the meeting in my Health Department role.
The suggestion has been made repeatedly that the governor, despite his alleged lack of support for the lawsuit against tobacco, tried to intimidate the attorney general into a joint press conference to share credit for the settlement. Some media reports have depicted a red-faced, finger-pointing, out-of-control governor.
I left the meeting with a very different impression. Leavitt clearly stated, again because of information made available from other channels, that he was pleased with what he believed the settlement represented and complimented the attorney general for her work on the case. However, I understood why Leavitt supported a change in the law to clarify the relationship between the attorney general and the rest of government that depends on the attorney general for legal representation.
Without any inappropriate display of emotion or finger-pointing, the governor expressed his strong concern that, as chief executive officer of the state, he was first learning details of the complicated settlement only hours before Utah's acceptance of the settlement was scheduled to be announced.
Why should any lawsuit that impacts state government so significantly be resolved without permitting any input from the governor or the state agency most affected by the settlement?
Public debate is proceeding on how best to use the resources provided by the settlement to educate youths and hopefully persuade the current generation of 12- and 13-year-olds to avoid this deadly addiction. I hope the false contention that Leavitt did not support this litigation and is now trying to take inappropriate credit for the settlement can stop. We need to focus on maximizing the benefit to Utah from the settlement.
Doug Springmeyer works for the Utah Department of Health. From 1986 to 1996, he worked for the Attorney General's Office.