Pignanelli: The recent elections had a number of unusual twists (i.e. county scandals, clandestine organizations pumping money into media), but nothing was stranger than the unexpected defeat of Initiative 1. This proposed statute would have authorized $150 million for the preservation of open space and the construction of recreational facilities.

With a campaign budget in excess of $1 million (opponents were funded with less than $30,000), a strong list of influential endorsements, including Jake Garn, and the compelling message of clean air and water, the initiative was destined to pass. All the major polls, except for the survey conducted by the Salt Lake Tribune, predicted victory all summer long. Indeed, a majority of voters told the exit pollsters on Election Day they had cast a "For" ballot on the matter. Yet the initiative was thumped statewide 55 percent to 45 percent and even lost in Salt Lake County, where everyone assumed 60 percent approval. In the post-mortem discussions, various rationales are being offered for this unusual outcome.

Initiative sponsors made a critical mistake of excluding their colleague and political expert Joe Hansen in the early stages of the campaign. Hansen possesses unique qualifications as an active Republican power broker (he is the son of former Congressman Jim Hansen) with strong environmental credentials. Opponents capitalized on this blunder and retained Hansen to lead their efforts. Hansen was helpful in securing public statements of disagreement from his father, former Congressman Howard Nielsen, former Gov. Norman Bangerter and Gov. Olene Walker, thus raising concerns about the initiative.

Although blessed with a heartwarming theme of safeguarding our environment, the initiative was burdened with a complex structure to appease multiple interests. As the campaign manager for the Radioactive Waste Initiative in 2002, I faced similar challenges of a complicated ballot question. Utilizing sound advice provided by LaVarr and his partner Hugh Matheson (who later formed the Exoro Group), our opponents successfully labeled that initiative as too confusing and bureaucratic (remember, "Too many questions, too few answers," "It ends in a question mark!?" etc. and ad nauseam) Although good friends with Exoro (which provided PR assistance to the 2004 Open Space Initiative), I must admit to the delicious irony I enjoyed when Initiative 1 opponents used the tactics against LaVarr and Matheson that they employed against us in 2002.