PAYSON — A Payson city councilman and the city attorney are at odds over the legality of a special meeting last week to vote on the city's membership in UTOPIA.

Councilman Brent Burdick insists the June 23 meeting, at which the council reversed a previous decision to pull out of the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, was illegal.

He says he wasn't given 24 hours notice that a meeting would be held — a violation of state laws that govern how public meetings are called.

UTOPIA wants to build a major public electronic infrastructure for high-speed Internet and other electronic services that it says private businesses have failed to provide. As a member, Payson committed $5.3 million in taxpayer money over 20 years to building UTOPIA's fiber optic system.

City Attorney David Tuckett said the council met the provisions of both state law and city ordinances, with the exception that the city has no written procedures on how to hold an electronic meeting. That exception may be a technical violation but not one that could void the meeting, Tuckett said.

UTOPIA gave city leaders until June 25 to join with them after the council narrowly voted against staying with the agency on June 16. Councilman Bertis Bills later said he received new information and wanted to change his vote. In a hastily called meeting in which two council members, Colleen Jacobsen and Larry Skinner, participated by telephone, the council reversed its position.

City leaders said earlier that another meeting may be held Wednesday to ratify the action but now say it isn't necessary. The next regularly scheduled meeting is July 7 in City Hall.

Burdick and Skinner opposed the move. They believe technology is changing so fast that UTOPIA presents an expense the city shouldn't risk. Rather, market forces should determine when to build the lines.

Burdick said he consulted with an attorney — whom he refuses to name — to come up with these points backing his claim that the meeting was illegal:

• Payson has no written procedure in its ordinances to hold a meeting by telephone;

• All council members must be present in person to reconsider a vote;

• Burdick was given only 18 hours notice of the meeting while the law requires 24 hours notice. (However, the notice was posted in City Hall 24 hours before the meeting. A local weekly paper received notification, which met the law, but the daily newspapers that cover Payson were not notified.)

• When Burdick came to the meeting he wasn't given the real reason or purpose for it;
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
  • Next >