Residents press council on transparency, contract processes and conflicts of interest; council retreats to executive session

A broad set of residents used the Jan. 22 public-comment period at the Payson Town Council to raise concerns about transparency, contract approvals, alleged inconsistent permitting and personnel practices, a 2021 engagement letter with bond underwriter Stifel, and the town's purchase of land for a proposed pool.

Tom Dunning, a 21-year resident, opened public comment with a general plea on conflicts of interest: "Avoiding conflict of interest in government is important not just because government is responsible to the people, but also because even the appearance of conflict of interest is corrosive to the public trust," he said.

Several speakers asked the council to review the town's processes. Charlie Sarafin produced a 2021 engagement letter between the town and Stifel and asked why a second-in-command in finance signed the engagement rather than the town manager and why public discussion of a $70 million bond did not take place until 2024. "Why was this agreement signed by the second in command in the finance department?" Sarafin asked.

Judith Hanson and others questioned the justification for buying land for a proposed Malibu pool before conducting a geotechnical study and asked who approved spending $3 million of town funds for the parcel. Residents also raised concerns about inconsistent permitting and a lack of timely responses to information requests.

Several speakers criticized political disputes and what they described as harassment and "cancel culture" in the community; Isaac Blake urged council members to involve law enforcement when threats or intimidation cross a line, saying, "there is a clear red line when it comes to physical actions, threats, intimidation, harassment, doxy, and other behaviors. These are criminal matters."

During the meeting the council voted on routine business. The consent agenda passed by voice vote, recorded in the meeting as "Motion passes 7 0." The council also opened and closed a public hearing on a Series 7 beer-and-wine liquor-license application; the clerk noted the applicant paid the fee and posted the notice and the council later recorded the outcome as "measure passes 7 to 0." (The liquor-application details presented at the meeting did not identify the applicant by name.)

Later in the meeting several commenters asked that a later agenda item (H1) be deferred until conflicts, recusals or disclosures could be sorted out. The council then recessed into executive session to discuss legal matters. Mayor Steven Otto said he would not participate in the executive session and read a statement about his oath: "I swore to defend the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Arizona... I will not be going into the executive session. I will not be making the motion to go into executive session." The motion to recess to executive session was made and seconded and recorded in the minutes as passing (recorded vote text: "motion passes 626 vote"). The transcript did not name every vote by member in the public record.

Council members and staff did not take further public action on the legal items before returning from executive session. Staff said any formal actions arising from closed session would be disclosed to the extent permitted by law.