Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farmington council narrows proposed ‘telephone harassment’ ordinance to target direct electronic messages
Summary
After extensive public comment about vagueness and free-speech risks, the Farmington City Council voted to amend its telephone‑harassment ordinance to cover electronic communications but to strike the words “annoy” and “offend” and add “direct contact,” aiming to limit enforcement to targeted messages. The amended ordinance passed on voice vote.
Farmington City Council voted on May 26 to amend the city’s telephone‑harassment ordinance to include electronic communications while narrowing language that residents and some councilors had called vague and potentially overbroad.
City Attorney Jennifer Maldonado told the council the proposed change updates code 18‑4‑9 to reflect how people now use smartphones and social media, and that the city’s draft mirrors a state legislative proposal. Maldonado said the ordinance, as written, would not apply to government employees acting in their official capacity and that courts and law enforcement use a range of factors when deciding whether to charge someone under the statute.
The issue drew dozens of speakers during public comment. Brandy McAlexander said residents are hearing about possible AI/data center projects through school meetings and social media rather than through Farmington City processes and warned that electronic communications policies should not be adopted behind closed doors. Several other residents argued the words “annoy” and “offend” were subjective and risked criminalizing ordinary online speech such as tagging, criticism or heated comments.
Police Chief Steve Hebe and the city attorney told the council that keeping the existing terms gives municipal officers a citation option that is easier to prosecute in city court; if the words were removed, some cases would instead go to magistrate court. Hebe said the police department would be able to proceed even if the language were narrowed, but that removing tools could create practical complications for local prosecution.
Councilors debated whether the ordinance should target only “direct” communications (for example, direct messages or tags aimed at a specific person) rather than public posts. Councilor Rogers moved to strike the words “annoy” and “offend,” add the qualifier “direct” to “contact,” and adopt the ordinance as amended. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
The council characterized the amendment as an effort to modernize the municipal code to address targeted threatening or harassing messages sent by electronic means while avoiding criminalization of broader public speech. The council did not set aside the ordinance; it approved the amended text at the meeting. The city attorney’s office indicated the language was intended to provide law enforcement and municipal court a realistic path to address targeted harassment delivered by texts or private social-media messages without sweeping in ordinary online criticism.
Next steps: the city clerk will publish the adopted ordinance text and the city will follow the usual enforcement and review processes. The council signaled willingness to revisit wording if enforcement experience or legal developments suggest further revision.
(At the meeting residents also raised separate concerns about transparency for possible data‑center development and about neighborhood public‑safety and nuisance issues.)
