SALT LAKE CITY — The Capitol Preservation Board on an in‑room and Zoom reconvened meeting voted to make a portion of the first‑floor visitor center available for use by the Utah state auditor and to transfer Suite 260 to the legislature, after public commenters and the auditor raised concerns that the board’s earlier decision may not have complied with the Open Meetings Act.

Assistant Attorney General Paul Tongs opened the meeting and told the board it had convened after members requested a revote to “cure” any possible Open Meetings Act issues surrounding a prior Sept. 15 vote. The board’s stated intent was to confirm, in public session, that an alternate space on the first floor is “substantially similar” to the auditor’s current Suite 260 and therefore available for the auditor under the cited statute as of Jan. 1, 2025.

Why it matters: Tina Cannon, the Utah state auditor, told the board from the public podium that she had not had her office’s interests protected in the earlier process. “This is my space in the state capital that is under declaration this morning,” Cannon said, and she asserted that required elements of the 2024 statute — including a space study and principal‑member meetings that include the auditor — had not been honored to her office’s satisfaction.

Jay Griffin, identified as chief of staff for the auditor, told board members the auditor’s office “has not been shown any of the architectural plans” and that staff had been told not to release designs to the auditor’s office. “We have not seen any of them,” he said, adding the auditor’s office has not received the space‑use study or full designs he expected.

Several public commenters and legislators urged the board to follow statutory process and preserve visible office space for the elected auditor. Representative Mike Peterson urged strict adherence to procedures, saying, "Don't suspend the rules. Don't lift the rules. Follow the process." Mary Anne Christensen of Utah Legislative Watch noted the auditor’s statewide mandate and urged that the Capitol continue to give constitutional officers visible representation.

Board discussion focused on whether the architect’s work and the space study had included the auditor; staff said a space assessment had been done and that architects had met with agencies multiple times in 2024. Tongs and other board members repeatedly framed the revote as an abundance‑of‑caution step to resolve any procedural questions in public session.

The motion on the floor — which the mover read aloud to make a portion of the visitor center available to the auditor, to find the space substantially similar to Suite 260, and to transfer Suite 260 to the legislature under the code citation raised at the meeting — was seconded and carried on a roll‑call vote. Named members present recorded affirmative votes during the roll call and the chair announced the motion passed.

The board did not announce additional implementation steps or an effective date for the transfer during the meeting. After the vote the chair moved to adjourn and the board ended the session.

What was cited: Participants referenced statutory language during discussion (meeting participants cited “63‑1‑201” and related sections and a 2024 amendment in the meeting). The board framed the revote as a procedural remedy, not a reevaluation of the auditor’s statutory priority for space.

The meeting record shows robust public comment from the auditor and her staff urging transparency and access to plans; board staff worked during the meeting to display architectural materials for members but discussion of detailed plan contents remained limited in the public session.

Next steps: The board made a formal allocation by vote; the record at the meeting did not contain a detailed timeline for physical moves or staffing changes. The board announced no further votes on the item during the session and adjourned.