Public Notices On-Line Only?

[XLFD]

Earlier this year in May, Michigan House Bill 5560 was introduced, read, and sent to committee, it stated it was "A bill to set forth the methods for local governments and other governmental entities to provide public notices; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain public entities; and to prescribe the duties of certain private entities."

Briefly stated, within the bill it delineates new publishing requirements for legal notices that allow on-line posting of such notices without any publication of such notices in the local newspapers of record. 

"The sources people use to find information have shifted," said Rep. Amanda Price, R-Holland, the sponsor of House Bill 5560. "More and more of them are going online. Many people who are under the age of 30 never read newspapers. With this bill we are looking to ensure that public notices remain widely accessible.

Consequently, as you might expect, newspapers (who receive revenue from such publications currently) have come out against the bill.  "The Michigan Press Association opposes this bill because we feel it would eliminate due process for citizens by eradicating the permanent, legal, independent notices that have been provided in print by Michigan's newspapers for over 150 years," said Lisa McGraw, public affairs manager for the MPA.

Similar bills have lingered in the Michigan legislature since 2010 and died; however, this bill has had some revival by the lame duck legislature with a second reading last month and a renewed interest.  The City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) reprinted an editorial from the Petoskey News on December 1st, showing they approve of the general idea of keeping public notices in their newspaper.  Again, both local newspapers have an economic motive for their stance.

In this instance, I would have to agree with them, even though the Ludington Torch has no economic brand in the fire.  The reason for having a public notice is so that the public has access to the notice.  Even though the internet is becoming more widely used for news and information every day, there is still a significant amount of people who are not connected. 

A wise way to expand the audience for these public notices would be to continue with the newspaper publication and supplement it with posting on the government entity website.  It should also allow newspaper's internet presences to publish the notice as an extra safeguard so as to protect against the alteration of the original notice by the government entity and reach a wider audience. 

But I still like the Petoskey News editorial's refutation also printed here:

Government has the power to force citizens from their homes and decide where to locate hazardous facilities. It has the power to confiscate your property or throw you in jail.

That's a lot of power.  It's trying to get more.

Your government claims it can save money by posting notices about tax increases, property seizure and new spending on its website. That seems well-intentioned. But doing that creates a system where government is in control of what you know. And there are plenty of other ways they can save money without putting taxpayer rights at risk.

Right now your newspaper prints these notices on pages independent of government control. Their pages can't be "hacked," disappear during a power outage or quietly updated to hide a mistake. These newspaper pages prove beyond the shadow of a doubt what government did, when it did it, how it did it and where citizens can learn more about the matter. They are proof-positive legal documents. They protect your rights.

To those who say newspapers are making a fuss about this to protect a revenue source (yes, we charge for these notices, just like an automaker charges a municipality when it sells a police car), we say this:

1. This revenue isn’t substantial (one town pays more for baseball umpires ($5,500) than these notices ($2,622.11) and city spends .00017 of its $4 million budget ($680) on such notices).

2. Newaygo County (Mich.) Clerk Morey Butler, fresh from a trip to China and Russia, makes an excellent point when he notes that “we respect the concerns of our elected officials to wisely spend tax dollars; however no longer printing public notices is too high a price to pay. We have experienced firsthand that by controlling the Internet switch the government completely controls the spoken word. We must be willing to keep public notices available to all of the residents of Michigan."

Government websites put government in control of what we know. Citizens need an independent check and balance on the government that's supposed to serve them. Public notices in newspapers provide that. Don't let government control what you know.

http://www.petoskeynews.com/news/opinion/keep-public-notices-where-...

[Willy]

I totally agree with the newspapers. This would open up a wide avenue for unscrupulous public officials to further sidestep  oversight that exist to keep them in check. Imagine how difficult it would be to prove that a particular notice date had been changed. The newspaper notice should be considered a "time stamp" that verifies when a notice was made public.

[AQUAMAN]

Great point Willy. The "time stamp" you mention is as good as a certified letter imho. What the bill should have done is make both on-line and newspaper print notices required. If in the future, say 10-20 years, stats show that the newspaper is no longer a viable way of notice, they might want to make this change then. There are still way too many people that rely on newspaper notices to inform them of such meetings and such. If they are targeting only the people under 30, that in itself leaves a big void of people from age 31-91 that still are affected negatively. Bad idea and bill if you ask me!