The Republic is Right.

The Republic recently wrote an editorial in support of efforts to put Elected Official's financial data on line.  It seems that the web is easier, more convenient, searchable and cheaper for the public--and reporters--than the old fashioned paper system.

I thought this was an especially good point.

In this day and age, there simply is no good reason why obtaining financial-disclosure statements still should require a formal public-records request. Or, for that matter, why anyone should be required to receive the filings on paper, thus generating for the public an unnecessary financial burden. Ten cents a page, indeed.

Well said. Why should anyone be required to get their information by paper....which brings me to public notices...

Newspapers and their powerful lobbyists have managed to protect the archaic requirement that public notices be printed in newspapers.  This serves as a tax on business and government that goes directly to newspapers. 

Printed public notices are a legal fiction.  No one reads them; they are not searchable and they appear in extremely small and obscure papers. 

The Republic is right.  The public shouldn't be forced to deal with obscure print-only filings in a digital era.  The Legislature needs to pass a package that updates all the filing requirements to ensure that needed information is available on the web and that the public is not forced to pay to retrieve--or publish information. 

The days of print-only filings and published public notices is over.  The Legislature needs to catch up.

Comments

[Benson]

Touche'!

[Le Templar]

Actually, the Arizona Newspaper Association does put public notices published by its members on one website, and the database is searchable. http://www.ananews.com/wordpress/index.php/public-notices/public-notice-search/

[RonJ]

I thought part of the requirement for a public notice is that it is printed by a third party. What is currently being proposed is to have public notices on a government website--not exactly a "third party." As someone who has used the present system on more than a few occasions (and you also find public notices on the internet), I have no problem with it. Two big problems with the effects of going solely on the internet: 1) there are still many thousands of citizens who do not use the internet, and 2) dozens of small newspapers throughout the state will go bye-bye overnite. That's not a good thing.
And remember, the U.S. Post Office was not created just for folks to send private mail to each other. Two other main reasons were for business and government to be more efficient, and for newspapers to be mailed throughout the country cheaply and efficiently.
Requiring public notices to be only on the internet will destroy small newspapers. Government regulations should not destroy business; let the natural course of things occur. Eventually, almost everyone will be on the internet. We don't need government to force the issue.

[westsider]

RonJ,

You write, "Requiring public notices to be only on the internet will destroy small newspapers."

My conservative friends keep telling me that it isn't the government's job to create jobs which is what you are saying.

[Tod]

RonJ -

Caveat: I'm a newspaper loyalist, but only because when I was born in the 50s, my parents owned a small town weekly paper (and they worked their butts off to break even). That said ...

Item 2) Are you kidding me?!?!? We are suppose to keep an archaic system so that we can prop up the "dozens of small newspapers"!?!?!? Really?!?!?

Item 1) "There are many thousands of citizens that don't use the internet" ... are you kidding me!?!?!? I'll bet that there are more citizens with internet than subscribe to the newspaper.

You actually wrote that (I guess), but did you read it ... OUT LOAD ... before you clicked the post button?

[A Facebook User]

For a history of how this issue is playing out nationwide over the last 2 years check out this blog. http://legal-notice.org/blog . Here are the arguments that the newspapers have used succesfully so far:
-"Legal Notices have been in newspapers for 200 years. It is a time-tested proven way to communicate to the public." (sounds much like what the buggy whip manufacturers said when the automobile was beginning to be used.
-"Think about all of the many people that don't have access to the internet." (The number of people who have access to the internet dwarfs the number of people who PAY to subscribe to their local newspaper.
-"The Arizona Press association already aggregates notices on line" (Yes, but first they have to be published in the newspaper for 10 times the cost paid for by the taxpayer)
-"Publishing a notice takes expertise that no one else has." (Copying and pasting some text? I have an 8 year-old that can do it.)
-"It is very important so we as a newspaper can be a watchdog for the public." (huh? so that means we as taxpayers have to pay for it? Why don't the newspapers publish them for free?)
-"There needs to be proof that the notices have been published" (A site like http://free-public-notice.com provides affidavits that the notices have been printed.
-"We, as newspapers, don't make very much from public notices" (I have worked in the newspaper business for decades and public notices are one of the most profitable areas of the business.)
-"Public notices are keeping the all important newspaper business alive" (See statement above. If newspapers are making such a slim margin why are notices so important?)

Believe it or not, these are the arguments that have kept every state legislature from ratifying an on line public notice law.
Arizona is one of the few states that requires newly formed llc businesses to publish a notice when they are formed so the Arizona newspapers actually make more from public notices than in the rest of country. Why should we as taxpayers pay to subsidize a formerly influential influential business?

[RonJ]

I'm not suggesting government is in the business to directly create jobs. But with this regulation, government will destroy jobs; I believe for no reason.
Printed newspapers aren't "archaic"--yet; in small towns they are still very popular. Let nature take its course.
And yes, Tod, there are still thousands of Arizona citizens who do not use the internet. What does that number or it's counter have to do with how many subscribe to a newspaper?
This proposed government regulation will destroy jobs. Is that the government's responsibility? We have not yet arrived at the "buggy whip" analogy. Besides, government did not destroy the buggy whip--business-driven factors did. Again, let the natural course of business make the choices--not government.

[A Facebook User]

Exactly Ron, let nature take its course. Look at the market driven business most similar to legal notices. When nature took its course in the Classified Advertising business, classified advertising fled the printed page. When the market works, everyone gains. When the government artificially subsidizes a business, no one wins.
You speak of jobs. Newspapers contend that they make very little money from legal notices. Why should the insignificant volume of legal notices leaving the newspaper cost jobs?

[RonJ]

The small newspapers would be the hardest hit--they would go under (including Arizona Capitol Times), costing jobs and, perhaps worse, the loss of a watch dog in a small town.

[BobH]

RonJ: "let nature take its course."

I agree.

Remove the subsidy (which is what public notices are) and let the papers die if that's the result.

[RonJ]

Then perhaps we should shut down the U.S. Post Office. After all it provides subsidies (in the form of bulk mail rates) to businesses. Uhhh, okay, maybe I'm making your point. :-)

[BobH]

Ron: Yes, you are. The USPS should probably be shut down (or allowed to die). It delivers little other than advertising, which means it is competing with other unsubsidized advertising outlets.

Interestingly, shutting down the USPS's subsidized advertising delivery service would benefit those small newspapers who would be hurt by shutting down the public notice subsidies -- they have the localized delivery networks that would be the natural replacement for the USPS.