Argument Against SB 208

Since yesterdays introduction of SB 208 the blogosphere has been swarming with activity, including activity from the Legislative Monitor for the Utah Press Association—Joel Campbell (aka Foiguy). See His Blog Here. He has made the rounds to the blogs emailing and posting the following argument against SB 208. His post to my blog came around 2:24 am, so I know he was up late

Here is his post:

The truth is that newspapers get it. A simple phone call or questions of legislators who are familiar with the idea would have shown that the Utah Press Association agrees on the the need to expand the reach and accessibility of use of public notice. However, we believe that public notice should be both in newspapers and on the Web. For the past two years, with the agreement of former Senate President John Valentine and Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, Utah's newspapers have developed a new centralized Web site that is now in beta testing. Also, for several years we have maintained and continue to maintain, utahlegalnotices.com. Both of these Web sites have been searchable by key words. The new Web site will be RSS feed capable and a fully searchable database of statewide public notices. One will also be able to subscribe to e-mail feeds on a particular key word. We believe that we have developed one of the most sophisticated legal notice Web sites in the United States.

The Utah Press Association has also pledged to create an advertising campaign that could help citizens better understand and access public notices. As has been the case
for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices? Also, should the government be in the business of creating its own communications bureaucracy? Also, there are real costs associated with creating and maintaining a public notice Web site. Currently, along with the initial startup costs, the Utah Public Meeting Notice Web site has at least one full-time staff and ongoing costs through the Utah Department of Archives.

Joel Campbell
Utah Press Association
Legislative Monitor

Mr. Campbell debates some good points regarding government and their roll in this process. But I think there is a flaw in this thinking. He says they have already developed and are working on a better system for posting legal notices. Their website http://www.utahlegalnotices.com/ and their new website that is being tested http://legals.mediaoneutah.com/ are the examples of such work.

Will this really be cheaper for the tax payer to use?

Part of the goal for SB 208 is to save the tax payer money. If it is cheaper to use utahlegalnotices.com then why does legislation like SB 161 exist (See Here). This removes the maximum charge for legal notices; giving publishers an opportunity to charge higher rates on the publishing of legal notices. As long as legislation like this exists then the idea of newspapers running their own website concerns me. They will still charge the same amount if not higher to offset costs. Remember, the goal of the UPA is to keep this in the hands of the newspaper. The feel this is where it belongs, you can read this on their legal notices website:

Utah Press Association is announcing it's intent to keep public notices where they belong... in the Newspapers. Every year we fight the battle to keep Legal Notices in the paper - and not just published on government websites. With the implement of www . utahlegalnotices . com several years ago, we had one more arrow in our arsenal. Even though a time consuming process of uploading legal notices, we have only 2% non-compliance. The system currently in place is working to the level that we, as a group of fighting newspapers, need.

If this is not a war cry, I don't know what is. Did you notice that last line? "The system currently in place is working to the level that we, a group of fighting newspapers, need." Do they feel they need this or are entitled to it?

The newspaper system has been monopolizing this system far too long and now they are afraid of losing it. With cities like St. George spending nearly $20,000 a year in fees for public notices, newspapers are scared to lose that kind of revenue.

SB 208 is not anti-media; it is to help the tax payer. If doing so means taking it out of the hands of the media, then so be it.

Comments welcome.