Sen Urquhart in association with Ric Cantrell pulled together a variety of political bloggers to talk over a bill – at the peak, we had 21 total in the room and listening in.
SB 208 details how legal notice will be provided in this state. This bill will require that legal notices be published on the state website. First of all, he wants to make sure that there is broad readership of said notices. Sen Urquhart feels that this is not only cost-effective, but can and will work efficiently to have one central repository of legal notices.
Currently being drafted, the effective date would be delayed until July 1, 2010. Cost of publication will simply be a pass-through cost to maintaining the website, which should be a significant reduction in current costs. No dollar amount currently being quoted.
Q? Will this be a similar thing as utah.gov, where cities and other government entities can publish online? Answer: Yes. The intent is to make this more affordable and more easily accessible, not only for gov’t but for the individuals – those who have to publish for probate, or prior to foreclosure, etc. Even for the major newspapers in the state, far more do NOT subscribe than those who DO subscribe. This bill will not prohibit anyone from publishing in a newspaper, just allow another, less expensive option. Publishing in the local newspaper will likely continue to work well, especially in rural areas.
What types of legal notices could be published?
Anything and everything that currently requires publication: Sheriff’s sale, trustee sale, estate sale, property sale with court oversight, etc.
How much is spent statewide on legal notices? Cumulatively, hundreds of thousands, just for government, but adding in all privately published notices, easily in the millions.
Will newspapers be happy? Not likely. Businesses with a captive market like to keep a captive market, so Sen Urquhart expects that the newspaper business will not be happy. Does it make sense, then, to allow newspapers to raise the cap on the fees for publishing legal notices? Sure. Once you provide another avenue (the state website) and there is no longer a “captive audience”, let them choose to set their own rates.
Is it an anti-media bill? It’s not government’s job to prop up an industry, even a well-established but struggling one like print media. What’s the current vernacular? It is not government’s concern to pick winners and losers. It is a pro-consumer bill, which is something *I* appreciate.
It will be located at archives.utah.gov, searchable by location, by type of document, by date, etc.
This will continue to make the process for citizens easier and cheaper, while not preventing private enterprise from being in the market as well.
There will also be a new “transparency” website up and running by May of this year. It is supposed to be easily searchable and will allow citizens the ability to track their tax dollars to any level of detail they would like.
February 11, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Newspapers get it on public notice!
The truth is that newspapers get it. If Sen. Urquhart had made 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 would 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.
I think we can create an innovative public-private partnership that will serve the citizens of Utah.
Joel Campbell
Utah Press Association
Legislative Monitor
foiguy@gmail.com
February 11, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Who is going to watch the government when they post their own public notices?
Who will verify a legal notice when it was run incorrectly? Nobody!
That’s the role of newspapers in this country. We are the watchdog who keeps an eye on the government. It’s not about dollars and cents with newspapers, it’s about a third party publishing notices and keeping the government’s fingers out of the pie (watchdog).
The state’s newspapers already do offer a website, it is active at: utahlegalnotices.com — also, the state’s newspapers are developing a searchable website that will be available at no cost to these agencies when they run their notices.
As to your comments about newspapers raising the cap on rates, the legal line rate has not been increased in 20+ years. I would guess your hourly wage has increased in 20 years?
Keep these legals in newspapers of general circulation where they belong so that we know there is no corruption involved.
Sen. Urquhart, I urge you to investigate the options available before you sink more taxpayer monies into this project.
February 12, 2009 at 12:33 am
[...] going to post a summary of the meeting, but many other people have already done a good job of that (Holly , JM Bell , Jason , Bob , Joe ). So far, it appears that only JM Bell and BenJoe have taken the [...]
February 12, 2009 at 8:10 am
Greg, just as an additional point of clarification, I think the newspapers SHOULD be able to raise the cap on fees. You and Joel bring up good points – thanks for sharing.
February 15, 2009 at 8:26 am
The purpose of a public notice is to allow the “public” to get the notice as easily, and cheaply, as possible. The Internet is easy and cheap. Newspapers are neither.
December 24, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Really great job on this post, did you get someone to do the design for your blog? I really like it.