Bill has potential to save tax dollars
By
Rory Ryan-hcpress@cinci.rr.com
Many power brokers in the newspaper industry are keeping an eye on Ohio House Bill 345. This recently introduced legislation by five Ohio Democrats is worth consideration. In fact, even though it is a somewhat watered-down version of an earlier proposal, it is something Ohio lawmakers ought to pass and Gov. Ted Strickland ought to sign into law.
House Bill 345 permits certain “political subdivisions” to make Internet Web site publications in lieu of newspaper publication requirements as long as the political subdivision donates all funds that would otherwise be used to provide newspaper notices to a local food bank or food drive.
Why is this proposed legislation important? Because it could be a small step in saving Ohio taxpayers a lot of money. (Of course, as a friend of mine said this week, “One man’s usury is another man’s free enterprise.”)
Earlier this year, the newspaper industry successfully campaigned against a proposal in the Ohio budget bill which would have allowed government entities to post small, condensed versions of their respective legal notices in newspapers, with references to the corresponding government Web site for the full text of the legal notice.
“No!” newspaper ownership cried. “We must always publish the full legal notices in order to fully inform our citizens, form a more perfect union, ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare – while lining our pockets.” (Or something like that.)
In reality, the print industry doth protest too much. And it only has to take a look in the mirror in order to learn why Ohio lawmakers find it necessary to rewrite state code on legal advertisements.
Consider: For general election advertising in 2005 alone, a Wilmington newspaper (through its parent company) billed the Clinton County Board of Elections some $59,169.33 for legal advertising costs. This was among the most exorbitant expenses to taxpayers in the entire state that year.
According to public records provided by the Clinton County Board of Elections, that newspaper also submitted bills for $30,000 for printing costs and $13,275.42 for other advertising and inserts. There were other sizable charges to the taxpayers as well for that election year, but you get the idea.
If you are interested in a copy of the Expenditure Report – Detail Activity from Jan. 1, 2006-June 12, 2006, Page 29 of 34, contact the Clinton County Board of Elections. It is public record, after all.
Why have many Ohio newspapers charged so much for legal advertising? That’s easy. Why do old dogs sleep on the porch all day? Because they can.
Ohio lawmakers can change that. Representatives Robert Hagan, Raymond Pryor, Tom Letson, Kenny Yuko and John Domenick, all Democrats, are trying to.
Those of you who’ve read my columns for the past two decades know it’s been a long time since five Democrat lawmakers and I agreed on anything.
Now let’s return to 2005 for a moment. Instead of Wilmington, Ohio, let’s look at the City of Brotherly Love.
Philadelphia journalist Sasha Issenberg, as published at www.legalaffairs.org, writes: “A string of new legislative efforts ... is attempting to free municipalities from existing public-notice standards and to allow governments to post the information on their Web sites instead. New Jersey Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, who co-sponsored the bipartisan
legislation, was attracted to the issue when Kenilworth, a town in his district, missed a newspaper deadline to post a public notice and had to wait 48 hours until it could run, leaving the town unable to take action.
‘Wait a minute here. We’re in the Internet age,” Cryan said. ‘Quite frankly, in 2005, to not have Internet access to legal notices that are government-sponsored seems absurd.’”
Yes, it does.
In fact, as Issenberg points out, “34 bills in 19 states have recently challenged this status quo, ... that would effectively end states’ public-notice requirements.”
“The irony is that, in other cases, public-information crusaders are pushing governments to use their Web sites as depots for self-disclosure of everything from campaign finance documents to information on government contracts,” Issenberg said. “By standing together to keep notices in their pages, newspapers are perpetuating public notices’ standing as a legal fiction.”
When taxpayers in a single Ohio county have to spend more than $1 each for every man, woman, child and newborn baby living there in the cost of legal advertisements for one election, as recently happened in Clinton County, it’s time to acknowledge that the system is broken. Providing public information is one thing. Profiteering is quite another.
Perhaps that publisher can explain the difference, if she cares enough to let taxpayers know. If not, let’s leave it to the taxpayers, themselves, to make the appropriate comparisons. All you have to do is contact the county auditors and/or the county elections boards and make a public records request for all legal advertising expenses related to the November 2005 general election (or any other year, for that matter). It does make for interesting reading — and alarming comparisons, just among Highland’s
neighboring counties.
Granted, not all newspapers that publish legal advertising engage in such “creative” pricing. Many often publish legals at a discounted rate. Still, in the age of online shopping, banking, news and entertainment, it’s not too much of a stretch to expect online public notices.
House Bill 345 could be a small, first step in saving Ohio taxpayers a lot of money. And from someone who has observed this issue from all sides, believe me, the print industry arguments that “the public must have this information in the newspaper” do not hold water. If such altruistic arguments were indeed, valid, what’s preventing the newspapers from simply printing legal notices as a free public service? Hmm.
Didn’t someone once say “Follow the money?”
Some publishers have hundreds of thousands of reasons ($) to maintain the status quo at taxpayers’ expense. And when they operate in communities with unemployment rates in the neighborhood of 16 percent, the local public officials and taxpayers might want to demand an honest explanation for $59,000-plus in legal ads.
With the majority of the region’s municipal and county budgets already making numerous budget cuts, it is past time to find an alternative to the current “forced purchase” of legal advertisements.
Good luck, Reps. Robert Hagan, Raymond Pryor, Tom Letson, Kenny Yuko and John Domenick.
Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.[[In-content Ad]]
House Bill 345 permits certain “political subdivisions” to make Internet Web site publications in lieu of newspaper publication requirements as long as the political subdivision donates all funds that would otherwise be used to provide newspaper notices to a local food bank or food drive.
Why is this proposed legislation important? Because it could be a small step in saving Ohio taxpayers a lot of money. (Of course, as a friend of mine said this week, “One man’s usury is another man’s free enterprise.”)
Earlier this year, the newspaper industry successfully campaigned against a proposal in the Ohio budget bill which would have allowed government entities to post small, condensed versions of their respective legal notices in newspapers, with references to the corresponding government Web site for the full text of the legal notice.
“No!” newspaper ownership cried. “We must always publish the full legal notices in order to fully inform our citizens, form a more perfect union, ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare – while lining our pockets.” (Or something like that.)
In reality, the print industry doth protest too much. And it only has to take a look in the mirror in order to learn why Ohio lawmakers find it necessary to rewrite state code on legal advertisements.
Consider: For general election advertising in 2005 alone, a Wilmington newspaper (through its parent company) billed the Clinton County Board of Elections some $59,169.33 for legal advertising costs. This was among the most exorbitant expenses to taxpayers in the entire state that year.
According to public records provided by the Clinton County Board of Elections, that newspaper also submitted bills for $30,000 for printing costs and $13,275.42 for other advertising and inserts. There were other sizable charges to the taxpayers as well for that election year, but you get the idea.
If you are interested in a copy of the Expenditure Report – Detail Activity from Jan. 1, 2006-June 12, 2006, Page 29 of 34, contact the Clinton County Board of Elections. It is public record, after all.
Why have many Ohio newspapers charged so much for legal advertising? That’s easy. Why do old dogs sleep on the porch all day? Because they can.
Ohio lawmakers can change that. Representatives Robert Hagan, Raymond Pryor, Tom Letson, Kenny Yuko and John Domenick, all Democrats, are trying to.
Those of you who’ve read my columns for the past two decades know it’s been a long time since five Democrat lawmakers and I agreed on anything.
Now let’s return to 2005 for a moment. Instead of Wilmington, Ohio, let’s look at the City of Brotherly Love.
Philadelphia journalist Sasha Issenberg, as published at www.legalaffairs.org, writes: “A string of new legislative efforts ... is attempting to free municipalities from existing public-notice standards and to allow governments to post the information on their Web sites instead. New Jersey Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, who co-sponsored the bipartisan
legislation, was attracted to the issue when Kenilworth, a town in his district, missed a newspaper deadline to post a public notice and had to wait 48 hours until it could run, leaving the town unable to take action.
‘Wait a minute here. We’re in the Internet age,” Cryan said. ‘Quite frankly, in 2005, to not have Internet access to legal notices that are government-sponsored seems absurd.’”
Yes, it does.
In fact, as Issenberg points out, “34 bills in 19 states have recently challenged this status quo, ... that would effectively end states’ public-notice requirements.”
“The irony is that, in other cases, public-information crusaders are pushing governments to use their Web sites as depots for self-disclosure of everything from campaign finance documents to information on government contracts,” Issenberg said. “By standing together to keep notices in their pages, newspapers are perpetuating public notices’ standing as a legal fiction.”
When taxpayers in a single Ohio county have to spend more than $1 each for every man, woman, child and newborn baby living there in the cost of legal advertisements for one election, as recently happened in Clinton County, it’s time to acknowledge that the system is broken. Providing public information is one thing. Profiteering is quite another.
Perhaps that publisher can explain the difference, if she cares enough to let taxpayers know. If not, let’s leave it to the taxpayers, themselves, to make the appropriate comparisons. All you have to do is contact the county auditors and/or the county elections boards and make a public records request for all legal advertising expenses related to the November 2005 general election (or any other year, for that matter). It does make for interesting reading — and alarming comparisons, just among Highland’s
neighboring counties.
Granted, not all newspapers that publish legal advertising engage in such “creative” pricing. Many often publish legals at a discounted rate. Still, in the age of online shopping, banking, news and entertainment, it’s not too much of a stretch to expect online public notices.
House Bill 345 could be a small, first step in saving Ohio taxpayers a lot of money. And from someone who has observed this issue from all sides, believe me, the print industry arguments that “the public must have this information in the newspaper” do not hold water. If such altruistic arguments were indeed, valid, what’s preventing the newspapers from simply printing legal notices as a free public service? Hmm.
Didn’t someone once say “Follow the money?”
Some publishers have hundreds of thousands of reasons ($) to maintain the status quo at taxpayers’ expense. And when they operate in communities with unemployment rates in the neighborhood of 16 percent, the local public officials and taxpayers might want to demand an honest explanation for $59,000-plus in legal ads.
With the majority of the region’s municipal and county budgets already making numerous budget cuts, it is past time to find an alternative to the current “forced purchase” of legal advertisements.
Good luck, Reps. Robert Hagan, Raymond Pryor, Tom Letson, Kenny Yuko and John Domenick.
Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.[[In-content Ad]]