Democracy was designed as a participatory endeavor. The public is best served when citizens get engaged and involved in the affairs of government. Citizens can only become involved when they know what, how and when.

That’s why the newspaper publication of public notices goes back to the 1700s in this country.

We believe the Winona County Board took a wrong step last week by backing legislative bills to allow government in Minnesota to place legal notices on government websites instead of officially designated newspapers and their online sites.

The board voted unanimously to back a push written by the Association of Minnesota Counties in support of Minnesota House File 1286 and Senate File 1152.

Mark Anfinson, attorney for the Minnesota Newspaper Association, which represents the Daily News and a majority of newspapers in the state, said such bills have failed before in the Legislature because it’s bad policy.

“Dramatically fewer people would see (public notices) if they were on a county website,” he said. “You bury them on a government website, people just don’t go find them.”

That flies in the face of civic engagement and public oversight.

The county resolution points to the “costly burden of publishing in newspapers” and empowering them to find the most efficient method for communicating with citizens.

First of all, the maximum rate that newspapers can charge for publishing legal notices is set by the state. So, the state can do something about the cost if it wishes. Often, the actual cost is lower because of competitive bidding, as is the case in Winona County, where the notices are published by the Winona Daily News.

Anfinson points out that newspapers receive a very small fraction of their revenue from publishing public notices. And, many newspapers like the Winona Daily News also print the notices on their websites at no charge.

In fact, the Minnesota Newspaper Association is developing a statewide website that will share public notices from the state’s newspapers.

As for increased government efficiency, the proposed legislation would require political subdivisions to “print copies of all published documents available at the main office of the political subdivision, any other government offices designated by the political subdivision, all public libraries within the jurisdiction, and by mail upon request.”

Does that really sound like a time-saving, money-saving, efficiency-boosting plan to you?

Finally, the Association of Minnesota Counties claims that “county websites are increasingly the first place citizens look for information about their counties.”

To put it politely, that’s a bunch of hooey.

Just ask the Minnesota Senate. The Senate conducted a recent poll at the Minnesota State Fair and found out that newspapers are overwhelmingly the first choice where citizens go for information about their government or politics.

A 2013 Scarborough readership study showed that 78 percent of Minnesotans polled said it government should continue to be required to inform citizens through publication of public notices in newspapers.

When a major fire struck downtown Winona in September, citizens didn’t turn to government websites for information about street closings or safety recommendations or other details involving the blaze.

They did, however, come to winonadailynews.com, which drew more a half-million pageviews that day both locally and around the globe.

Yet, with the growth of online readership, the printed word continues to reach an impressive audience in our state.

There are 342 newspapers in Minnesota that distributed more than 7.1 million copies each week in 2013 to 2.35 million Minnesota households. They’re not all looking for the lottery numbers.

With government websites, how can the public be assured of a permanent record of public notices? How can the public be assured that government will share all of the notices it is supposed to without any oversight from an independent entity, such as a community newspaper?

Yes, we understand the argument that the proposed legislation provides local governments with options.

But, as Anfinson said of the option to stop publishing notices in newspapers: “It would be chosen too often.”

And it would not be chosen for the civic good.