2/23/2014 6:01:00 AM
Editorial: Public notice bill is anti-transparency
| |
|
The Daily Courier
The public deserves unfettered access, transparency and efficiency, and Arizona House Bill 2554 would not accomplish that.
Imagine a municipal government not releasing the details for its plans to resurface the local roads or build a pipeline; further, the costs (read: taxpayer dollars) are unavailable. How about when a controversial business files for incorporation in your city? But the details of its intent, exact location and the names of its principals are not readily available. What if its owners intend to open in your neighborhood?
Neither scenarios' leaders would come directly to you with all of this; however, they might have a public meeting about it or publish the information. But how would you know that, either?
Newspapers detail things like these on a regular basis through the "legals" - also known as the public notices or legal notices - which appear daily in front of the Classified section. The newspapers not only publish them in print, but also on their Internet sites, as well as on a statewide, searchable website operated by the Arizona Newspapers Association for the past 15 years.
Unfortunately, in the Arizona Legislature, HB2554 - sponsored by Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Scottsdale - would change these scenarios and realities by taking many public notices out of print and placing them online only through a new database by the Arizona Corporation Commission.
The businesses would have to pay an additional fee for this (read: new tax), and the ACC would get more money - about $65,000 - to create the website and data storage to make this happen. That, by the way, would be on top of the $250,000 in taxpayer money the ACC has received for a website that has never actually worked as intended.
Let's see - oh, that's right, the notices would be online for only 90 days through the ACC, as opposed to permanently available through the ANA website, the printed newspapers, and their online archives.
What this bill, if approved and signed, would result in is more government, less access to public information, delivering less service at an added cost to the private sector, in addition to competing with private businesses already doing the job correctly.
Sounds pretty bad. That's why The Daily Courier and Prescott Newspapers Inc., as well as the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, and others are opposing this bill.
Let your lawmakers know how you feel about this legislation, which appears to be a solution to a problem that does not exist.
|
Posted: Sunday, February 23, 2014
Article comment by:
Through the Looking Glass
Centralized control of public notices and pay for access, why am I not surprised? Most public notices are specified in the Statutes. with phrases like, "shall be printed in newspaper of general circulation". We've seen where attempts have been made in making end runs around the requirement. "General circulation" can be loose in definition. The bottom line is the Peoples right to know, if they want.
So, it comes as no surprise that Rep. John Kavanagh would put forth the corporatist agenda in increasing the difficulty and cost.
Rep. Kavanagh's name is prominent of known members of the Legislature who are members of the corporate lobby ALEC. Members meet in secret in posh hotels where corporate lawyers and state legislators write legislation, which their members bring back to sponsor. Sometimes word for word as written. What are the odds here?
Sometimes omission of a fundamental responsibility for fear of economic reciprocity has a bearing. Courier' should remember when hard reporting risk the local government pubic notice revenues, and other papers seemed to magically spring up.
What I'm saying, turn the telescope around. There is a form of institutional corruption that hides behind a set of political principle and Republican rhetoric, but acts as agent for corporate interest as first priority. Representatives, who are members are asked to pledge that they will put ALEX's interest above all others. So, nothing this man would propose could be trust as not promoting corporatist interest. I'm convinced that 'corporatism' is the desired ends, but it takes the destruction of Representative democracy when only corporate interest are represented, and it sure is not capitalistic competition when the fix is in. I understand your journalist delemia. But it is past time your profession drag this ugly thing into the sunshine.
Posted: Sunday, February 23, 2014
Article comment by:
@ old timer
Does it mean money for the newspapers sure, but wouldn't it mean more for constituents to see what government is doing? Not everyone in Everybody's Hometown has a computer, and not everyone reads the paper. I think the newspapers agreed to both years ago bcause they do both already.
Posted: Sunday, February 23, 2014
Article comment by:
Old Timer
Can we, in this debate, be honest enough to admit that newspapers, The Courier included, make a great deal of money off government as it complies with the publication requirement? Certainly an online posting of legal requirements serves the same purpose as print publication and would save taxpayers much money by way of print media publication. That said, why not both? The more people are aware of government actions, the better for us all.
Posted: Sunday, February 23, 2014
Article comment by:
Tom Steele
Defeat the bill. Karen Fann, Andy Tobin should be on the "no" side of this bill. It's less visibility and just another tax for government.
Posted: Sunday, February 23, 2014
Article comment by:
Retired Businessman
Government is a beast with an insatiable hunger to grow. Add more future pensioners to process these new fees and more government workers to fill the new sub departments needed to approve these fees. And, more future pensioners in the employment division to process . . . . ad infinitum.
Feed the beast and it will keep us safe and provide for our needs.
Isn't that the promise?
Thank you Daily Courier and the Prescott Newspapers for headlining this. Please keep it a current topic until it is resolved favorably.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
