http://kvnuforthepeople.com/2009/03/06/bad-bills/
Hypocrisy raises my eyebrows, especially when it’s in the form of legislation. Two examples:
As I’ve said elsewhere, when you have some of the most anti-union organizations around (not to mention a majority of Utah Republicans in the House) “standing up” for the rights of union employees — in a right to work state, nonetheless — something is up.
And when you have Steve Urquhart (eternal victim of Utah’s “liberal media”) sponsoring a bill (SB208), with the support of these same Republican representatives, that claims government can do something better than private industry while also taking away a large chunk of a private industry’s (newspapers) revenue, it’s worth at least asking a few more questions. Shouldn’t they be telling us the free market can handle this problem? And normally, that’s exactly what they would be doing. Did Steve realize the error of his conservative ways, or is there more to the story? What gives?
Maybe I’m just a cynic. Maybe they’re hoping we’ll buy it. Either way, I’d bet my reputation neither of these pieces of legislation are as black and white as their sponsors and supporters would have us believe.
If SB208 doesn’t meet with a vote today, it’s sure to be buried in the ever present end of session Ombibus, and it seems — based on noted hypocrisy alone — to deserve more scrutiny than it’s getting.
Friday, March 6, 2009
SB208 Second Substitute, which removes legal notices from newspapers Salt Lake
Utah,Davis, Weber and Washington, passed the Senate 18-8 along party lines.
Sens. Valentine, Bramble and Greiner were absent.
http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/sbillint/sb0208s02.htm
This bill now only applies to the following counties:
In smaller counties the notice must be provided on the Web site and in
the newspaper.
58th LEGISLATURE
2009 GENERAL SESSION
2SSB 208 RCS# 632
PASSAGE ON SECOND 3/06/2009 3:31:35 PM
2nd Reading
Utah Public Notice Website Amendments
Urquhart
18 YEAS 8 NAYS 3 ABSENT PASSED
YEAS 18
Bell Hinkins Madsen Urquhart
Buttars Jenkins Niederhauser Van Tassell
Christensen Killpack Okerlund Waddoups
Dayton Knudson Stephenson
Hillyard Liljenquist Stowell
NAYS 8
Davis Jones McCoy Robles
Goodfellow Mayne Morgan Romero
ABSENT 3
Bramble Greiner Valentine
Utah,Davis, Weber and Washington, passed the Senate 18-8 along party lines.
Sens. Valentine, Bramble and Greiner were absent.
http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/sbillint/sb0208s02.htm
This bill now only applies to the following counties:
In smaller counties the notice must be provided on the Web site and in
the newspaper.
58th LEGISLATURE
2009 GENERAL SESSION
2SSB 208 RCS# 632
PASSAGE ON SECOND 3/06/2009 3:31:35 PM
2nd Reading
Utah Public Notice Website Amendments
Urquhart
18 YEAS 8 NAYS 3 ABSENT PASSED
YEAS 18
Bell Hinkins Madsen Urquhart
Buttars Jenkins Niederhauser Van Tassell
Christensen Killpack Okerlund Waddoups
Dayton Knudson Stephenson
Hillyard Liljenquist Stowell
NAYS 8
Davis Jones McCoy Robles
Goodfellow Mayne Morgan Romero
ABSENT 3
Bramble Greiner Valentine
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Update on SB208 and HB122
SB208
The bill is currently on the 2nd reading calendar and is likely to
come up sometime today. It is 22nd on the calendar. We are hoping for
defeat of the bill, but will likely see amendment from Sen. John
Valentine. We know the work of UPA publishers is working. We have been
told that support for this measure is eroding. I will send out an
alert when this is on and all can listed on the Internet if they
wish...
go to
http://www.le.state.ut.us/
and view What's Happening Today... There should be blinking icons for
both audio and video for the Senate.
H.B. 122 came before the full Senate today. The amendment to which
the media coalition agreed passed, and the bill was approved (vote was
27-1) for possible final passage (likely tomorrow or Friday) on the
Senate's third reading calendar. No attempt was made to further amend
the bill today, but Tribune attorney Michael O'Brien supposes
amendments could be raised tomorrow, but probably not by Bramble. As
you may have heard, Ogden city officials had proposed three awful
amendments to this bill.
I'll post more as the day progresses.
See live updates at upalegislativewatch.blogspot.com
Joel
The bill is currently on the 2nd reading calendar and is likely to
come up sometime today. It is 22nd on the calendar. We are hoping for
defeat of the bill, but will likely see amendment from Sen. John
Valentine. We know the work of UPA publishers is working. We have been
told that support for this measure is eroding. I will send out an
alert when this is on and all can listed on the Internet if they
wish...
go to
http://www.le.state.ut.us/
and view What's Happening Today... There should be blinking icons for
both audio and video for the Senate.
H.B. 122 came before the full Senate today. The amendment to which
the media coalition agreed passed, and the bill was approved (vote was
27-1) for possible final passage (likely tomorrow or Friday) on the
Senate's third reading calendar. No attempt was made to further amend
the bill today, but Tribune attorney Michael O'Brien supposes
amendments could be raised tomorrow, but probably not by Bramble. As
you may have heard, Ogden city officials had proposed three awful
amendments to this bill.
I'll post more as the day progresses.
See live updates at upalegislativewatch.blogspot.com
Joel
Monday, February 23, 2009
Daily Spectrum Editorial:SB208 promotes more secretcy
http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20090222/OPINION/902220313/1014/OPINION
A Senate bill sponsored by St. George lawmaker Stephen Urquhart is being promoted as a means of saving taxpayers money. In reality, it is legislation that would cost residents awareness about ordinance changes, water issues, foreclosures and other important public business.
Senate Bill 208 would lift the requirement that legal advertisements be placed in newspapers of general circulation throughout the state. Urquhart, in announcing the bill, said that taxpayers are paying too much money for the advertisements. Instead he wants to have the legal notices posted on a state Web site. Municipalities wouldn't be prohibited from posting notices in newspapers, but it's likely that many will only use the state site.
Urquhart's announcement about the bill came in a special press conference for bloggers that was broadcasted over the Internet. During the presentation, Urquhart said posting legal notices online would make them visible to more people. But how many of you knew about his presentation until reading about it in this newspaper?
That's one of the points against this proposal that should be considered.
Let's be honest. Removing the publication requirement will cost newspapers of all sizes money. Legal notices comprise a relatively small amount of revenue for The Spectrum & Daily News, but the loss of money will hurt. No question.
But there is a question that we ask of our legislators: What price are you willing to put on keeping the public informed?
House Bill 122, legislation that limits the public's access to public records and its right to due process to challenge the withholding of certain documents, already has passed the House and is under consideration in the Senate. SB 208 also threatens to limit access to information.
Our Legislature appears to be aiming more for secrecy than transparency.
Proponents argue that legal notices will be more visible on the state's Web site. It's true that the notices will be visible to the world via the Internet. What those same proponents fail to point out, however, is that the notices already are available via the Web sites of newspapers across the state. And the Web sites of our state's newspapers receive far more traffic on a daily basis than any state Web site.
Proponents also say the cost for legal notices is too high. In various press conferences and meetings, lawmakers have said that newspapers are seeking to charge more for the notices. What they neglect to point out, however, is that only smaller, weekly, newspapers are seeking to charge more. And that's only because the cap placed on what they can charge was set decades ago. If the state government can increase its fees over the course of decades, shouldn't the smallest newspapers in the state also be allowed to do so as long as the rates remain fair?
For the record, this newspaper is large enough that it doesn't operate under the state-imposed cap. But we have reduced our rates in recent years and provide an approximately 40 percent discount off of regular classified rates for legal notices.
Even if lawmakers want to toss out all other arguments, the idea of government not having a check and balance in the public arena should be disconcerting for everyone. Posting legal notices in newspapers provides protection for the public. If a person or city publishes a legal notice, those municipalities receive an affidavit that the notice was, indeed, placed in the newspaper and on the publication's Web site so that residents could see it and take action. The state's site doesn't provide such notification. So, how does the public know if it's really seeing the legal notices required under the law? As of now, it doesn't.
The reality is that only the people who know to look for a legal notice will do so on the state Web site. It's far more likely that residents will notice a proposed zoning change or tax increase as they read through their newspaper or read through a news Web site - something they do in the normal order of their days - than check a state Web site for actions that they don't even know are about to happen. And this plan doesn't take into consideration the people who don't have Internet access on a daily basis.
Utah lawmakers are known for being fiscally conservative. That's a good thing. But those same lawmakers also talk about how much they cherish transparency and reducing the influence of government.
Our lawmakers' recent actions don't live up to those lofty claims.
A Senate bill sponsored by St. George lawmaker Stephen Urquhart is being promoted as a means of saving taxpayers money. In reality, it is legislation that would cost residents awareness about ordinance changes, water issues, foreclosures and other important public business.
Senate Bill 208 would lift the requirement that legal advertisements be placed in newspapers of general circulation throughout the state. Urquhart, in announcing the bill, said that taxpayers are paying too much money for the advertisements. Instead he wants to have the legal notices posted on a state Web site. Municipalities wouldn't be prohibited from posting notices in newspapers, but it's likely that many will only use the state site.
Urquhart's announcement about the bill came in a special press conference for bloggers that was broadcasted over the Internet. During the presentation, Urquhart said posting legal notices online would make them visible to more people. But how many of you knew about his presentation until reading about it in this newspaper?
That's one of the points against this proposal that should be considered.
Let's be honest. Removing the publication requirement will cost newspapers of all sizes money. Legal notices comprise a relatively small amount of revenue for The Spectrum & Daily News, but the loss of money will hurt. No question.
But there is a question that we ask of our legislators: What price are you willing to put on keeping the public informed?
House Bill 122, legislation that limits the public's access to public records and its right to due process to challenge the withholding of certain documents, already has passed the House and is under consideration in the Senate. SB 208 also threatens to limit access to information.
Our Legislature appears to be aiming more for secrecy than transparency.
Proponents argue that legal notices will be more visible on the state's Web site. It's true that the notices will be visible to the world via the Internet. What those same proponents fail to point out, however, is that the notices already are available via the Web sites of newspapers across the state. And the Web sites of our state's newspapers receive far more traffic on a daily basis than any state Web site.
Proponents also say the cost for legal notices is too high. In various press conferences and meetings, lawmakers have said that newspapers are seeking to charge more for the notices. What they neglect to point out, however, is that only smaller, weekly, newspapers are seeking to charge more. And that's only because the cap placed on what they can charge was set decades ago. If the state government can increase its fees over the course of decades, shouldn't the smallest newspapers in the state also be allowed to do so as long as the rates remain fair?
For the record, this newspaper is large enough that it doesn't operate under the state-imposed cap. But we have reduced our rates in recent years and provide an approximately 40 percent discount off of regular classified rates for legal notices.
Even if lawmakers want to toss out all other arguments, the idea of government not having a check and balance in the public arena should be disconcerting for everyone. Posting legal notices in newspapers provides protection for the public. If a person or city publishes a legal notice, those municipalities receive an affidavit that the notice was, indeed, placed in the newspaper and on the publication's Web site so that residents could see it and take action. The state's site doesn't provide such notification. So, how does the public know if it's really seeing the legal notices required under the law? As of now, it doesn't.
The reality is that only the people who know to look for a legal notice will do so on the state Web site. It's far more likely that residents will notice a proposed zoning change or tax increase as they read through their newspaper or read through a news Web site - something they do in the normal order of their days - than check a state Web site for actions that they don't even know are about to happen. And this plan doesn't take into consideration the people who don't have Internet access on a daily basis.
Utah lawmakers are known for being fiscally conservative. That's a good thing. But those same lawmakers also talk about how much they cherish transparency and reducing the influence of government.
Our lawmakers' recent actions don't live up to those lofty claims.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Spectrum: Preserve GRAMA
Preserve GRAMA
Utah has one of the best open-records laws in the United States with the Government Records Access and Management Act. Under GRAMA, public records requests undergo a balancing test that weighs the taxpayer's right to know against the government's right to conduct its business efficiently and effectively.
If a person takes issue with being denied access to what he or she deems to be a public record, then the citizen can appeal to the State Records Committee or even the courts system.
House Bill 122 would throw out this important check-and-balance system in favor of government entities that are or could be involved in litigation.
HB 122 aims to amend GRAMA to allow municipalities to classify records of not just pending litigation, but also related to any issue that a city, county, school district or other taxing entity believes it may face litigation on in the future. In other words, even a fear of potential litigation could be used to deny the public access to records.
This bill - sponsored by Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, and Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo - could be used to hide important information from the public. For example, under provisions in this bill, the public could be denied records related to whether a local government was turning a blind eye to discrimination in the workplace. Residents could be denied access to details about how closely city department managers are following recommendations from a mayor-appointed board.
Such incidents have happened recently in Utah, but details about them were opened to the public because of documents obtained using GRAMA. If this bill passes, then government officials, the State Records Committee and the courts would be prevented from weighing the public's interest in deciding whether to release the records.
HB 122 is bad on many levels. GRAMA already has provisions to allow for withholding of documents if litigation is pending, so why is another law necessary? Is it because of harm that has been done in the past? If so, why does House committee testimony show that even proponents for the bill failed to share even a single documented case in which the GRAMA balancing test was improperly applied?
We live in an era when the people want more accountability from their government. HB 122 flies in the face of that goal. If passed, we likely will have more secrecy.
Those facts don't match up to Utah principles. Let's not make this revision part of Utah law.
Utah has one of the best open-records laws in the United States with the Government Records Access and Management Act. Under GRAMA, public records requests undergo a balancing test that weighs the taxpayer's right to know against the government's right to conduct its business efficiently and effectively.
If a person takes issue with being denied access to what he or she deems to be a public record, then the citizen can appeal to the State Records Committee or even the courts system.
House Bill 122 would throw out this important check-and-balance system in favor of government entities that are or could be involved in litigation.
HB 122 aims to amend GRAMA to allow municipalities to classify records of not just pending litigation, but also related to any issue that a city, county, school district or other taxing entity believes it may face litigation on in the future. In other words, even a fear of potential litigation could be used to deny the public access to records.
This bill - sponsored by Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, and Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo - could be used to hide important information from the public. For example, under provisions in this bill, the public could be denied records related to whether a local government was turning a blind eye to discrimination in the workplace. Residents could be denied access to details about how closely city department managers are following recommendations from a mayor-appointed board.
Such incidents have happened recently in Utah, but details about them were opened to the public because of documents obtained using GRAMA. If this bill passes, then government officials, the State Records Committee and the courts would be prevented from weighing the public's interest in deciding whether to release the records.
HB 122 is bad on many levels. GRAMA already has provisions to allow for withholding of documents if litigation is pending, so why is another law necessary? Is it because of harm that has been done in the past? If so, why does House committee testimony show that even proponents for the bill failed to share even a single documented case in which the GRAMA balancing test was improperly applied?
We live in an era when the people want more accountability from their government. HB 122 flies in the face of that goal. If passed, we likely will have more secrecy.
Those facts don't match up to Utah principles. Let's not make this revision part of Utah law.
Standard Examiner: House Bill 122 would allow government to keep secrets
Jesse Fruhwirth and Don Baker never met, but right now they have something in common.
Jesse is rolling his eyes over House Bill 122; Don is rolling over in his grave.
Before his death, Don was a leading investigative reporter for the Standard-Examiner and Deseret News, and a strong advocate for open government.
Together with former Republican House Speaker Marty Stephens, of Farr West, Don helped craft the state’s Government Records and Access Management Act in 1991.
Jesse is our court reporter in Davis County and has used GRAMA regularly in pursuing the public’s right to know.
Like Don before him, Jesse has been our point man on a number of GRAMA battles with law enforcement agencies that want to keep you in the dark about how they conduct your business.
Now the Legislature wants to thwart Don and Jesse’s efforts by gutting GRAMA with HB 122. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, basically will allow government to keep secret any document if officials believe there is pending litigation.
To use an argument that a lot of our lawmakers love, this is a slippery slope.
Jesse says if HB 122 had been in place when the Farmington police standoff with Brian Wood took place last year, the public might not know to this day that a police officer shot Wood.
Farmington police refused to make any public comment during the standoff. Neither neighbors, the media, the community nor the family had a good idea of what was going on.
“At the confusing and stressful conclusion to the standoff, an officer mistakenly relayed on his radio that the suspect had shot himself,” Jesse said.
“Without any input from police to correct the error, media took this small crumb of (mis)information they gleaned from their police scanners and unanimously reported it the next day.”
It was only because of GRAMA that Farmington police held a news conference the next day to tell the community that the suspect had not shot himself, but actually was shot by a deputy.
Farmington police had reason to anticipate litigation by the Wood family over the incident. An attorney representing the Wood family was one of those who joined the media in using GRAMA to ask for the complete file of the incident.
“Had HB 122 been in place during the Wood incident, would Farmington police have had any reason, incentive or interest in telling the public the truth about the incident? Would that press conference have occurred if the department knew that they were under no obligation to release any documents to anyone?” Jesse said.
Here’s the crux.
HB 122 will actually encourage more litigation because it will be the only means of getting such information. Jesse said the Wood case reveals why government agencies need to be required to release records “especially if there is the possibility of litigation.”
No one understood this better than Don. GRAMA was set up with the average citizen in mind, not necessarily the media. Creating another level of bureaucracy to prevent citizens from getting access to information they are entitled to is just another step in the wrong direction.
COMIC CHAOS: Some readers noticed that the captions for the Tuesday and Friday Family Circus comics seemed incomplete. Because of a “scripting error” in the pagination process by the company that puts together the comics page for us, the comic was automatically stretched by the computer to fit the space, rather than manually adjusted. This caused lines from the caption to drop off. The company assures us it won’t happen again.
Andy Howell is executive editor. He can be reached at 625-4210 or via ahowell@standard.net .
Jesse is rolling his eyes over House Bill 122; Don is rolling over in his grave.
Before his death, Don was a leading investigative reporter for the Standard-Examiner and Deseret News, and a strong advocate for open government.
Together with former Republican House Speaker Marty Stephens, of Farr West, Don helped craft the state’s Government Records and Access Management Act in 1991.
Jesse is our court reporter in Davis County and has used GRAMA regularly in pursuing the public’s right to know.
Like Don before him, Jesse has been our point man on a number of GRAMA battles with law enforcement agencies that want to keep you in the dark about how they conduct your business.
Now the Legislature wants to thwart Don and Jesse’s efforts by gutting GRAMA with HB 122. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, basically will allow government to keep secret any document if officials believe there is pending litigation.
To use an argument that a lot of our lawmakers love, this is a slippery slope.
Jesse says if HB 122 had been in place when the Farmington police standoff with Brian Wood took place last year, the public might not know to this day that a police officer shot Wood.
Farmington police refused to make any public comment during the standoff. Neither neighbors, the media, the community nor the family had a good idea of what was going on.
“At the confusing and stressful conclusion to the standoff, an officer mistakenly relayed on his radio that the suspect had shot himself,” Jesse said.
“Without any input from police to correct the error, media took this small crumb of (mis)information they gleaned from their police scanners and unanimously reported it the next day.”
It was only because of GRAMA that Farmington police held a news conference the next day to tell the community that the suspect had not shot himself, but actually was shot by a deputy.
Farmington police had reason to anticipate litigation by the Wood family over the incident. An attorney representing the Wood family was one of those who joined the media in using GRAMA to ask for the complete file of the incident.
“Had HB 122 been in place during the Wood incident, would Farmington police have had any reason, incentive or interest in telling the public the truth about the incident? Would that press conference have occurred if the department knew that they were under no obligation to release any documents to anyone?” Jesse said.
Here’s the crux.
HB 122 will actually encourage more litigation because it will be the only means of getting such information. Jesse said the Wood case reveals why government agencies need to be required to release records “especially if there is the possibility of litigation.”
No one understood this better than Don. GRAMA was set up with the average citizen in mind, not necessarily the media. Creating another level of bureaucracy to prevent citizens from getting access to information they are entitled to is just another step in the wrong direction.
COMIC CHAOS: Some readers noticed that the captions for the Tuesday and Friday Family Circus comics seemed incomplete. Because of a “scripting error” in the pagination process by the company that puts together the comics page for us, the comic was automatically stretched by the computer to fit the space, rather than manually adjusted. This caused lines from the caption to drop off. The company assures us it won’t happen again.
Andy Howell is executive editor. He can be reached at 625-4210 or via ahowell@standard.net .
Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
My response to this Blog entry....
From Where I Sit
Facts about SB208. BenJoe makes a big deal about the fact that the Trib put up its editorial on legal notices on the Web only first. The paper then followed it up with a printed editorial. Hand it to BenJoe for the spin. Instead of negative spin, I believe it shows that news"papers" get the fact that readers are on the Web and in print. BenJoe wants to make it seem that only bloggers know how to communicate online. The fact is, newspaper readership is larger than ever because of the online and paper components. What proponents of SB208 want to do is put in on the web only. Its an elitist and exclusive argument. Why not use both? Senators this week have been saying that society is not ready to go to Web only notices. Maybe someday, but not yet.
Second point. BenJoe's linking SB208 with SB161 shows he hasn't spent any effort to find out the facts. SB161 only deals with very small entities -- 4th and 5th class cities. Its effect would be small. The 20-year-old cap has a disproportionate effect on small rural newspapers. No such statutory cap exists on what larger newspapers charge for legals from larger entities. That said, newspapers have frozen their rates for the past 6-7 years and charge even less than non-profit rates.
I happy to talk to anyone who really desires the facts.
Thanks,
Joel Campbell
foiguy@gmail.com
801-362-4298
From Where I Sit
Facts about SB208. BenJoe makes a big deal about the fact that the Trib put up its editorial on legal notices on the Web only first. The paper then followed it up with a printed editorial. Hand it to BenJoe for the spin. Instead of negative spin, I believe it shows that news"papers" get the fact that readers are on the Web and in print. BenJoe wants to make it seem that only bloggers know how to communicate online. The fact is, newspaper readership is larger than ever because of the online and paper components. What proponents of SB208 want to do is put in on the web only. Its an elitist and exclusive argument. Why not use both? Senators this week have been saying that society is not ready to go to Web only notices. Maybe someday, but not yet.
Second point. BenJoe's linking SB208 with SB161 shows he hasn't spent any effort to find out the facts. SB161 only deals with very small entities -- 4th and 5th class cities. Its effect would be small. The 20-year-old cap has a disproportionate effect on small rural newspapers. No such statutory cap exists on what larger newspapers charge for legals from larger entities. That said, newspapers have frozen their rates for the past 6-7 years and charge even less than non-profit rates.
I happy to talk to anyone who really desires the facts.
Thanks,
Joel Campbell
foiguy@gmail.com
801-362-4298
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)