OP-ED | Save Money; Lift The Newspaper Legal Ad Requirement
by Terry D. Cowgill | Feb 8, 2013 6:30am
(11) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Business, Media Matters, Opinion
From Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s First Five program to helping billionaire hedge fund owners, crony capitalism is alive and well in Connecticut. But who would have thought newspapers would be lining up to keep their share of the goodies?
But that’s precisely what’s happening. Newspapers, whose editorial boards are among the first to complain about government favoritism in the private sector, want to maintain their status as a protected class. They’re all but unanimous in opposing two bills under discussion in the General Assembly that would relieve the state’s 169 municipalities of the burden of purchasing legal advertisements in newspapers announcing public hearings and the like.
On the one hand, their opposition is understandable. Most papers have seen declining profits for at least 10 years. The last thing they need is to lose yet another valuable source of revenue.
In 2009 and 2010, the idea of removing the requirement was proposed by then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who failed twice to get the General Assembly to pass the bills. Those measures, as well as the current bill, would only require municipalities and school districts to post notices on their own websites.
The bills have prompted defensive editorials, most recently in the Norwich Bulletin, which thundered last week that “lawmakers in Hartford do neither constituents nor town officials any favors with proposals like this. The proposed ‘cost savings’ [to towns] will be quickly erased by the cuts in municipal aid that will follow, and citizens will lose the accountability and access to government they need to be informed.” An ad taken out in 2010 by the Connecticut Daily Newspaper Association compared Rell’s bill to “putting the fox in charge of the hen house.”
In an email, Matt DeRienzo, group editor of the Journal Register Company’s Connecticut papers, echoed that sentiment but added that the public interest is served by having legal notices in general-interest publications with large audiences.
“Do you check your town’s website every day?” DeRienzo asked rhetorically. “Do you want to have to, just in case someone might be planning a pig rendering factory in your neighborhood?”
Fair enough, but let’s be clear about this: newspapers have a proud and noble tradition of acting as watchdogs and guardians of the public trust. I saw that firsthand as a working newspaper journalist for 10 years. But the papers simply cannot cover this issue objectively because their economic interests are threatened. It’s as simple as that.
We all know that daily newspaper circulation has dropped like a stone over the past decade. But so has advertising, which is typically where 90 percent of the papers’ revenues come from. Classified advertising in particular has plummeted as employers and sellers flee the limitations of print for searchable Internet platforms such as Craigslist.
Legal ads were the last sector of newspaper revenue that had not seen such declines — in part because most states insist that towns, cities, and school districts publish notices there. The town of New Canaan, for example, was in effect, required to spend more than $37,000 on legal ads last year. That requirement is tantamount to a taxpayer subsidy of the print newspaper business while few comparable subsidies exist for commercial radio, television, and digital media.
Equally troubling is the fact that newsroom cutbacks have crippled coverage. Consequently, increasing numbers of boards and commissions are being told by the state that they must advertise legal notices in a newspaper that doesn’t even cover their towns.
Forget for the moment whether this change would affect the papers’ bottom lines. Newspaper publishers and lobbyists are already fighting that battle at the Capitol and behind the scenes. The question taxpayers have to ask is whether allowing municipalities and school districts to bypass the papers will result in a less informed citizenry. I’m sure some towns will continue to advertise in their community’s newspaper anyway on the premise that they’re important businesses to support. Others, however, will drop the paid ads as an easy way to save money.
If the requirement is lifted, I suspect citizens will be less informed initially. But once curious eyes grow accustomed to checking municipal websites for legal notices, it will become a habit. And here in the far Northwest Corner, the part-time residents who comprise about half our population will be able to check in on the websites of their weekend towns for notices of interest. Who knows? It might even encourage our towns to improve their websites and be more prompt about posting agendas and minutes of meetings.
Will the towns be diligent about posting legal notices in a timely fashion and keep them up there for the required amount of time? I’m sure lots of newspaper publishers, reporters, and editors will be taking screen grabs of the town legal pages every day and will promptly report any lapses to the state Freedom of Information Commission. You can take that one to the bank.
Terry Cowgill blogs at ctdevilsadvocate.com and was an editor and senior writer for The Lakeville Journal Company. He can be found on Twitter @terrycowgill.
Tags: newspapers, General Assembly 2013, legal notices, terry cowgill, dh
(11) Comments
posted by: Kachina Walsh-Weaver | February 8, 2013 5:41pm
Thank you for this article. Just to clarify, municipalities are not seeking complete repeal of the law, but rather a modification that would:
1. Allow for publishing notice of the availability of a document in local newspapers, along with a summary and clear instructions as to how to get additional information or the complete text of the public document - municipal office where a hard copy can be obtained, a contact name and phone number that could be used to get more information, and the web address where an online version can be found.
2. Require newspapers to have a designated section for all such public notices to be listed, for ease of finding by the reader, along with a listing in the publications’ table of contents.
posted by: William Jenkins | February 8, 2013 8:00pm
“Will the towns be diligent about posting legal notices in a timely fashion and keep them up there for the required amount of time?”
Terry, there is no “required amount of time” for legally required notices to be posted on agencies websites.
And why would a newspaper file an FOI complaint if an agency (as opposed to a “town”) failed to comply with the deadline to post an agenda or minutes on it’s website in accordance with the statutory requirements? There’s nothing to “take to the bank” here, you’re coming up empty on that one.
You also need to draw the distinction between a “town” and an “agency” as those two terms relate to the FOI statutes before you start pointing fingers.
posted by: Luther Weeks | February 9, 2013 10:51am
A great alternative would be a single web site for the state, containing all notices, and searchable by town, dates, and text. If nobody wanted a mandate, then let towns do exactly what they are required to do now OR post all notices to that commonly searchable site. And maybe a notification signup for the public.
The cost of building and web space for the site would be small. The challenge is having verified IDs and passwords for those authorized in each town to update the site, and a help desk function.
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | February 9, 2013 1:31pm
William, you’re correct that there is currently no requirement for how long a legal ad must run, but under my plan, there would be: municipalities would have to keep those time-stamped ads up there for awhile—or perhaps even archive them on their websites forever.
For things like town meetings and public hearings, notices must be posted for a specified period of time in advance of the event. That’s what I was really referring to with the phrase “required amount of time.”
As for your third paragraph on FOI, I was talking about legal notices, not the posting of minutes and agendas. And yes, I could very easily see newspapers filing FOI complaints if those legal notices were not posted in a timely manner. Don’t you think they would have a powerful incentive to do so since they would have lost the advertising?
Perhaps you could address some of my other points, such as why print news media outlets receive favorable treatment over digital-only publications or radio or TV. Under current law, publishing a legal notice in CT News Junkie alone would run afoul of the law. Why, too, should officials be compelled to run legal ads in papers that offer no coverage of their towns?
Kachina, thanks for the clarification. Luther, I like your idea best. It would be inexpensive and would have great reach. Frankly, I wish I had thought of it myself. Thanks.
posted by: William Jenkins | February 9, 2013 6:34pm
“why print news media outlets receive favorable treatment over digital-only publications or radio or TV. “
Because not everyone has cable TV, internet, etc. The least expensive way for any citizen to become informed is to buy a newspaper or receive a free one. Maybe you and lots of other people have plenty of money to spare on high-speed internet, exotic cell phone plans with unlimited data, texting and minutes, fancy cable TV packages that offer a thousand channels but quite frankly Terry, I’m just about ready to pull the plug on all that crap because I simply cannot afford it any longer. In my case, a subscription to the Willimantic Chronicle pays for itself with the grocery coupons and all legally required notices for my town are always published in that paper so I don’t miss anything of any importance.
“Why, too, should officials be compelled to run legal ads in papers that offer no coverage of their towns?”
That doesn’t make any sense Terry, the law CGS 1-2 says:
“Whenever notice of any action or other proceeding is required to be given by publication in a newspaper, either by statute or order of court, the newspaper selected for that purpose, unless otherwise expressly prescribed, shall be one having a substantial circulation in the town in which at least one of the parties, for whose benefit such notice is given, resides.”
so the law does not “compel” or require anyone to run legal ads in newspapers that don’t meet the requirements of the law.
The newspapers have better things to do with their time then monitor municipalitie’s websites to see if FOI laws were broken. If they already lost the revenue due to a law change that no longer required newspaper legal notices how would filing an FOI complaint bring them back their lost revenue?
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | February 11, 2013 7:33am
William, 99% of Americans have a TV and a radio. And you don’t need cable. Rabbit ears will do for over-the-air channels. That would be the cheapest way to reach people rather than making them go out and buy a newspaper. If you don’t have Internet, you can go down to your public library and use a computer free of charge, just as you would go down to the corner store to buy a newspaper. Which is cheaper?
And yes, officials are compelled to advertise in papers that offer no coverage of their towns. There are many towns in CT that get little or no coverage at all anymore because of newsroom cutbacks.
I totally agree with you on telcom charges. Unfortunately, my work requires all these things, except for cable TV.
posted by: William Jenkins | February 11, 2013 2:57pm
“And yes, officials are compelled to advertise in papers that offer no coverage of their towns.”
“Compelled” by who or what? certainly not the law. “Coverage” is irrelevant, “substantial circulation” is what the law requires. Yes, some newspapers may not provide as much “coverage” as people would like but that doesn’t matter, what matters is if the newspaper has circulation there.
Terry, many small town libraries have limited hours, not everyone works and sleeps “normal” hours. There’s always a 24/7 convenience store with newspapers and most times they carry the free ones too. It’s cheaper for me to not drive anywhere, have the Chronicle delivered for the subscription fee and save more than the subscription fee at the supermarket using the coupons that come in the newspaper. So that’s “cheaper” okay?
Your work may “require” you to have all the toys Terry but mine doesn’t and I’d be willing to bet that hardly anyone is “required” to have a cell phone with all the bells and whistles, unlimited sexting, minutes, data, roaming ‘round the world, etc., nor is hardly anyone “required” to have access to the internet or cable television. “Rabbit ears” aren’t going to get you the local cable access channels or anything else you have to pay for to view. You also have to remember, not everyone “works” like you and if your employer pays for your fancy cell phone plan and your computer, I think they’d take a dim view of you using those company items for personal purposes like scouring the interweb looking for legal notices.
posted by: gutbomb86 | February 11, 2013 5:25pm
@william - you seem to want to go out of your way to protect a subsidy to local print publications. People are accessing the Internet all over the place very inexpensively. You’re accessing it right now to read this but you’re claiming it’s too much and that the Chronicle is a better buy. Here’s the thing, if you want to be limited to the sections offered by the Willimantic Chronicle, that’s your prerogative. But forcing town government and taxpayers to fork over huge amounts of cash to an ever-dwindling reader base because it’s on paper is a mistake. Terry’s correct. Towns are getting ripped off because they are required to pay outrageous sums to buy line-by-line space in classified sections that no one reads. The rates have only gone up over the years as well and towns haven’t had any recourse. Sounds a little like binding arbitration, something newspapers and other whiners like to complain about all the time.
posted by: William Jenkins | February 12, 2013 1:26pm
No gutbombs, Terry is incorrect about a number of things which I’ve pointed out to him. And just because I’m pointing out his incorrect statements and the flaws in his arguments does not mean “(I) seem to want to go out of (my) way to protect a subsidy to local print publications.”
Why do you claim “no one” reads legal notices? That’s an absolute lie, I read them and so do lots of people I know.
My cable/internet bill went up from $79.00 per month to $125.00 a month this past year so yes gutbombs, the Chronicle is far less expensive than that and is therefore a “better buy.”
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | February 12, 2013 4:35pm
William, what “incorrect statements” have I made? “Officials are compelled to run legal ads in papers that offer no coverage of their towns?” That’s more an argument over semantics than anything else.
The rest is a matter of opinion. We just disagree, which doesn’t mean either of us is factually inaccurate.
posted by: William Jenkins | February 14, 2013 1:50am
Terry, you said there was a “required amount of time” for the posting of legal notices which is incorrect.
Your assertion that “Officials are compelled to run legal ads in papers that offer no coverage of their towns” is not as you claim “an argument over semantics” it’s simply not true. As I previously stated, “coverage” and “circulation” are two completely different things and the law only concerns itself with “circulation.” I suppose “irrelevant” is a more appropriate way to describe your original assertion than “incorrect.”
On another note, it’s far less time consuming to scan the legal notice section of any newspaper every day to look for items on concern to the average citizen than it is to have to log on to dozens or hundreds of individual municipal websites that are all laid out differently and many times are difficult to navigate around, etc.
I’m glad you brought this issue up for discussion because prior to this, I was quite indifferent on the legal notice issue however as this discussion has continued including input from others, I now feel very strongly that CGS 1-2 should NOT be changed and that legal notices should still be required to be published in newspapers.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.