Online Legal Notices
Regarding SB 208 (legal notices), I received the following letter today from Jim Wall – Publisher Deseret News, Randy Wright – Editor Provo Daily Herald, Brent Low – President MediaOne Utah (Newspaper Agency Corporation):
On the issue of publishing legal notices, newspapers have been remiss in not communicating sufficiently with the Legislature on prospective solutions that would provide notice to a wider range of Utahns in light of new and emerging technologies for the dissemination of information.
After conversations with Sen. Urquhart, Rep. Dougall, and Lincoln Shurtz from the Utah League of Cities and Towns, we believe that the most effective solution that works in the best interest of the public would be dual publication encompassing both print and online until the time set by the Legislature for the sunset of print requirements in counties of the first and second class. Publication of legal notices would remain in the private sector, and allow links from government Web sites.
We are requesting amendments to SB208 that recognize the following commitments – to be implemented at our cost – with respect to Utah newspapers in counties of the first and second class:
1. Provide a fully functional Web site (UtahLegals.com) that includes but is not limited to input, archiving, site maintenance, links from newspaper Web sites and others, and allowing links from government Web sites.
2. Provide for dual publication of legal notices in both printed newspapers and on the UtahLegals.com Web site beginning January 1, 2010.
3. Provide an option for legal notices to be published in print or solely on the newspapers’ UtahLegals.com web site beginning January 1, 2012.
Thank you for your consideration. Going forward, we are committed to ongoing communication on technology solutions that will improve public notification and help to reduce costs to customers.
This is a good-faith proposition that could lead to something wonderful for Utah citizens, providing far broader reach to legal notices at a fraction of the current cost.
On the issue of publishing legal notices, newspapers have been remiss in not communicating sufficiently with the Legislature on prospective solutions that would provide notice to a wider range of Utahns in light of new and emerging technologies for the dissemination of information.
After conversations with Sen. Urquhart, Rep. Dougall, and Lincoln Shurtz from the Utah League of Cities and Towns, we believe that the most effective solution that works in the best interest of the public would be dual publication encompassing both print and online until the time set by the Legislature for the sunset of print requirements in counties of the first and second class. Publication of legal notices would remain in the private sector, and allow links from government Web sites.
We are requesting amendments to SB208 that recognize the following commitments – to be implemented at our cost – with respect to Utah newspapers in counties of the first and second class:
1. Provide a fully functional Web site (UtahLegals.com) that includes but is not limited to input, archiving, site maintenance, links from newspaper Web sites and others, and allowing links from government Web sites.
2. Provide for dual publication of legal notices in both printed newspapers and on the UtahLegals.com Web site beginning January 1, 2010.
3. Provide an option for legal notices to be published in print or solely on the newspapers’ UtahLegals.com web site beginning January 1, 2012.
Thank you for your consideration. Going forward, we are committed to ongoing communication on technology solutions that will improve public notification and help to reduce costs to customers.
This is a good-faith proposition that could lead to something wonderful for Utah citizens, providing far broader reach to legal notices at a fraction of the current cost.
posted by steve u. at 3/09/2009
Subscribe
3 Comments:
That is a good proposition. Although I have been supportive of SB208 I have been thinking of some compromise position not unlike this that would better serve all citizens. What are the chances at this point of adding some amendment?
Seems like a no-brainer to me. If this is at the newspapers' cost, I don't know why a government entity such as a city wouldn't want to go along with this.
Congrats, Steve! It passed the House as the 3rd Substitute. Now it's back to you for concurrence.
<< Home