• Georgetown Times
  • Waccamaw Times
  • Inlet Outlook

OpEd: Hear ye, hear ye: Keep public notices public

  • Wednesday, January 30, 2013

  • Updated Monday, September 23, 2013 10:50 am

By Graham Osteen
The Item, Sumter

A frustrating, ongoing battle for the South Carolina Press Association – and press associations across the country – involves attempts by some state legislatures to move printed community public notices from county seat newspapers to the endless frontier that is the World Wide Web.

This in effect hides a community’s public notices from the public by scattering them online versus publishing them in a given county’s newspaper of record, where they are published in print (and usually online also) by a trusted source that’s easy to find.

A public notice is, in simplest terms, a notice given to the public regarding certain types of legal proceedings.

In The Item, for example, the “Legals” appear in print and online, and include public hearings, estate notices, foreclosures, probate action, notices of sales, summons, bid notices, beer and wine licenses and abandoned vehicles and boats. You can learn a lot about any community simply by reading the legals, and many news stories are generated as a result. Like recent public hearings for a strip club in Sumter, for example.

One of my favorite examples occurred in Darlington County years ago when I was publisher of the Hartsville newspaper. A public hearing notice came in about a company’s intent to locate a gigantic factory hog farm just outside the city limits.

We ran the public notice, as required by law, and also started doing stories about exactly what a “mega” hog farm would mean for the city of Hartsville. People raised a stink about it, to put it mildly, and the issue was resolved. No hog farms for Hartsville.

Imagine the implications for any community if citizens are expected to search various websites just to find out what may be coming down the pipe from individuals, businesses or their own local government. In the pages of a community newspaper – and on our related web sites – there is at least a fair chance for anyone to be aware of such issues.

Here are some of the legislative “talking points” our state press association is using in the battle to keep public notices in front of the public:

• Allowing the government to post legal ads takes away third-party neutral interest. It’s unfair to citizens in a democracy.

• Digital-only legal ads are open to alteration. Printed legal ads provide a record of notices that can’t be altered.

• People will not read legal ads on the Internet. A recent survey by an independent polling company showed that nearly 80% of South Carolinians believe governments should be required to publish legal notices in newspapers. Only 4.8% would read them if they had to search for them online.

• Putting legal ads on the Internet would mean that only South Carolinians with computer access would have access to such important information.

• Even if citizens do have a computer, they must make the effort to find multiple Internet sites. Legal ads for an entire community are usually found in a particular section of the paper, which is easy to find. If each government agency posts its own legal notices, there won’t be a comprehensive way for the public to access notices.

• There is no proof of publication or security with a website. Newspaper ads are there in black and white for all to see.

• Newspapers provide sworn affidavits that ads were published along with physical tearsheets of the ad as printed. The cost to a county or municipality defending a single improper notice action could far exceed the cost of legal ads for an entire year.

In an unexpected maneuver, House Bill 3427 was set to bypass the normal committee process and go straight to the House floor for a vote Tuesday morning, according to the press association.

Note: After Georgetown Times reporter Scott Harper contacted Rep. Stephen Goldfinch (R-Pawleys Island), Rep. Carl Anderson (D-Georgetown) told Harper the bill would be delayed until today — Wednesday. Goldfinch is one of the legislators listed as a co-sponsor of the bill.

Please feel free to contact the following South Carolina legislators to oppose S.C. House Bill 3427: Reps. Nanney, Lucas, Loftis, Putnam, A. Crawford, Allison, Crawford, Bowen, Erickson, Newton, McCoy, Patrick, Bingham, Chumley, Goldfinch, Hamilton, Henderson, Herbkersman, Merrill, Norman, Pitts, G.R. Smith, Stringer, Tallon, Thayer, Willis and Wood.

Tell them you don’t want hog farms and strip clubs sneaking into South Carolina communities unannounced.


Graham Osteen is co-president of Osteen Publishing Co. and Editor-At-Large of The Item. Contact him at The Item, 20 North Magnolia St., Sumter, S.C., 29150; graham@theitem.com, or call 803-774-1352.
He also has a home in Georgetown.

Comments

Notice about comments:

South Strand News is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not South Strand News.

If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.



South Strand News

© 2014 South Strand News an Evening Post Industries company. All Rights Reserved.

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Parental Consent Form.
150-02-88705