Lynne LaMaster: Pass the Online Arizona Public Notices Bill HB 2403

The following testimony is by Lynne LaMaster, Editor of eNewsAZ regarding the shenanigans being played out by the Arizona Newspaper Association and its allies in opposition to HB 2403. (Sonoran Alliance supports this legislation.)

This entire experience has been very enlightening to me. I have learned far more than I ever imagined.

One of the most fascinating items I learned, is that according to the Newspaper organizations, this really isn’t about the money. It’s about their duty as “watchdogs” to protect the public interest by publishing Public Notices in their respective newspapers.

Therefore, if this measure doesn’t pass, may I suggest that an alternate piece of legislation be considered. This would be:

  • A law that would require newspapers to publish public notices in the same font and using the same white space as is on their home page featured story, at no additional charge beyond current prices to either the submitter or the subscriber.
  • A law that would require them to offer translations into Spanish or other common languages of the community when appropriate, publishing in both English and the other language at no additional charge beyond the current prices.
  • A law that would require better formatting, links that are easily pulled out of the content maps and photos where appropriate at no additional charge beyond the current prices.
  • A law that require them to publish public notices and take them to every home in the community whether or not the resident subscribes to the paper at no additional charge beyond the current prices.
  • A law that would require their database to be indexed and searchable by Google and the other search engines, completely open to the public, and advertised via Google Ad Words and other online measures, and this cost should not be passed on to member organizations, subscribers or submitters.

I’d be willing to bet that if you were to consider a law such as the one I just outlined, you’d find the newspapers even more vociferously and vehemently opposed to that law than the one you’re considering here right now. Because we all know that it IS about the money and protecting their monopoly and power.

Of course, if you were to allow online publications to publish public notices, we could do all these things automatically. Because we are more than a simply a newspaper online. We know the Internet and its capabilities and we know how to use it properly, efficiently and effectively.

Lynne LaMaster
Editor, eNewsAZ.com

UPDATE on HB 2403 Committee Vote Outcome.

State Representatives Jeff Dial, Terri Proud and Carl Seel were the only Republicans who voted against this bill.

ICYMI: Jim Parisi interview with CD-8 congressional candidate, Col. Martha McSally

In case you missed it, here is the recent interview of retired USAF Colonel Martha McSally by Jim Parisi. McSally is running for congress in Southern Arizona’s CD-8 special election.

Watch live streaming video from jimparisishow at livestream.com

McSally also appeared in a 60 minutes interview:

YouTube Preview Image

And here is her announcement video:

YouTube Preview Image

Open Public Notices to the Public

By Lynne LaMaster

Why shouldn’t Public Notices be online? 

The Arizona Newspaper industry is in a panic.

Why? Because the Arizona State Legislature is considering a bill that would allow public notices to be published online.

Public notices, also known as legal notices, are the columns of government-required announcements one sees in printed newspapers usually placed near the classified section, set in very small type. It contains information about legal issues such as trustee sales, articles of incorporation, foreclosures, delinquent tax lists and domestic relations, just to name a few.

Right now, an old Arizona State law requires that public notices be published in a printed newspaper. But, HB 2403, which is being considered by the House Committee on Technology and Infrastructure would allow public notices to be published either in a newspaper or online.

According to the House website, HB 2403 states, “…that if there is a statutory requirement for a publication of a notice in a newspaper, the person responsible for the publication may publish in the newspaper or may provide notice at a designated site on a worldwide public network of interconnected computers, for at least the specified number of times as prescribed by law.”

Newspapers do not support this proposed law because they would lose a great deal of income if it passes. FundingtheNews.com states on their homepage, “At a time when the financial model for news is facing the greatest crisis in decades, the level of government funding for news organizations has been declining sharply…”

Again from FundingtheNews.com, “Historically, these fine-print notices have been a lucrative business for newspaper publishers, and have touched off heated bidding wars for government contracts… While other forms of advertising have plummeted, public notices have been a bright spot for publishers.”

The question is, why should the government fund news organizations, anyway?

Arguments in Favor of Online Public Notices

The purpose of public notices is for public notification. What’s more public than the Internet? If placed properly online, the information can be searchable and indexed by search engines.

Public notices can be enhanced much more easily online. No more squint-to-read text. Online, it would be easy to add color if necessary, and photos when appropriate. If links to other information would be helpful, they can be added and made clickable. They can be formatted, headlines can be added easily and the content can become comprehensible with a decent layout. Public notices can even be placed in audio files for the disabled, if appropriate.

Public notices can be placed online at a much lower cost than in a newspaper. No ink, paper or distribution costs to pay for. Less waste to the environment.

Our local paper charges the City of Prescott $11 per column inch. Assuming that inch takes about 30 seconds to type in, it adds up to $1320 per hour.

Additionally, the public won’t have to purchase a newspaper to see the notification.

Government agencies and municipalities will save money if they can place their public notices online. Saved money just might end up being saved jobs.

The newspapers shouldn’t be given a free ride. Let them compete. Competition is good, it makes everyone better. Allowing online publication of public notices will simply level the playing field.

It’s time to level out the playing field. The Internet is the future. And that future is now. Nobody’s saying that one shouldn’t be able to publish in a newspaper, just that alternative options should be available.

So, now you understand why the newspapers are writing editorials and placing ads that read, “The fox shouldn’t guard the henhouse. Keep public notices in your local community newspaper,” or, “Don’t let government remove public notices from Arizona Newspapers… public notices need to be public.” After all, newspaper organizations have a monopoly to protect.

In conclusion, online public notices just make sense for almost everyone – except the newspapers. As one city official stated, “Online is easier, cheaper, greener and better. What’s not to like?”

Editor’s note: A hearing will be held on this matter tomorrow at 9 AM at the Capitol before the Committee on Technology and Infrastructure. Representative David W. Stevens is the Chair of the Committee. View the agenda.

Lynne LaMaster is the Editor for Prescott eNews.

Sedona Resident Doug Wade Announces for Arizona’s 1st Congressional District

Here is video of Doug Wade’s announcement on Wednesday seeking Arizona’s first congressional seat. That seat became vacant when incumbent Republican Paul Gosar chose to seek re-election in Arizona’s fourth congressional district. Wade’s announcement took place in Sedona.

YouTube Preview Image

Attorney General Tom Horne Interview on BBC regarding TUSD’s Ethnic Indoctrination Program

In case you missed it, here is the recent interview of Attorney General Tom Horne on the BBC discussing Tucson Unified School District’s “Ethnic Studies” program: http://www.azag.gov/press_releases/jan/2012/world%20service.mp3

 

Thank You Gabby.

A powerfully emotional video released from Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

YouTube Preview Image

Thank you for your service Gabby. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and Mark.

 

The Republican Establishment Wants to Pick Our Candidate

YouTube Preview Image

A new super PAC has come out swinging at the Republican establishment on behalf of Newt Gingrich. After Mitt Romney’s super PAC friends went after Gingrich in Iowa, Newt’s friends are hitting back without mentioning Romney’s name. It’s accurate to say this Republican Presidential Primary has entered an entirely new chapter.

From the Winning Our Future YouTube account:

The SuperPAC Winning Our Future has launched a new television ad airing on broadcast and cable television throughout Iowa. The New York Times reported: “The group, Winning Our Future, has produced a TV ad that echoes Mr. Gingrich’s version of his economic accomplishments while speaker of the House, which he is making the focus of a weeklong bus tour. They include welfare reform, tax cuts and balanced budgets.” Here’s the script:

VO: The Republican establishment wants to pick our candidate.

When a principled conservative took the lead, they outspent Newt Gingrich 20 to 1, attacking him with falsehoods.

Conservatives need someone who’s fought for us.

Newt balanced the federal budget, reformed welfare, cut taxes and created 11 million new jobs

Newt will take on radical judges and fight against abortion.

Don’t let the liberal Republican establishment pick our candidate.

Newt Gingrich.

Winning Our Future is responsible for the content of this message.

Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich release new ads, videos

The battle for the GOP nomination continues with these three ads/videos just released:

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

The Lobby Needs More Room

by Bill Ponath

The history of civilized man has seen a never-ending evolution of what we call a “system of  justice.”  It was not until well after Christ that the concept of a judge and jury was born to enable the accused in criminal matters to be judged by a group of his/her peers.  As a matter of fact; in ancient Rome there was no such thing as a “criminal court.”   If a person were to have been criminally wronged it was his/her responsibility to pursue a civil claim against the accused.  The government took no interest in prosecuting any crimes unless they were against the government itself.  Essentially; a person with no immediate family could be robbed and killed in the middle of the street in broad daylight and there would be no prosecution because no-one had standing to pursue the claim.

My; how things have changed.  In today’s world we are all judges, juries and prosecutioners who look only to the daily news and commentaries to reach judgment.  We assume that everything we see and hear; especially from any source of reasonably reliable information; such as the news media, is the gospel truth.  We feel no responsibility to question the conclusion reached by a public figure.  The problem is; if we are all guilty of everything we are accused of; Satan’s waiting area would simply not be large enough to process all of the new admittees.

Case in point: I enjoy listening to Barry Young every morning on KFYI but I am consistently baffled by his attacks on former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce.  Mind you; Senator Pearce is a friend of mine and that may appear to suggest bias; but with or without any predilection of opinion concerning anyone’s character I am frustrated by Mr. Young’s assumption that Senator Pearce participated in some sort of conspiracy to plant Olivia Cortes on the ballot for Senator Pearce’s seat in the senate.  Let’s look at the facts:

  1. Senator Pearce is; in no uncertain terms, the “father” of SB 1070; the legislation that adopted already existing federal law into a much less stringent set of Arizona statutes.  This made Senator Pearce a target for the liberal media to effectively “take him down.”
  2. The media fueled a recall effort that was; in no uncertain terms, baseless.
  3. Certain members of a tea party conspired to plant a sham candidate on the ballot in order to dilute Jerry Lewis’ support.
  4. Certain members of Senator Pearce’s political panel; including some of his own relatives, perceived the benefits of this independent candidate without any knowledge or understanding of the basis for her political support and actually assisted in the effort.
  5. Only after it became known that Ms. Cortes was not an actual candidate was any assistance and support withdrawn from her campaign.

Under no circumstances is there any shred of evidence that Senator Pearce, his campaign staff, or his relatives had any knowledge of the sham while they were taking advantage of it.  Nevertheless; they are duly tried, prosecuted, and convicted by Mr. Young and the rest of the media for a crime they did not commit.  The sad truth of this is that the State of Arizona has now been robbed of a man of unblemished character who has served us in law enforcement for many years, has been shot and wounded by criminals, and has almost lost his own son in the same fashion.  Yet he is a very happy man when he observes large groups of newly naturalized citizens of the United States; primarily Hispanics, as they are sworn in near the State’s Capital.  I have yet to see any of the liberal media; or even Barry Young, comment on this.  I must assume that this revelation of the actual truth may serve to confuse and mislead the propagandized readers and electorate and it therefore would be nonsensical to acknowledge this reality.  It is therefore best that the media let the sleeping dog lie and allow the general public to have grossly distorted opinions of one of their greatest heroes.  Sounds fair to me.

Senator Pearce; as I am certain we are all aware is not the only victim of the distortion of the truth.  I do not personally know former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas any more than occasional meetings and I therefore can make no comment concerning his matters before the Court.  I am nevertheless honored to claim that Rachel Alexander is a close friend who is also the victim of; sadly enough, malicious prosecution simply because she was doing her job.  Unfortunately; when doing one’s job may interfere with the goals of someone in power, somebody has to take the fall.

Let me put this in perspective:  Ms. Alexander has not discussed with me any of the behind-the-scenes details of what led to her being accused of these compromises in ethical duties.  She was working at her post as Assistant Maricopa County Prosecutor.  Her boss; Mr. Thomas, assigned to her the prosecution of certain elected officials.  She was presented with facts and evidence that clearly raised reasonable suspicion concerning wrongs committed by these individuals.  It was therefore her duty to proceed with levying charges against them.  UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE DID SHE DO ANYTHING WRONG.  Nevertheless; exposure of these facts concerning these elected officials meant that they needed to fight back.  Please notice that there has never been a shred of allegation that Ms. Alexander did anything unethical in the rest of her life.  The ONLY claim that can be made may be that she was working very hard to do her job.

Ms. Alexander’s need to answer her accusers is entirely political.  It is work to take the attention off of the accused and shift it to the accuser.  It has thus far been successful; which raises the point, why continue to accuse Ms. Alexander of any wrong-doing when there is no shred of evidence that she was not simply doing her job? . . . . . Because somebody has to take the fall to save these politicos from personal humiliation.

It is an unfortunate circumstance of life that we are all wrongly accused of indiscretions throughout our existence.  It began in childhood with finger pointing at our siblings and even the family pet.  Even I must confess to having been prosecuted by the State Bar Association in the early 90’s similarly to Ms. Alexander.  I therefore understand the burden that she will carry whether she is completely acquitted or whether they determine that she deserves the least available public admonishment of a censure; which is a published reprimand without any suspension of her license.

Let me tell you why I was censured.  The facts are that I never did anything wrong but I nevertheless failed to oversee what my employees were doing and therefore my trust account didn’t balance.  The reason I didn’t see what was wrong with the account was that certain employees were scheming to embezzle money from the firm.  They put up smoke screens and hid from me what they were doing.  I nevertheless confessed to this and I simply made sure that the final reports specifically stated that I did nothing wrong, but that the errors were based on“negligence.”

The problem with this is that most people who see that I was censured ASSUME that I did something dastardly wrong and that I am a hardened criminal.  The worse problem is that I am in fact responsible for the errors made by my employees but that Senator Pearce and Ms. Alexander did absolutely nothing wrong.  They never had ill intent, they never consciously acted to wrong anyone.  They were simply doing their jobs and they were doing them quite well; only to be dragged into “politically necessary” damage control by their opponents fueled by the almighty left-wing media.

I beg of any who read this: do not rush to conclusions until you know and understand the facts.  That is a patent expression of “innocent until proven guilty” but it is painfully obvious that the media do not grasp the significance of those words.  Let me put it this way: Senator Pearce and Rachel Alexander both knew by virtue of considerable experience with politics and the media that any misstep would be attacked without mercy.  Do you really believe that either of them would have even contemplated doing anything like what they accused of?  If so; they are not the real victims of medial prosecution, you the general public are.  You are hypnotized into believing trumped up exaggerations produced by those who resist the good of what these people are doing for justice.  It is a baffling quandary that the very system we fight to defend is the very same thing that fights to defeat us.

Justice will begin to be served when Senator Pearce is back in office and when all charges against Rachel Alexander are summarily dropped.  That service will only end when every person acknowledges that these dedicated individuals are in fact innocent of any wrongdoing.

Please tell Satan to cancel the remodeling.

Presidential Candidates Release New Ads Heading into Iowa Final Stretch, New Hampshire

A couple of great ads by Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as the Presidential race heads into the final week in Iowa:

First Mitt & Ann Romney:

YouTube Preview Image

Newt’s message on the Christmas of 1776:

YouTube Preview Image

Rick Santorum’s “Pop-Up:”

YouTube Preview Image

Rep Jeff Flake: Why should politicians use taxpayer funds to get their name to pop up in Google searches?

Reposted from the Wall Street Journal.

By Congressman Jeff Flake

Some would say it’s Grinch-like that members of Congress cannot send any mail pieces from their offices wishing constituents a “Merry Christmas.” But read a little deeper into this issue, and chances are you’ll be siding with the bah-humbug crowd.

Members of Congress can, of course, extend any holiday wishes they desire on a personal basis: Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Blessed Kwanzaa or even, with a nod to George Costanza, Happy Festivus. Members of Congress just can’t use taxpayer dollars to send these season’s greetings if extending such greetings “is the primary purpose of the communication.”

This is a good thing. Do you really need to pay for Congressman X’s awkward family photo featuring a dozen grandchildren and the family dog in matching sweaters with the U.S. Capitol photoshopped into the background?

While we’re on the subject of taxpayer-funded salutations, you may be interested to know that Congress is moving beyond the standard campaign-esque glossy mailers. Elected officials have begun touting their feats of strength on the right-hand column of your Facebook page and Google searches—and you’re paying for it!

Since members seeking to pay for these Internet advertisements with taxpayer-funded office budgets are required to file such advertisements with the House Franking Office, my staff and I examined a few of them. What we found may surprise you—or, given Congress’s 9% approval rating, perhaps not.

“Congressman X is Fighting the Madness,” screams one Facebook ad, “Fighting Plans to End Medicare, Government Shutdown, Giveaways to Big Oil.” “Rep. X is working to lower gas prices by increasing American energy production. Find out more and like my page today!” says another. “Congressman X is Committed to Creating Jobs, Driving Down Spending and Shrinking the Size of the Federal Government.” Well, apparently not all spending.

Each click on these ads costs taxpayers additional money, as each click-through drives up a member’s ad bill.

Members of Congress can also use taxpayer funds to make sure their name pops up when someone does a Google search. As a general example, clicking on the member’s name that was primed to pop up with a Google search for the phrase “raising debt ceiling” would cost taxpayers approximately $4.70 per click. Ouch.

Then there are the political hijinks that members of Congress can play using taxpayer dollars. A member trying to lure conservation voters can use taxpayer funds to buy ads on conservation-themed websites. A member with an eye on a governor’s mansion can use taxpayer money to purchase ads that will pop up when a person in the member’s state searches for “governor” on Google.

So what do all of these ads cost taxpayers every year? The truth is, we don’t yet know. The current practice of the House is to shield the actual cost of these ads from public view. And this practice probably won’t change any time soon: Both parties engage in this ad buying, so both parties tend to look the other way when it comes to policing the practice.

Sitting members of Congress have abundant opportunities for earned media and press secretaries to ensure that our accomplishments, such as they are, are trumpeted far and wide. Social media have become a useful tool to promote ideas and policies, and many such media are free—or at least don’t cost the public anything. Why, then, should members be able to use taxpayer funds to purchase additional name ID for themselves?

Mr. Flake, a Republican, is a congressman from Arizona.

Rep. Vic Williams on Cell Phone Usage While Driving

Arizona State Representative Vic Williams spoke with CBS 5 in response to the NTSB’s recommendation to ban all electronic devices while driving. Representative Williams serves as the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

YouTube Preview Image

Horizonte: Journalists’ Year in Review

Several local journalists appeared on Arizona’s PBS affiliate KAET on the show Horizonte to discuss 2011′s political happenings. Here is the video featuring Arizona Capitol Times’ Jim Small, KTAR’s Sandra Haros and Horizon’s Mike Sauceda.

YouTube Preview Image

Watch for the predictions at the end.

John McCain on CNN’s John King USA

Senator John McCain recently made an appearance on CNN’s John King USA. He discussed his recent Twitter diplomacy with Vladimir Putin, withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and the Republican Presidential candidates.

YouTube Preview Image

Bill Whittle: A Voter’s Guide to Republicans

Well said Bill Whittle!

YouTube Preview Image

Be sure to subscribe to Bill’s YouTube Channel.

Video: Michele Bachmann at Politics on the Rocks 4th Anniversary!

Congratulations to Charles Jensen and Politics on the Rocks on a great turnout and fourth anniversary celebration featuring Republican Presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann!

Here is video for Congressman Bachmann’s speech:

YouTube Preview Image

Mitt Romney: A New Captain

Here is the Romney Campaign’s latest ad:

YouTube Preview Image