A bill that would allow cities and counties to post certain public notices online instead of printing them in newspapers failed Wednesday morning in a committee vote in the Arkansas House of Representatives.
The Committee on City, County and Local Affairs rejected House Bill 1616 by a vote of 10 for, five against and five not voting, said Cecillea Pond-Mayo, chief information officer for the House. In standing committees, 11 votes are needed to pass, she said.
Rep. Frances Cavenaugh, R-Walnut Ridge, said House Bill 1616 was an amended version of House Bill 1399, which she filed on Feb. 9.
"Because we made so many revision to it, because this is agreed-upon language, we just filed a new bill," Cavenaugh told the committee.
Cavenaugh said the bill's language was agreed upon between the committee and the Arkansas Press Association.
"What the agreed-upon language is is that for five years nothing's going to change," said Cavenaugh. "But in five years, the cities and counties will have the option to go ahead and publish on an independent website their notices -- all their notices with the exception of delinquent taxes and certifications.
"And when they start to print on a website, they will still have to go ahead and print in the newspaper where they can find it at."
Marvin Day, the county judge in Craighead County, spoke in favor of the bill. Day said he was representing the County Judges' Association of Arkansas.
"For a new guy like myself, this has been an interesting debate getting to the point where we feel like we have an agreement that we all can live with," said Day. "Yes, I can honestly say there are some county judges that want to poke their chest out and say, 'No, this isn't a great deal and we could've done better.' And there are some newspapers that are going to poke their chest out and say, 'No, we could have beat these guys back.' But this is a fair deal. ...
"We're not making anybody leave their newspaper if that's really what's best for their community," said Day, meaning cities and counties could continue to place public notices in newspapers if they wished.
Mark Lane, president of WEHCO Media's newspaper division, which publishes the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and El Dorado News-Times, spoke against the bill, saying it's an "anti-transparency bill" and not in the best interests of Arkansans.
"In fact, it's a lose-lose-lose bill," he said. "Arkansans lose, newspapers lose, and in my opinion the government loses. Our company simply cannot acquiesce in good conscience. It's wrong today, and it's going to be wrong five years from today. Our position of transparency remains the primary reason this bill is flawed, and yes, it's also about the money."
Lane said a quick fiscal-impact study conducted after HB1399 was introduced indicated it would save cities and counties $94,000 over a two-year period.
But it's impact on newspapers and government transparency in Arkansas would be much greater, he said.
"If this bill passes, newspapers will close, employees will lose their jobs ..." said Lane. "The decrease in transparency caused by this bill will have consequences that'll be felt throughout the state. If you lose your local newspapers, studies have shown statistically noticeable increases in government corruption, increased taxes, increased costs in borrowing through bonds. Is that's what's best for Arkansans? ...
"Without legal [advertising] revenue, no newspaper in Arkansas can survive."
Lane said there's no need to change the current law.
Mark Hayes, executive director of the Arkansas Municipal League, also spoke in favor of the bill, saying the five-year phase-in provided "plenty of time for the business models to adjust, etc."
"I can assure you that the League is absolutely fine with the bill ..." he said.
Committee member Rep. Andrew Collins, D-Little Rock, said he thought passing the bill would be "a very unfortunate, very short-sighted decision."
"We're lucky in this state to have a robust free press," said Collins. "Not a lot of other states like Arkansas have that. We pretty much know what we'd be doing with this bill. I mean, this will kill newspapers in our state. ... I know not every newspaper has a problem with this bill, but the biggest one by far -- and the biggest several really are represented by the same company -- are strongly opposed to this. And they're opposed for several reasons, one of which is the loss of transparency. You have the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. But beyond that, I mean, they're pretty frank about how this is going to ruin their business and prevent them from having the confidence to invest further in it."
Collins said newspapers have built their business models around the language in state statutes.
"We own it," he said. "We own what we do in statute. And we own the reliance that they've had in building their model around what we've had in statute for this long. So, we're about to jerk it away, and we're about to disrupt the business model in a way that will make newspapers unsustainable."
Collins urged the committee to vote against the bill.