Gov. Patrick targets legal notices

Newspapers across the country have traditionally thrived on legally notices. Many community newspapers in the US were considered more valuable with signifcant paid circulation and located in the county seat with legal notices.Along with that distinction comes the responsibility to not exploit such opportunity. Traditionally newspapers charged more per column inch for legal notices but some of that was attributed to the large amounts of text that was suppose to be printed without error.There are some newspapers, in particular some owned by GateHouse, that are terribly exploiting the opportunity, so much so that Gov. Patrick may be on the right track that some legislation is forthcoming. Running mortgage foreclosures in 12 and 14 point type is absurd. Our banking and financial industry is struggling enough without GateHouse newspapers violating a fidicuary trust.Similarly, I recently read a legal in large type advertised by a Trust for which the beneficiary is the city’s public library. This is not only a violation to the deceased, but to the citizens of the community cheated by their city newspaper.Newspapers are not going to thrive on the long haul by legally embezzeling money from the community it should be serving. It is an intolerable arrogance.

Fish: It’s really not a bad idea at all. My problem is that we’ve managed to live with the present system, flaws and all, since the founding of the Boston News-Letter in 1704. Can’t we go a couple more years, until the recession is over?

Cheating the public with legal notices so the newspaper business can pay creditors because the dealmakers made big mistakes with “private equity” a few years ago is a violation to decency.

Newshound: I don’t understand what you mean about GateHouse violating its fiduciary duty regarding these legal notices. Especially I don’t understand what you are saying about the library trust. Can you explain further?

Ron Newman – – – Following a recent death the descendant’s will had been placed with a bank’s trust department to process with the only beneficiary being the city’s public library. A legal notice is required to provide opportunity should anyone reading the newspaper on that day happen to notice the ad and have reason to file objection. The GateHouse newspaper ran the advertisement in about 12 point type as it does with its legals instead of the traditional agate or 6 or 7 point type. The advertisement is multiple times larger than it should be and as a result the estate costs are dramatically increased thus reducing the benefit to the beneficiary – – – in this case the city’s financially struggling public library.The same applies with mortgage foreclosures. In better times the auction may bring enough to cover the debt and costs. In this environment as we are reading, many of the foreclosures are bringing in less than the debt thus a major contribution to the reason why the nation’s largest banks are requiring large amounts of taxpayer money in an attempt to stablize the country’s financial tourmoil. Overcharging by manipulation for the legal notices contributes to deepening the finncial circumstances this country, it’s citizens and taxpayers are suffering. Even if not the owner of bank stocks individually, many of our current retirees and those saving for retirment have funds invested in the country’s corporations, including major banks, whether it be in city or state pension funds or mutual funds. We all suffer by additional exploitation and that includes library, hospital and university trust funds as well.

acf – when you passaway GateHouse will be at the Gate to collect money for the obituary and again as part of the required legal notice to probate the estate. If you’re famous it will not be necessary to pay for your obituary and if your not famous your survivors need not pay for an obituary. GateHouse will still overcharge for the required legal notice to probate the estate and they get away with this as it becomes burried in all of the legal costs which in this case is a once-in-a-lifetime event.If a senator dies there will be an obituary in virtually all the newspapers free of charge.Maybe there should be an obituary web site too.

I can understand Dan’s sentiment on the potential loss of revenues to the print media. In the middle of a decreasing stream of revenue, a loss of another tributary can be painful.But that does not mean that Government has to throw prudence to the wind and fund something that has becomes something of an anachronism.In the 18th century, the broadsheet and journal was THE way their world communicated.That has eroded over time, and today, the newspaper is no longer such important, even essential, element.At some point, the use of newspapers as a vehicle for legal notices no longer represent a way to reach the “community”, which is, after all, the purpose of a legal notice.I am not suggesting that Gov. Patrick’s proposal for an internet-based legal advertisement system is warranted at this point.But the concept is a valid one, and it is based on reasonable premises. It deserves consideration. Insisting on the government continuing a policy of expenditure that is no longer meeting the need it is trying to fulfill, is, in essence, asking for a government subsidy without clear pubic benefit.

WOW, this is a really interesting and knotty problem for us newsmedia junkies, pushing a lot of buttons, both visceral and intellectual, especially in these days when the term “moral hazard” leaps so frequently and nimbly from so many keyboards. If, as Dan says, it’s a good idea except at a bad time, that simply delays coming to grips with the underlying question which is whether — given such a clear choice — a government body should ever favor the fiscal well-being of the private sector over the economic concerns of the taxpaying public. The simplistic answer is, of course, no; but a more considered reply would be…maybe. Right or wrong, governments do that all the time, whether for venal reasons or otherwise. Bail out the banks? Of course not; unless their failure threatens the commonweal. Newspapers too are special — for reasons too obvious to enumerate herein — but no single one of them (well, maybe the New York Times) is so important to our society at large that it should be infused with public money when the public is drowning in a depression. Of course, newspapers could offer to run legal notices for free in order to retain those readers to whom such information is interesting or important, but I suggest that the cost of newsprint would preclude such a solution. It is, after all, lost revenue — not lost circulation — that is at stake here. I could go on at stupifying further length with pros and cons — both political and economic — but I think, finally, that this is just one more straw that will eventally help to break the backs of a large number of our nation’s newspapers and that we’d just better get used to the idea, however repugnant.

Hi -I agree with the idea of some sort of state administered central online database which would be searchable by town, topic, etc. But I do think legal notices should continue to run in newspapers because not everyone has access to online resources. Many folks don’t have computers and don’t know how to use the ones available at a public library. I hear from my elderly relatives and friends how unhappy they are when news anchors say: “You can learn more about this on our website at http://www.whatever...” They feel cut off and pushed aside. And each of them subscribes to weekend and/or daily newspapers!- Lee

I think computers are a double-edged sword. I agree with Bill H., I don’t know where we’re heading.

I wholeheartedly agree with Pink Granite – there are STILL many people in this State without internet access. I learned this first hand during the casino debate. Everyone has easy access to a newspaper, but not so with computers. Here in Cranberry Country especially.“Anyone with an interest in them could easily get them online, and would likely be active online anyway.”Untrue. I know of many people who are definitely interested in reading the legal notices but who cannot afford a computer or monthly internet service, or work during library hours (making matters worse, the hours in my town are very limited), or feel able to surmount the learning curve needed to master computers. Personally, I’ve found this phenomenon frustrating since most newspaper coverage of the casino issue in this region has left much to be desired, while an active debate exists on-line. But the fact is – as easy and convenient as I find the Internet, many others feel the opposite.I love the idea of a State web site, but until everyone, or the VAST majority in MA is online, and made aware through public service announcements to check notices on the Internet from now on – the notices should stay in print.

Back to the topic.Gladys’ comment relates more to news coverage than it does to public notice issue of legal notice publication.My town is served by a weekly that, by the paper’s circulation numbers and a couple of simple calculations — based on an average of 2.3 persons per household — reaches, at best, less than 25% of the households.It is in this weekly that ALL legal notices for the town are published.This is a far cry from the extensive public notice for which the publication requirements are intended.My town is also likely fairly well connected compared to others when it comes to the internet, with a vast majority having internet access, if not actually using it.The debate should necessarily revolve around the question of which venue is the best suited for meeting the intent of legal publication.Newspapers and other print media are losing ground quickly to the upstart. It is likely time to change the established customs, or at least consider change seriously.

The comments so far focus on the impact on newspapers. What about the impact on the public? Let’s not forget why we have a process of public bidding and public notice on government projects. It is to protect against graft, corruption and cronyism. Before public bidding, government contracts were doled out in back-room deals. The publication of public notices plays an important role in protecting the public. That is why it needs to be done by an impartial publisher that can oversee and verify the publication. To have government entities in charge of publishing their own notices is to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.The other other issue here is disenfranchisement. The fact is, many people still do not have routine access to the Internet. And the people who lack routine access tend to be the people who are already at greatest risk of disenfranchisement — the poor and the elderly. Sure, this would be an economic blow to newspapers. But it would also be a blow to citizens and to the right to know. The only winner in this scenario would be the government.

While I understand the nostalgia for keeping these notices as paid advertisements, I would argue that the newspaper has always been nothing more than a second home for them. By law, the notices you see in the paper are required to be posted in city/town hall or a state office building somewhere. If you really want to see them, there they are. The argument that not everyone has Internet is valid, but over the years not everyone had a newspaper, either. We seem to have survived our inability to reach them. There is no perfect solution for notification, but the Internet is as good if not better than newspapers in disseminating the notices, and far less expensive. Perhaps the Internet notices could be posted on the local cable TV government access channel as well, reaching a broader audience and also costing next to nothing. Dan you’re correct on pension reform, Sen. Pres. Murray is correct on transportation reform and I’d argue Gov. Patrick is correct on this. What strikes me is that all of the reform is piecemeal and there seems to be no comprehensive effort at efficiency. That’s what we really need, a room of outside efficiency experts, sans lobbyists, and a requirement (like base closures) that the legislature have one vote up or down on their recommendations. Of course it will never happen here and the haphazard approach will continue.

An important point of the proposal, which is listed in SECTION 16 of the bill (the all caps is important) is that the Internet posting is specifically allowed to be on a state agency website. There is no requirement to send the ad `out’ of the state’s house.Gripe all you want about the point size of legal ads and the cost factor. The significant fact is that their publication and distribution exists in a realm something outside the control of state authority. That’s the point of the statutory requirement, I think. And without it, the gurantee of that publication and distribution will cease to exist. At the very least, if print is to be declared an outmoded form in Gov Patrick’s transportation bill, the legal ads for public contracts should be advertised and archived in an online venue not controlled by the state. And that advertisement should happen by statute. The transportation bill makes no such requirement, nor does it seek input on such.

Ani – the legal requirement for posting public notices, often in a newspaper of paid circulation in the city or town and if none in the city or town in the county, is established by the legislature as a statute. The requirements vary. Years ago one of the state’s newspaper associations compiled a booklet of the various statutes relating to public or legal notices.What is contributing to making newspaper publication outmoded is the cost of buying newspapers which relates to declining circulation in the target market. Cost is not the only reason for declining circulation, but it contributes. Newspaper circulation may be at about 35% of households while those with computers is substantially higher.

tp posted that the enabling legislation would allow the legal ads to be posted on a department Web site. I think this is an awful mistake.They should be centralized for the state, to ensure the views and broader interest and accessibility — both for the public’s benefit in knowing what’s at stake, and … for the public’s benefit, in seeing that enough contractors are aware of the process to ensure healthy bidding competition.I’d say again that they should also be searchable and subscribable in some way (e-mail, RSS) by category or issue, by town, and by region of the state.The state has a chance to do a real public service here -and- save a few bucks in a tough time. I don’t want to see public accessibility wrecked.

Ani – you have a point about due process. How many people will go on the internet every day to read all the probate notices to see if someone died from whom they think they should a beneficiary and would wish to contest the will? With a newspaper you don’t have to deliberately go to a site to search – – – the legal notices are usually right there between the sports and classifieds. More importantly, creditors need to be aware to file a claim. If not and the executor/executrix does not make payment, the estate closes and the creditor loses.In a practical sense though, it may be easier to scan a list posted on the Internet than to go through numerous newspapers daily looking for notices. I think more people now have Internet access and computers than those who read a daily newspaper. This isn’t just younger people. I know people in their 90s who do get a daily and complain regularly about the paper shrinking and costing too much. I also know people in their 80s who only read the local newspaper on the Internet.

Newspaper readership is not declining. Do not confuse drops in advertising and circulation with a drop in readership. A study of the top 50 newspaper markets found that more people today read print newspapers each day than did a decade ago. (http://tinyurl.com/d6xuqn) On top of that, a recent Nielsen study confirmed that online readership is soaring, up 12.1 percent in 2008 to 67.3 million readers a month.

Readership numbers are moot in any case if the papers can’t stay in business. Trying to keep up here, a searchable, up-to-date, state-wide database of legal notices sounds optimal. The issue of whether people will “go to the internet every day” applies likewise to newspapers. The point is that the information is readily available in a way a greater portion of the public can easily access it. (Where “greater” increases daily as the oldsters shuffle off….) Online will increase its value over time too. How many readers today can operate that damn fiddly microfiche machine at the library, to look at old newspapers?If the state is, or will be with the collapse of the local Daily Planet, the only entity with the financial resources to make this happen, is the problem that the publication of these notices will no longer occur in a realm “outside the control of state authority” (re tp’s comment)? That requirement is due to a statute, which could be changed by act of legislature?The state could function as a clearinghouse and collect the notices, enter them into a database, and publish the database in its raw state. This could be done at relatively low cost. Copies of the database could be made by external servers for comparison’s sake, to track mysterious absences and deletions. Commercial ventures could design pleasing and easy-to-use front ends that you might pay a small fee for, or that survive by advertising (you know, like online newspapers!), to search the content. Interesting previously unseen patterns commonly emerge from data thanks to well-designed query mechanisms. Better still, perhaps, the state could stay out of the data collection business and simply mandate a standard format for the electronic dissemination of the notices (ie, the database design), and let the individual towns/counties publish their notices themselves. If they were all of the same structure, querying applications could handle them in a standard manner.