H2244 was appropriately defeated because, by definition, removing print publication of public notices defeats the very purpose of public publication of the notices. The intention is to provide as broad a public notice to the citizens as is economically and reasonably feasible without preferring, by the method of publication, which group should get the information while intentionally not providing notice to other citizens.
Why should those who have computers and Internet access be made privy to what would then be quasi- public notices, while those who can’t afford, don’t have internet access or simply don’t want computers would be ignored? It would be, in effect, legalizing discrimination principally against the poor and the elderly. Can you think of a more open invitation to a constitutional challenge and a waste of tax dollars defending such a challenge?
With regard to third-party delivery, it continually amazes me that legislators who can’t even find out the itemized costs for state services so they can balance the budget believe the state is more efficient and reliable. I would rather have an independent third party, which I have some capacity to hold accountable through the courts than the government that can’t be sued unless it consents, and then good luck beating someone who is using your money to fight you.
At least we know what our publication costs are when a contractor publishes. We can’t find out what our complete unit costs are for the government to make copies.
- Bill Sandry, Mesa