Editorial: Law changes that would keep Alaskans in the dark about government transactions

If the proposed bill passes the Alaska State Legislature, it would make it harder for Alaskans to stay informed of government actions. Senate Bill 68, which is headed to the House after being rubber-stamped by the State Affairs Committee chaired by Rep. Rady Shaw, now requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to publish it. It would abolish newspaper notifications about government actions. and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

To be clear, it is in our interest to maintain the requirement to publish legal notices in Alaska's newspapers because we generate revenue when legal notices are published in newspapers; It's also in the interests of Alaskans. The people of this state deserve to know how this change affects us and them, and to understand why a trusted third party should be the provider of public notices.

SB 68 will definitely reduce transparency from the DNR and DEC. In fact, this appears to be the only significant impact of this bill.

At an April 4 committee hearing, representatives from both agencies spoke about how SB 68 would allow them to publish notices on the Alaska Online Public Notice System (AOPNS). However, current law already requires most government agency notices to be posted on his AOPNS. Additionally, Acting Water Commissioner Gene McCabe testified that all DEC notices are already posted on his AOPNS, including a small number of notices that are not required by law.

The DNR and DEC say they want the bill because it gives them more flexibility. With all due respect to government agencies, “more flexibility” in this context simply means “the ability to provide less notice without worrying about the law.” Both agencies already have the flexibility needed to provide more notice than is required by current law. For example, as McCabe pointed out in his testimony, DEC already posts all notices on social media, even though the law does not require it.

A statement from the sponsors said SB 68 would “eliminate coordination issues with newspaper publishers and shorten permit processing times.” The DNR and DEC also make dubious claims that the bill does not require the expenditure of state resources, but those who know the government understand that it is a “free lunch” that is often promised and never delivered. ing. SB 68 will definitely increase state spending. Proofreading, formatting, providing affidavits, running, maintaining, and securing your website – all of these tasks take effort. SB 68 will take these jobs out of the private sector and into the government sector, furthering a disturbing trend in our state.

While SB 68 certainly eliminates the need for the DNR and DEC to work with local newspapers to advertise, public notice laws were not created to make public servants' jobs easier. These are intended to inform the public about important government activities.

If passed, this bill would make it harder for Alaskans to find public notices and significantly reduce transparency. The public notice system has always been designed to give the public the best possible understanding of what the government is doing without having to go down the rabbit hole to find out. To achieve this objective, the system requires public notices to be placed in the busiest and most visible places frequented by the public, so that the public is aware of the notices in their normal lives. We did (and should continue to ask for it). If you live next to a stream that her DNR is trying to regulate and you're expected to look for her website in an arcane state, how can you find out what their plans are?

Once upon a time, the appropriate place to provide information to the public was the town square. It was eventually published in a printed newspaper. Today, the public square is even more fragmented, but the local newspaper is undoubtedly the institution in each community that the public goes to in their daily lives and expects to know what's going on.

Not only would SB 68 remove printed newspapers from the equation, it would also significantly reduce online notifications. That's because we publish all notices that appear in print on ADN.com at no additional charge, and our website has a much larger readership than his AOPNS. According to web traffic diagnostic tool SimilarWeb, AOPNS has an average monthly access of 17,800. During the same period, ADN.com recorded 1.73 million visits for him. This is almost a 100x increase in traffic. Posting a public notice on the state's website is like handwriting it on a sticky note and posting it in the dark basement of the state capitol.

By contrast, more Alaskans are reading the news than ever before. In the Anchorage area, approximately 7 in 10 adults use ADN's digital and print products each week. And the role that paper plays in rural areas is even more important. Our small newspapers across Alaska are widely read in small towns and villages, giving residents not only the news, but also an understanding of what the DNR, DEC, and other state agencies are doing in as far away as Juneau. I rely on newspapers for this purpose. Given that these communities are currently far from the capital and the relative lack of high-speed internet access, especially in rural areas, makes obscure state websites the exclusive location needed for local notifications. Doing so will only exacerbate divisions.

Publishing notices in local newspapers also serves as a public check on the power of the bureaucracy. Newspapers as institutions shine the disinfectant of sunlight on government activities. Allowing the executive branch to operate without properly notifying the public risks a dangerous concentration of power. Due process requires effective notice published in an independent source. An independent body is needed to protect the legitimacy of notifications and keep the public informed. Newspapers play that role. We proofread your ad to ensure it complies with the law and provide you with an affidavit of publication. Newspapers are also archived and can be reviewed later, so citizens can always know what was done in their community in the past.

The Senate passed the bill unanimously, voluntarily abdicating its responsibility to hold executive branch agencies accountable, and so far it has faced no resistance from transparency-minded House members. is incomprehensible. It passed the State Affairs Committee on Tuesday without any critical questions. Some committee members seem to believe that this bill is intended to promote transparency and increase public knowledge, but in reality it would accomplish the exact opposite.

SB 68 is a bad bill. It would reduce public transparency, centralize power in the executive branch, and increase state spending, all in the name of making DNR and DEC officials' jobs easier. We want to do the opposite: give the public more insight into the activities of government agencies, preserve private sector jobs, and keep government foxes from posting the times they plan to visit the chicken coop. We should strive to achieve this goal.