Your right to know, newspapers under assault in Frankfort

C. Josh Givens

It seems with each annual iteration of the Kentucky General Assembly, there is some renewed – or repeated – assault on the public’s right to know in the Commonwealth.

As well, newspapers of record continue to see legislation which will not only weaken the public’s access to information, but also create conditions which weaken public disclosure of information, the ability of newspapers to investigate public agencies and officials, and the very lifeblood of the news industry – advertising.

It’s no secret that the internet has changed the way the news industry does business. Companies such as Alphabet (Google’s parent) and Meta (Facebook’s parent) have captured more and more of the advertising revenue which had traditionally been spent with not just newspapers, but local television and radio, as well.

These inroads in gaining that revenue from the traditional outlets has had a devastating effect on the industry, costing tens of thousands of jobs, creating news deserts in mostly rural areas, and hamstringing the ability of local media to do the work specifically protected in the First Amendment.

But publishers, broadcasters and journalists have hung in there, despite the seemingly unending attacks on our industry. These attacks come not only on the revenue side but also in the undermining of confidence among audience and readership from politicians and propaganda-based organizations.

I have written in this space previously on Senate Bill 63, sponsored by Benton Republican Senator Danny Carroll, which would restrict access to publically-available “identifying information” for those currently or formerly involved as a law enforcement officer, Court of Justice official, first responder and related fields, along with family members and anyone who lives at their address, whether related or not.

The records to be covered would include voter registration data, delinquent taxes, deeds, marriage licenses, and any other information which could reveal the identity and location of current, former or retired public servants.

Carroll’s reasoning is that this information could be used to target these present and past officials, though Carroll and others can offer no example of where an open records request has resulted in such attacks.

SB 63 passed out of the Kentucky Senate last week on a vote of 24-8, and now heads to the House where debate (if there is any allowed) will start over.

The bill directs such identifying information to be withheld upon request by the affected individual, though there is absolutely no way under the current system every agency and office maintaining such information could be made aware of the request.

Such a bill passed in 2021 and was vetoed by Gov. Andy Beshear. There was no time left last year to override the veto, but in this 60-day session any veto would easily be overridden.

To put the potential impact in perspective, the Legislative Research Commission reported Feb. 22, “the Kentucky League of Cities estimates there are nearly 11,000 city employees within police, fire/EMS, and corrections departments plus around 17,000 volunteer firefighters would qualify as a public officer. KLC also referenced the 8,814 retired members, as of June 2021, in CERS Hazardous and the approximately 1,300 combined retirees and beneficiaries in Lexington’s Policemen’s and Firefighters’ Retirement Fund and City Employees’ Pension Fund. Some cities have their public safety staff in CERS Nonhazardous; therefore, a portion of retirees in that plan may also qualify as a public officer.”

Should SB 63 pass the House (it likely will) and become law, the public loses out big time and it will get much tougher to hold public officials to account when the moment warrants it.

Then comes HB 524, sponsored by Rep. Ryan Dotson of Winchester, which would remove the current requirement for local government to publish legal notices – such as ordinances, bid openings, audits and the like – in the legal status paper in a jurisdiction. A “paper of record” is that regularly-scheduled publication with the largest audited circulation in a jurisdiction.

Dotson proposes local government be allowed to “publish” such notices on a government-owned Web site or on one which it contracts with. I don’t know about y’all, but have you seen most local government Web pages across Kentucky? Most of them look like an old Yahoo GeoCities creation, and some have not been updated in three or four administrations.

As well, the bill would only require the posting to remain online for a period in accordance with pertinent Kentucky Revised Statutes, along with maintaining a paper or digital documentation and affidavit of posting for three years.

One of the arguments for the need for such a bill is the use of public tax dollars to “prop up” local newspapers with advertising dollars. I find that laughable. In most jurisdictions in Kentucky, the advertising funds to publish public notices are budgeted at about 1-2 percent of the total General Fund, and many jurisdictions hardly ever expend the total line item. At most newspapers, the advertising receipts from public notices would not even support one staff member’s salary.

And the irony in the bill – local government entities would still be required to publish a notice in the paper about the electronic notice, with the URL and the telephone number of the agency. The notice shall not exceed six column inches, and can be made within 10 days of the posting or within three days “when the purpose of the posting is to inform the public of the right to take certain action.”

Make no mistake, this bill will weaken your knowledge of the action of your local government even if the local entity has no such intention. It is no secret that broadband access in rural Kentucky is abysmal, so how are all Kentuckians to have access? Granted, not everyone subscribes to newspapers, but in many counties in the Commonwealth much more people have access to a newspaper than do the internet.

Then comes HB 8, a bill which would incrementally eliminate Kentucky’s five-percent income tax, seeking to replace the 40 percent of the General Fund collected through income taxes with sales taxes on certain services.

My view is that there are numerous problems with the idea to eliminate the income tax, however one of the services to be taxed? You guessed it, advertising. Also included are marketing services and graphic design, two other services often offered by local newspaper companies.

It’s no secret many of those in the General Assembly are no fans of newspapers and the people who gather the news, and I believe many of them would like nothing more than for every county in the state to be part of the growing news desert environment.

What I hope you understand is that whether you are a subscriber of a local newspaper or whether you have never read an edition, the lack of local journalism and the public’s access to information is a recipe for disaster.

The General Assembly has already secured its rights to hide information from the public about its business operations, and now they are coming to secure those rights for those at the local levels. Most public officials at the local level are good and forthright leaders, I have seen that much in my career, but certainly not all.

I encourage you to do your own deep dive into these bills and decide for yourself whether the changes mean anything for you. If you do not agree with the changes in the bills, call your state representative and senator which represents your locale.

Comments on legislative issues can be left at the Legislative Message Line at 1-800-372-7181.

Josh Givens is a reporter for the Hancock Clarion. He can be reached [email protected]