Committee backs option to post legally required public notices on Secretary of State site, strips appropriation

Senators on the Senate Appropriations — Government Operations Division on Oct. 12 approved an amended version of Senate Bill 2069 that would allow — but not require — units of government to post statutorily required public notices on the Secretary of State’s website. The committee removed a proposed appropriation tied to building an expanded public-notices system.

The bill originated at the request of the Public Service Commission. Randy Chrisman of the Public Service Commission told the committee the commission’s goal was to add a publicly accessible backup so a missed newspaper ad would not force cancellation or rescheduling of hearings. “Maintaining our North Dakota newspapers is a huge deal to me,” Chrisman said, “...but what we want to do is add to it and be even more transparent, for people who just do not choose to read a newspaper.”

Bill proponents said the backup would be a "fail-safe" when a paid newspaper notice is not published correctly. Sandy McMurdie, Deputy Secretary of State, told senators the office’s current meeting-hosting site (built in 2013) does not support full public-notice functionality and that an upgraded site and vendor support would require funding: the office initially discussed roughly $100,000 to $150,000 for development and ongoing vendor support. “We currently host the public meeting site that does not do public notices,” McMurdie said. “The appropriation that’s on here is really a reflection of us being able to update and create a site that would encompass what this bill requires in terms of public notices.”

Opponents urged caution about replacing or competing with the existing newspaper-based public-notice infrastructure. Cecile Wurman, executive director of the North Dakota Newspaper Association, said her group operates ndpublicnotices.com and that the association’s site already publishes notices from member newspapers at no charge to government. She warned the bill, as drafted and discussed in earlier committee work, appeared to be a step toward eliminating newspaper notices and urged denial of the appropriation. “We have research showing that voters do not want public notices on government websites,” Wurman said, adding the association’s public-notice service dates to 2013 and currently aggregates notices from the state’s papers.

Agency witnesses described practical problems the backup would solve. John Arnold, deputy insurance commissioner, and Victor Shook, director of public utilities at the Public Service Commission, described instances in the current biennium when newspaper publication errors forced agencies into “fire drills,” rescheduling hearings or seeking waivers. Arnold said the backup would reduce the operational impact when independent publishers err. “We are in support of having that safe-gap measure,” he said.

Committee action narrowed the bill. Members voted to remove the bill’s appropriation language (section 2) so the Secretary of State would be permitted — not required — to host notices; that amendment passed on the committee floor by a 4–1 margin. The committee then approved a do-pass recommendation on the bill as amended by a 3–2 vote.

The amended bill leaves newspaper publication requirements intact, while adding an optional posting on the Secretary of State’s site so agencies may meet statutory notice obligations if a paid publication fails to run a notice on time. Supporters said the change is intended as a supplement and a fail-safe; opponents said an expanded state-hosted system could duplicate or supplant existing newspaper services and that the newspaper association already offers a free public‑notice website.

The committee did not appropriate funds for Secretary of State software development after the amendment. Committee members said removing the appropriation gives stakeholders time to explore whether the newspaper association’s site, a Secretary of State link to that site, or a Secretary of State upgrade is the most cost‑effective path.

The bill as amended now proceeds to the next step of the Appropriations process. Further budget or statutory changes would be considered in later committee deliberations should stakeholders return with a jointly developed technical solution or new funding request.