Legislature debates modernizing public‑notice rules after concerns about reach and Guam Public Notice website

Senators spent more than three hours debating a bill to modernize Guam’s public‑notice law, with lawmakers split over whether digital publication rules would actually reach the island’s local population.

The measure would expand the statutory definitions of “newspaper of general circulation” and “eligible media platform” to include electronic newspapers and qualified digital media platforms. Senator (Barragada), who proffered an amendment, read an alternative definition on the floor: “public notice as used in this chapter means a publication by newspaper of general circulation or by another eligible media platform, which is reasonably calculated to provide notice of the facts it announces to the local public at large, which is independently verifiable and by electronic publication in the Guam public notice website.”

That amendment aimed to remove a 15% audience threshold baked into the original text and to emphasize notice to the local population. Supporters of the amendment said the 15% metric could be satisfied by narrow audiences — for example, military populations or transient visitors — while the broader local public might remain uninformed. A senator supporting the amendment warned that setting a numeric threshold “undermines the purpose of open government law” and said the amendment was intended to “strengthen” that law. Opponents said the bill’s aim is modernization and that websites and electronic editions are already contemplated by the author.

Debate focused on three practical points: how an audience percentage would be measured, whether the Guam Public Notice website would remain an eligible platform, and whether the island’s only printed daily would meet new numerical thresholds. Senators noted inconsistent data during the debate: one member said the Guam Daily Post’s print circulation was 8,000 with about 8,000 online readers (a point of information that yielded an asserted total of roughly 16,000); another senator later read a February metrics report showing 64,491 website visitors for the Guam Daily Post. Opponents argued the bill’s language was vague because it does not say whether the audience threshold must be maintained continuously, averaged, or measured at a single point in time.

Senators also raised a legal concern about excluding the Guam Public Notice website. A senator opposing the original bill said the site “serves as an official online repository which provides a record for public notices” and argued that the bill’s requirement that eligible websites be components of companies licensed to do business on Guam placed the public notice website at risk of exclusion.

On the floor: a proffered amendment (time stamped 01:58 p.m.) to emphasize notice to the “local public at large” and to remove the 15% threshold failed after a show of hands. A later motion to send the bill back to committee also failed after objection and a hand vote. The author then moved the measure to third reading and that motion carried; the bill was placed on the third‑reading voting file as amended by committee and floor action.

Why it matters: public‑notice requirements determine how the government meets statutory duties to inform residents about hearings, foreclosures, probate notices and other official actions. Several senators expressed concern that shifting notice primarily to digital platforms without clear verification standards could raise due‑process and access problems for residents who are not reached by the chosen media.

Looking ahead: the measure was advanced to third reading for a later legislative vote. Senators asked for clearer language on how audience thresholds will be measured, who will perform “independent verification,” and explicit preservation of the Guam Public Notice website as an eligible platform.