[Michlib-l] SB 571

[Mutch, Andrew]

My apologies for the duplication of messages. I sent this earlier in the week but it appears to have gotten stuck in the queue because MichLib only had my "old" e-mail address registered to the list. The points I made still stand, they're just duplicative of some comments that actually made it to the list that were sent from my "new" address.

Andrew Mutch

From: michlib-l-bounces at mcls.org [mailto:michlib-l-bounces at mcls.org] On Behalf Of Mutch, Andrew
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:30 PM
To: 'Pam Withrow'
Cc: michlib-l at mcls.org
Subject: Re: [Michlib-l] SB 571

Pam,

The Governor's is free to share his interpretation of the language in the law. He states:

"The new language in subsection (3) only applies when local governmental entities use taxpayer resources to distribute mass communications concerning ballot questions. As I interpret this language, it is intended to prohibit communications that are plain attempts to influence voters without using words like "vote for" or "support."

However, if you read the language of the law, it makes no such distinction. Specifically, it reads:

"...a public body, or a person acting for a public body, shall not, during the period 60 days before an election in which a local ballot question appears on a ballot, use public funds or resources for a communication by means of radio, television, mass mailing, or prerecorded telephone message if that communication references a local ballot question and is targeted to the relevant electorate where the local ballot question appears on the ballot."

There's no qualifier about "plain attempts to influence voters". The plain language of the law forbids any communications that reference "a local ballot question" and "is targeted to the relevant electorate". The Governor's interpretation doesn't really make sense anyways because there's already language in the law that prohibits the kind of advocacy that he states the new language was intended to address. That is likely why this new language doesn't include that distinction. It wasn't intended to continue to allow factual information to be distributed, it was intended to cut off the flow of information. I would also note that the Governor is not the one potentially facing a fine or jail for violating this new provision if someone decides to challenge the communications sent out by a local unit of government.

As I read the language of the law, the prohibition appears to cover:

-          Any mass mailing (mail or facsimile of more than 500 pieces of mail) by a public body to voters or residents within 60 days of an election that references a local ballot proposal. The language appears to outlaw even stating that there's a proposal on the ballot or simply including the ballot language.

-          Any program or slide on a local public access channel that references a local ballot proposal that is directed at voters. Some have asked whether this would cover broadcasts of general public meetings that reference ballot proposals. I think one could argue that those are not "targeted" and so the limitation wouldn't apply to those broadcasts so long as the primary purpose of the meeting was not about the local ballot proposal (a regularly scheduled library board or city council meeting).

-          Any robocall that references a local ballot proposal.

I know that some in the library community have raised concerns about personal interactions with patrons. The language is limited to the means of communications as delineated in the new section. Communications that fall outside those limitations, such as one-on-one interactions with patrons, do not appear to be prohibited by that language.

Of note is that none of the prohibitions appear to apply to Internet-based communication. It appears that a public body could continue to use its web site, social networking sites and mass e-mailings (mass mailing is defined in the law as applying to postal mail and faxes) to disseminate information about a local ballot proposal without running afoul of this new language. David Conklin also mentioned billboards. The new section states that it applies to "communication by means of radio, television, mass mailing, or prerecorded telephone message". Since a billboard doesn't fall under the definition of any of those means, it would appear those are safe to use too. But any public body seeking to share information about a local ballot proposal should talk to the attorneys first.

My 2 cents - I'm not an attorney!

Andrew Mutch
My comments are my opinion and may not reflect those of my employer.



From: michlib-l-bounces at mcls.org<mailto:michlib-l-bounces at mcls.org> [mailto:michlib-l-bounces at mcls.org] On Behalf Of Pam Withrow
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 12:41 PM
To: michlib-l at mcls.org<mailto:michlib-l at mcls.org>
Subject: [Michlib-l] SB 571

Hello Everyone,

Because we have a millage coming up in March, we've been watching this legislation pretty closely.  Governor Snyder offered a letter of clarification that should help put librarian minds at ease.  http://www.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/SB_571_signing_letter_510083_7.pdf

Thank you,

Pamela Withrow, Director
Forsyth Township Public Library
180 W. Flint St.
PO Box 1328
Gwinn, MI 49841
906-346-3433

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail3.mcls.org/pipermail/michlib-l/attachments/20160113/4e1e5875/attachment.html>