[Michlib-l] SB 571

Wed Jan 13 11:22:32 EST 2016

I'm also not an attorney, however, it seems the key to this whole confusing
issue is the use of "public funds or resources", no matter what the media.
Haven't libraries always been cognizant of this restriction?  It seems
especially pertinent where millage campaigns are involved, to the point that
we met off-site for strategy sessions.

So, as a trustee, my opinion is worth what I'm charging you to read it.  

Deb Lawson

From: michlib-l-bounces at mcls.org [mailto:michlib-l-bounces at mcls.org] On
Behalf Of Mutch, Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:15 AM
To: michlib-l at mcls.org
Subject: Re: [Michlib-l] SB 571

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] On
Behalf Of Pam Withrow
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 12:41 PM
To: 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/e5ad7da5/attachment.html>