[Michlib-l] SB 571

Wed Jan 13 14:19:50 EST 2016

But public funds do include our salaries and wages, correct?  

Melissa Armstrong

Assistant Director

Caro Area District Library

840 W Frank Street

Caro, Michigan 48723

989-673-4329 ext. 107

melissa at carolibrary.org

Signature SizeCaro-Area-District-Library-Logo

From: michlib-l-bounces at mcls.org [mailto:michlib-l-bounces at mcls.org] On
Behalf Of Jeanette Marks
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:58 PM
To: michlib-l at mcls.org; arrasm at charlottelibrary.org
Subject: Re: [Michlib-l] SB 571

Marlena, I interpreted the new bill in much the same way. There is
redundancy and I see ways for libraries to finagle around it. I'm not an
attorney and these opinions are my own.

Jeanette Marks, Managing Librarian
Bay County Library System
Pinconning Branch Library
218 Kaiser St.
Pinconning, MI  48650
PH  989-879-3283 ext. 207
FAX 989-879-5669
jmarks at baycountylibrary.org

  _____  

From: arrasm at charlottelibrary.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:53 PM
To: michlib-l at mcls.org
Subject: Re: [Michlib-l] SB 571 

Ok, I wasn't going to join in but now I'm curious if anyone else noticed the
same thing. To me, the new language is only prohibiting the "use of public
funds or resources" for communication. If, say, your Millage Committee is
paying for a mass-mailing or some other form of communication with their own
funds that they acquired by fundraising or whatever, then I don't see it as
a violation. No "public funds" were used.  Granted, I didn't think a public
body could use their own funds anyway so this "new" law seems a bit
redundant. 

In addition, as long as the communication doesn't specifically "reference a
local ballot question" and just gives out factual information regarding the
library, I don't see that it violates this "new" law either. Again, a bit of
redundancy. 

In short, I believe that as long as public funds are not used for the
communication, any communication may be done. If public funds are used, then
the communication can't reference a local ballot question. That is my take
anyway. Granted, I'm not an attorney either. 

Am I missing something?

Marlena Arras

Director of Financial Services

Charlotte Community Library

226 S Bostwick

Charlotte MI  48813

(517) 543-8859

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' <pwithrow at uproc.lib.mi.us>
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:  <mailto:michlib-l-bounces at mcls.org> 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:  <mailto:michlib-l at mcls.org> 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/20160113/303ab3e1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17466 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail3.mcls.org/pipermail/michlib-l/attachments/20160113/303ab3e1/attachment.png>