|
Posted by: Kim_Hamilton on 10/05/2011 08:20 PM
Updated by: Kim_Hamilton on 10/05/2011 08:20 PM
Expires: 01/01/2016 12:00 AM
:
Letter to the Editor~by David Tunno
The "Verdict" is in Regarding the Legality of the "Legals."....Much has been made of the contract the BOS awarded to The Enterprise for the publication of the legal announcements, mostly from Darren Spellman who called it an "illegal" contract and encouraged a competing paper, the Valley Springs News to sue the county over that contract award. Spellman based his position on the fact that The Enterprise is not printed in the county. It took very little effort to prove he is wrong.....
For a paper to be awarded such a contract, California requires that it be an "adjudicated" paper (A.K.A. a "newspaper of general circulation") and there are several CA codes that describe the requirements, but two that are relevant to this issue. They are CA Government Codes 6000 and 6008.
Code 6000 does, indeed, require the paper to be printed, as well as published in the county (the codes also define "printed" and "published"). Code 6000 does not require the paper to have a "substantial distribution of paid subscribers," and would clearly apply to the Valley Springs News.
Code 6008, on the other hand, includes the "substantial distribution" requirement, but does not include the requirement that the paper be printed in the county. So, Code 6008 applies to The Enterprise. The upshot is that there are two different codes that have two different sets of requirements and apply to two different types of papers. Either type is eligible for such a county contract.
An assistant to State Senator Ted Gaines confirmed the above facts with the aid of an attorney, who also cited a California Appeals Court ruling from 1995 on precisely this issue. The whole business took very little time to research and confirm.
Another aspect of the issue is the fact that the contract to The Enterprise was for more money than was the bid from the Valley Springs News. That is a different and separate issue, but the facts clearly contradict the assertion that the contract is "illegal."
David Tunno
|
| Comments - Make a comment |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content. We value free speech but remember this is a public forum and we hope that people would use common sense and decency. If you see an offensive comment please email us at news@thepinetree.net
|
| What's Related |
| These might interest you as well
Local News
|
|
|
