Cecil County Ad War, Part 2: Pats on Back for Broomell, and The Guardian
Cecil County taxpayers are getting a significant cost break on legal advertising of properties that are delinquent on their county property taxes, thanks to competition to the Cecil Whig. And County Commissioner Diana Broomell (R-4) gets a “pat on the back” for being technically and legally right on her contentious challenges on the issue.
But if the county government had bowed down from the outset of Broomell’s demands—to ban the upstart weekly printed newspaper, the Cecil Guardian, from bidding—the established print newspaper, the Cecil Whig, would have continued its monopoly on county government legal advertising, which yielded the Whig and its parent company over $151,000 last year in taxpayer-provided funds.
However, as a result of perceived competition from the Guardian, the Whig recently slashed its advertising rates in order to get a lucrative deal with the independently elected county Treasurer to print the listings of properties that have not yet paid their property taxes. So even though the Guardian didn’t get this ad placement, the mere fact of its competition with the Whig netted substantial cost savings to county citizens.
Broomell had supported the Whig’s original, much higher bid, saying the Guardian did not meet legal tests required for county legal advertising. She also excoriated the Guardian for editorial and news content she called “propaganda” that she said county funds should not support. The Guardian’s editorials and letters to the editor pages have often published content critical of Broomell’s actions as a public official.
[SEE previous Cecil Times report here: http://ceciltimes.com/2012/04/special-report-cecil-county-newspaper-ad-wars-taxpayer-at-stake/ ]
At issue is the annual publication of homes and businesses that have not paid property taxes to the county. By law, the Treasurer must publish—four times—the list of delinquent properties before they are put up for public auction for non-payment of taxes due. (In reality, most of the properties are eventually redeemed by their owners, and they must pay fees including the costs of advertising the properties at the tax sale. So county taxpayers only temporarily pay the costs of the ads and the landowners eventually pay the cost as part of their redemption fees.)
The Cecil Whig originally proposed an ad rate of $46.75 per property listing, plus a $500 fee for headers and footers on ad pages. In contrast, The Guardian proposed a much cheaper fee of $35 per property listing, with no other fees.
County Treasurer Bill Feehley initially recommended giving the advertising contract to the Guardian because of its cheaper costs, after he obtained independent legal advice that the Guardian met legal standards for county ads in a general circulation newspaper. In addition, the county attorney held the Guardian met the standards and a Circuit Court judge ruled last summer that the Guardian weekly newspaper qualified as a publisher of legal ads.
But Broomell challenged the lawyers and the judge, siding with a lawyer for the Whig that contested the Guardian’s qualification under one legal standard—being qualified for “second class” postal mailing privileges.
Although state law sets that standard for qualification of newspaper legal ads, in fact, the US Postal Service did away with the second class mailing category over a decade ago.
After a contentious worksession of the County Commissioners on the legal ads issue a few weeks ago, the Cecil Whig came back with a proposal to cut its rates dramatically, by $20.25 per listing–to be even lower than The Guardian– with a fee of $26.50 per property listing and no other fees. Of course, by that time the Whig knew what the Guardian was proposing and cut its own proposal accordingly.
Feehley told Cecil Times that the Whig claimed that its January ad fee proposal wasn’t really a formal bid and insisted it be allowed to put in a new bid—after The Guardian’s proposal had been reported here. Feehley said he required that the Whig put its proposal into a sealed envelope that he would not open until The Guardian put in a new bid, too, if it chose to do so.
But when The Guardian did not come back with a new proposal, he opened the envelope and went with the suddenly reduced Whig proposal, so people buying the printed Whig are seeing the property tax sale listings as of a few days ago.
“We got what we wanted: a cheaper cost for the citizens of Cecil County,” Feehley told Cecil Times.
Bill DeFreitas, publisher of the Guardian, told Cecil Times he had a “bulk mail” permit from the Postal Service which amounts to the old 2nd class category that no longer exists. He said he has filed paperwork to obtain a bulk mail “periodical” designation for mailing that should satisfy his critics.
Meanwhile, Commissioner Broomell is strutting her technical victory, stating that the Guardian did not meet all legal standards, despite the ruling of a Circuit Court judge, and the opinions of the county attorney and an independent legal advisor consulted by Feehley, who all found the Guardian met the rules for county legal ads.
In written comments submitted to Cecil Times on Friday, she wrote, “… the Guardian agreed to pull out and said they would be applying for the Periodical (second class) Permit which is necessary to qualify as a newspaper of record. It was only after I did the research and provided the necessary information from USPS and Judge Bell – not our attorney, Norm Wilson. If we had listened to Mr. Wilson, Commissioner Hodge and Bill DeFreitas, Cecil County Government could have been sued for publishing public notices in a free newspaper which is not a newspaper of record.”
DeFreitas has challenged that characterization of the Guardian, stating that it has paid subscribers via mail and it is generally available at outlets all over Cecil County. However, most of the Guardian’s readers obtain it for free at restaurants and convenience stores.
A week ago, Broomell launched into a brief public tirade against county attorney Norman Wilson on the legal ads issue, claiming that his legal advice—including citation of a Circuit Court judge’s ruling that the Guardian qualified for publication of legal ads—amounted to “incompetence” or he was “negligent” in his duties. Her outburst was quickly questioned by fellow Commissioner Tari Moore (R-2), who declared a “point of order” several times before Board President James Mullin (R-1) eventually defused the situation by saying a ‘personnel’ matter should be discussed behind closed doors.
In recent conversations with Cecil Times, Broomell has complained that she does not get credit for saving taxpayers’ money or doing the right thing. As we told her—with a real pat on the back—yes, she was right that the Guardian did not cross all the T’s in its bid for legal ads, as it ultimately turned out. But if the Guardian had not gotten into the fray, the Whig would have had no competitive incentive to cut its monopolistic ad rates.
We also told her that she has many interesting ideas but the problem is not what she hopes to accomplish, but the way she goes about it. Calling people names, demanding that fellow commissioners vote immediately on her proposals with nothing in writing before them, and accusing others of ethical misconduct without clearly documented evidence does not render her omnipotent or even modestly correct.
[See also previous Cecil Times report on political attacks by Commissioner Dunn against The Guardian and some fellow county Commissioners over the legal ad issue, here:
http://ceciltimes.com/2012/03/cecil-county-commish-dunn-broomell-launch-partisan-snipes-at-colleague-candidates/
In spite of the controversy in the issue, the real winners are the taxpayers. Since the deliquent tax notices were printed and mailed quite some time ago, we need to follow up to make sure these rate savings are indeed passed on to those taxpayers.
The Treasurer chooses the publisher and deserves any credit due. Sad that he caved to Broomella, who deserves no credit because she was using her public office to harm the Cecil Guardian for (well deserved) criticism of her. The Cecil Whig should have been held to its original “not really a bid” bid. Queen Bromella the Bully strikes again.
Well, as far as Broomella, the old saying goes: “Even a blind pig can occasionally find an acorn.” Or in this case her own agenda just HAPPENED to create a savings to the tax payers because the Whig was SCARED of losing its monopoly. The WHIG sees the Guardian as LEGITIMATE competition (justifiably so). So as far as Broomella goes, she got lucky with this one but NOT for the right reasons! 😉
WE win and so does Cecil County. Thank you Commissioner Broomell.Next year they may be three bids and the price will even be lower.
So the Cecil Whig is not the only newspaper of record. Thanks for agreeing. Next year let’s have an honest, ethical bidding process where the Whig does not get to submit a second bid after seeing the Cecil Guardian bid.
Also to Treasurer Feehly!
Just a few clarifications:
I supported competition and welcomed bids from the Herald because they have a periodical permit (previously second class matter). Because it was challenged that they did not provide strong enough coverage in the southern end of the county, they now have 3 additional locations which, I believe, now makes them eligible to also bid.
This is not a direct cost to the taxpayers. The advertising cost is ultimately reimbursed to the county. The importance of advertising in a newspaper of record, however, is that the property owner will know it went to tax sale. If we post in a newspaper that is found later to not qualify, the county could be sued not to mention very angry property owners that may not have received proper notice.
Why did I have to request an update to this story? If you were a responsible journalist, you would have reported the news. Mr. Wilson justified his decision on a Judge’s opinion but admitted that Judges make mistakes. The questions he was asked to research were what qualifies as a newspaper of record and what permit is the newspaper required to have? Instead he called 1-800-Ask-USPS and received a clerk’s opinion. After I called the same number the clerk admitted he really didn’t know enough about this issue and referred me to USPS Consumer Affairs and I spoke with Belinda Yates who verified that second class matter is now a periodical permit. I also found an opinion from Judge Bell that referenced free newspapers (those not receiving more than 50% of their revenue from subscriptions) are not newspapers of record.
I don’t mind that you have a blog but this slanted reporting is being presented as the news and it consistently leaves out the facts. But then again, you’re not a newspaper of record and this is America where you have freedom of speech. It’s up to the public to make that distinction and if you don’t allow others to weigh in with differing opinions, the public is deceived. And that brings me to my biggest concern about your blog – many have tried to weigh in but you have blocked their posts if it doesn’t support your agenda.
Great that you support the Herald. I don’t believe that you are qualified to declare them a “newspaper of record.” That Mr. Wilson based his decision on a Judge’s opinion seems sensible to me. I suggest that a Judge’s opinion trumps yours. Judges do make mistakes, which is why we have courts of appeal. Both the Guardian and Cecil Times state the facts, not your version of the facts. I recall situations where you successfully amended minutes of RECORDED MEETINGS so as to bolster your positions. Shameful that Mullin and Dunn voted with you. The public, boards and commissions, as well as your fellow commissioners have been deceived by you.
Do you think it is ethical for the Cecil Whig to be allowed to submit a second bid, claiming that the first was “not really a bid”?
Try to ignore your personal bias towards “do-overs”.
Ms. Broomell,
We have published your comments in full, just as we have repeatedly published comments from Ted Patterson (AKA “Tidewater”) who disagrees with us all the time. We do not censor comments from those who disagree with our reporting. We do, however, choose not to publish comments such as some that just name-call and tell people, by name, to “take a long walk off a short pier” since such comments do not advance a civil debate on public issues. Contrary to the impression you are trying to create, no comments on this article have NOT been published. All commenters have been posted.
Furthermore, no one else but the Cecil Times has published multiple articles on the ongoing fight over newspaper ad wars. The Cecil Whig has been 100 percent silent. Of course, we are sure that has nothing to do with their vested interest in keeping the $152,000 a year monopoly the Whig has had on county advertising, a monopoly that relies on a majority 3-2 vote of the county commissioners.
We are amused that you think it is “slanted reporting” that we gave you a “pat on the back.” Did you want a dozen roses, hand delivered?
While Mr. Wilson may have indicated that judges make mistakes, the ruling by the court has not been appealed and overturned, thus it is de facto the final ruling. Now Commissioner Broomell may publicly disagree with the ruling, but no public challenge by a commissioner or lawyers, be they representing the Whig or the Treasurer’s office, changes the fact of the ruling by the court.
If Commissioner Broomell wanted to follow the rule of law, she could have put up her own funds along with those of the person who initiated the original suit, provided he/she agreed, and appealed the decision of the court.
Commissioner Broomell,
I expect you will keep tabs on the advertising cost per ad and follow up with the amount that has been charged to each delinquent property – and make sure those property owners receive full credit on their redemption bill l for the difference between what they were charged originally when they were billed and the new rate. It is only right – and it IS a direct cost to the taxpayers if properties are not redeemed.
I’m glad you welcomed bids from competing newspapers. However, to say the Herald is a “newspaper of general circulation” because they have distributed in 3 new locations below the canal in the past few months is premature. Let’s evaluate their performance in a year.