Commissioners look at advertising expenses

Newspaper's criticism sparked spending review

Friday, Feb. 5, 2010

In fiscal 2009, Charles County government spent more than $159,000 on advertisements in area newspapers which included job postings, public notices, hearing announcements and solicitations.

Payments for advertising space with the Maryland Independent and its affiliates made up 81 percent of that total, or roughly $128,000, with The Washington Post and Washington Times rounding out the other $31,200 that was charged to the county's account.

The county also spent $2,357 on subscriptions to the Southern Maryland Newspapers, the Post, the Times and the Baltimore Sun.

With a budget of all county funds of about $457.4 million in fiscal 2010, according to the county's Web site, the total spent on advertising represents about three ten-thousandths of the total county budget, about as much as the county spent in 2008 to purchase three SUVs for the commissioners' use (roughly $75,000) and to revamp an auditorium in the government building as a new meeting room for commissioners' meetings (just less than $90,000).

More than $80,000 was spent on public notices and announcements of public hearings in the Independent.

"About half of our expenses were for services usually required by some statute," said Deborah Hudson, the county's director of fiscal and administrative services, during her presentation.

The numbers drew the attention of the county leaders Tuesday as the board discussed pursuing alternative forms of communication with the public while also acting fiscally responsible given the lean economic time.

"I confess I'm stunned by the total number of public money invested in these services," said Commissioner Gary V. Hodge (D). "I'm not suggesting that this entire expenditure could be shifted to another form of public notice. At first glance there are a lot of expenditures that might be necessary."

Hodge was the board member who requested the spending report in mid-December after he and his fellow commissioners publicly criticized an editorial in the Maryland Independent, "The wrong time to discuss raises."

The necessity of these notices and announcements is set forth in statutes, which outline the requirements for posting government news, processes and procedures out in the public, including location and duration.

But as County Attorney Roger Fink pointed out during the briefing, some of these laws are a bit stale as they were "enacted long before the types of technology we have today."

"There are probably other alternatives to getting the word out," Fink said.

While radio, television and online advertising figures were not included in the advertising expenditure presentation, there was discussion on the launch and subsequent embrace of the Internet through which information can be transferred lightning quick and how Web sites — including the county's — have seemingly unlimited amounts of space and connections to link visitors with what they need.

Commissioners' Vice President Edith J. Patterson (D) voiced her concern that while the era of electronic information might be here, not every resident has accepted it as their source for news.

"Charles County is Charles County," Patterson said. "Some people rely on newspapers as their only medium for information. Some people don't have the resources for a computer or the Internet. I'm concerned about leaving people behind."

Charles County commissioners' President F. Wayne Cooper (D) observed that even with the proper amount of notices, hearings, briefings and work sessions, there is always someone who will miss the news, but the commissioner also said he didn't think the county should advertise where it didn't have to.

Hodge suggested that during the upcoming budget plans and following the advisement of the county attorney on the limitations and requirements for public information, the commissioners consider how to inform the public through the most effective means possible and in the most fiscally appropriate manner.

msomers@somdnews.com