A bill in the state House would change the way legal notices are handled, removing them from newspapers and putting them on the Internet. Such a move potentially would have serious negative consequences, limiting the public's right to know what government is doing.

Some lawmakers in Harrisburg support eliminating the requirement that legal notices be published in the physical newspaper, allowing such notices instead to appear on municipality Web sites. But while such a change might suit politicians, it would not benefit the public.

Clearly, newspapers have a financial interest in seeing legal notices remain in their print editions. But recognizing that up front does not negate the negative consequences of the proposed change.

There could be serious negative consequences to removing legal notices from newspapers. Proponents of the bill (House Bill 1757) say it is intended to save money for municipalities and school districts.

But in a letter to the editor in Monday's Butler Eagle, Beverly Schenck of Center Township noted that legal advertisements amounted to less than 1 percent of Center's budget. And that reflects the average across the state.

Beyond the bill's cost-saving argument, it also is possible that some state lawmakers view the removal of legal advertising revenue as a means of striking back at state newspapers that were involved in uncovering, or printing stories on, political corruption in Harrisburg and around the state.

Both the Bonusgate scandal and the corruption charges surrounding former state Sen. Vincent Fumo were triggered by newspaper reports. State and federal prosecutors followed up with investigations and prosecution, but newspapers uncovered the crimes and broke the stories. Some state lawmakers might take satisfaction in hurting newspapers financially as payback for newspapers' snooping into Harrisburg's business and providing widespread coverage of political misdeeds.

Beyond arguments over the motive for the proposal, there are serious problems with it.

There might be cost savings, but costs will not disappear. If municipalities do not publish their legal notices in newspapers, they must publish those notices on their own Web sites. But the costs of starting and maintaining a Web site are significant.

It also should be noted that legal ads already are on the Internet. Most legal ads appear free on the Web at www.mypublicnotices.com. Also, most newspapers already include legal notices on their own Web sites.

Critics of the bill also have pointed out that while computers and Internet access are in many homes, they are not universal. Many Pennsylvanians, mostly older and rural, do not have computers or Internet access.

And, older citizens tend to be the ones who attend public meetings. Meeting notices on municipality Web sites probably would mean fewer citizens attending meetings, and questioning public officials.

Public officials might appreciate that outcome, but it would not be good for democracy.

Strictly Web-based public notices would mean the public would have to actively seek out and track down legal notices — on multiple municipalities' Web sites.

In contrast to that, newspapers deliver legal ads from all local municipalities printed together. Under HB 1757, legal notices would effectively be hidden on different Web sites. And if some public officials wanted to keep the public in the dark, they might intentionally place the legal notices in hard-to-find parts of a Web site.

These issues hint at the biggest negative to Web-only legal ads — the system could be gamed and there would be no way to prove if or when a legal notice appeared on a Web site.

There is no doubt when a legal ad has been published in a newspaper. The physical newsprint with the date on the top of the page provides concrete proof of publication. This can be an issue because of legal requirements for adequate advance notice given for meetings.

With a Web-based system, as proposed by HB 1757, there would be no way to prove that a particular legal ad appeared. It would not be possible to prove when it appeared or whether it appeared for an hour, a day — or ever. With a newspaper there is no doubt.

Another potential problem arises if local officials were inclined to favor certain vendors when soliciting bids. Preferred vendors could be given an advantage in gaining access to a bid request notice on the Web site. With legal notices printed in newspapers, such favoritism is impossible.

With so many negative aspects to legal notices on the Internet only, Harrisburg officials should reject this proposal. If cost control is the true motivation, then discounted advertising rates might be a solution.

The potential for abuse, gaming the system and the inability to verify publication on the Web are serious flaws and should defeat HB 1757.