Dear Cousins, Beej has privately sent me the following from another group which is very interesting, and which is certainly on target as a subject for our awareness. One of my recent webpages was about my wonderful "new" cousin Pat who was deprived for years by the laws of the state of Michigan about the basic information about her parentage. http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~amxroads/Ptncousins/index.html Similar legislation has been enacted here in Oregon, removing public records from the public. It appears that the only persons entitled to "public" records are the bureaucratic records keepers themselves. Suit was brought by adoptees and they have been given access to the information. However, despite this forced compassionate response for Adoptees, that does not relieve the situation for the rest of us who also have a right to public information but are being deprived of it by "the government." I believe there are many equally repressive laws in other states. Love, Your Cousin, Carolyn Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 13:48:13 -0700 From: Linda McCleary <limccle@lib.az.us> To: AZ-AGCIG-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [AZ-AGCIG] Fwd: California June 5 Legislative Report This is the information from Iris Jones, California State Genealogical Alliance (CSGA) Legislative Network Coordinator, regarding the banning of birth and death records and indexes in California. Please excuse duplication. Linda McCleary FGS/NGS Records Preservation and Access Committee >From: Iris Jones <ijones@accessbee.com> >Subject: June 5 Legislative Report >Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 13:32:18 -0700 > >On Wed, 05 Jun 2002 13:27:40 -0700, Iris Jones <ijones@accessbee.com> wrote: > >LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - JUNE 5, 2002 > >SB1614 has been a busy little bill. Last week it was held in Senate >Appropriations under submission awaiting language on implementing the >financing. On May 30, 2002, we find the author had stripped the >bill of all language leaving only the following, > >"Existing law requires the Director of Health Services, as the State >Registrar of Vital Statistics, to administer the registration of >births, deaths, fetal deaths, and marriages. Existing law requires the >State Registrar to arrange and permanently preserve the certificates >in a systematic manner and to prepare and maintain a comprehensive >and continuous index of all certificates registered. >"This bill would declare the intent of Legislature to enact >legislation to protect the confidentiality of birth and death record >indices." This indicates SB1614 is an 'intent bill' only. It was then >passed through the Appropriations Committee as such on June 3, 2002 >on a vote only. I am told that this is a courtesy legislators afford one >another. It will go to the Senate Floor this week and can pass the >same way. Once in the Assembly the author will have to submit >language. > >WHAT HAPPENED? It would appear that it was the money. The >Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary, states that the cost to the >State registrar of the bill in this form would added up to "more than >$2 million in the first year and major ongoing costs. In addition, the >local mandated costs would have been in the multimillions annually." >This statement speaks volumes. > >WHAT WILL THE AUTHOR DO NEXT? My calls to the Governor's office >andthe Senator's office have yielded no information. Some of my calls >have never been answered. > >WHAT CAN WE DO? At this point absolutely nothing. Until there is >language in the bill, we can only wait and watch. > COMMENTARY: As soon as there is language I will get a report out, >and at that point we can determine what to do next. I think that the >interest and efforts on the part of members of the genealogy and >historical community have been marvelous. For all those who have >passed on and shared their information, written, faxed, called, and >encouraged me --- you are wonderful. They do know we are out here. >But we can not get complacent, we have not won the battle, it has only >been delayed. A retired lobbyist once told me, 'that there is no such >thing as a dead bill.' Right now that is my worst nightmare. > >You should all know that we are not the only ones fighting to save our >indexes, along with the Newspaper Publishers Association, and First >Amendment Coalition, I have been contacted by several estate law >firms, genealogists and organizations from Utah and as far away as >Florida. Also, the Bastard Nations who, like us, are actively fighting >this legislation. I have told them that we are more than happy to >work with them for our mutual goal, to keep public records public. > >OTHER BILLS we are following: SB247, Speier, on certified copies of >birth certificates is now in the Assembly Judiciary. SB1237, Speier, >to prohibit banks from using maiden names as identifiers, is now >in the Assembly Business and Finance Committee. Other bills relating >to privacy are in varying stages within the process. Nation's AB1775 >sponsored by the Governor seem to have met with some problems >and it remains in the Assembly Judiciary 'under submission.' AB2297, >Simitian, relating to privacy on-line commercial sales has moved to >the Senate; AB2922, Simitian, on the gathering of personal information >within state agencies has moved to the Senate Judiciary. Several >others have simply died do to lack of action. It appears that the >finance and insurance institutions' influence is strong enough to >continue to hamper privacy bills. While legislators work to develop >the more expensive 'opt-in options' for the public, the industry >continues to put pressure on to allow the less expensive option of >public to 'opt-out.' Obviously, the cost to company is the >determining factor. > >To follow State Legislation, check the State Web site at >/" EUDORA="AUTOURL"http://www.sen.ca.gov> or order copies from >the Bill Room, State Capital, Sacramento, CA 95814 or call to order >916-445-2323. To be added to my Network, send your name, name of your organization, and E-mail address, to me indicating you wish to >be added to the Legislative Network, <ijones@accessbee.com>.---5 >June 2002, CSGA Legislative Network Coordinator, Iris Carter Jones. >[Permission granted to reprint Legislative reports. Please cite your >source.] Linda Mc