OOPS, my typo caused misspelled name of California's Governer. Should read Governor Davis, not David. Corrections have been made below. Mary -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Senate Bill 1614 - "Did you notice this ?" Deborah, The intent of the bill is to prevent our use of indexes for birth and death until all maiden names of mothers and the Soc. Sec. number have been stripped from the millions of names already in the indexes. And that could take years and lots of money the counties simply cannot afford. However, in the reference you posted, I think it means when we want to PURCHASE a certificate (as opposed to searching the index) since it states "...upon receipt of a request that reasonably identifies the record...." (and how can we do that without the indexes?!!!) This language seems completely conflicting, and also unnecessary inasmuch as we must now complete a form showing the information about the record we want, sign it and give our address and phone number in order to purchase a certificate from county Recorder's Offices and/or from the State Vital Records office in Sacramento. Previously in the bill, all references have been to the indexes for birth and death. This now seems to refer to actually purchasing the actual record - not to view the index. I suspect Governor Davis and the legislator he has pushing this bill - and the legislators who have so far voted in favor of it - have absolutely no idea how potentially destructive this bill can be. It's too bad legislators ( and governors) try to change things without more knowoledge about what it is they are attempting to change. The reasons they give are so ridiculous it makes one wonder what little secrets are they afraid someone will find out about them? Certainly no criminal-minded person would attempt to create a false identify by leaving a paper trail such as is required now in order to get a record. It's easier to pay a few dollars and get the falseidentity printed as some print shop that is able to do that. And there are many near the Mexican border - and probably elsewhere also. This bill means the indexes from the beginning - from 1905 forward! What's next - the burning or restriction of our access to old newspapers where maiden names of brides are found in wedding announcements, maiden name of mothers, names of their chlldren, etc. And will our county history books be next? What about school history books - the biographies that give maiden names of women? In my humble opinion this bill is ridiculous and unnecessary. Mary Inglis Deborah wrote: > > Did I read this wrong? > > ANALYSIS : The Public Records Act requires a state or > local agency to disclose public records that are not > otherwise exempt from disclosure to the public, upon > receipt of a request that reasonably identifies the record > and payment of a fee to cover costs. The act further > requires that the requested non-exempt record, if available > in electronic format, be provided in that format when > requested by any person, except under specified circumstances. > > "Payment of fee to cover costs" ........ does that mean we can not go to > the county recorder's and look at the records anymore? > > Deborah