Last year's legislation is taking effect. The following public notice was published in the *Auburn Journal* on Friday, June 13th. (Capitalized words are as they appear in the public notice.): * * * * * REQUEST FOR BIRTH OR DEATH RECORD EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003 Beginning July 1, 2003 California Health and Safety Code Section 103526 permits only specific individuals to receive an AUTHORIZED CERTIFIED COPY of a birth or death record. An AUTHORIZED CERTIFIED COPY of a birth record is required to obtain a driver's license, passport, social security card and other services related to an individual's identity. An AUTHORIZED CERTIFIED COPY of a death record may be required to obtain death benefits, claim insurance proceeds, notify social security and obtain other services related to an individual's identity. Please see below for a list of authorized individuals. Those who do not meet the criteria for an AUTHORIZED CERTIFIED COPY may receive an INFORMATIONAL CERTIFIED COPY with the words "INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY" imprinted across the face of the copy. When ordering in person: an authorized individual must complete an approved application, including a signed statement sworn under penalty of perjury to receive an AUTHORIZED CERTIFIED COPY. When ordering by mail: a notarized Certificate of Identity and completed application form, signed under penalty of perjury by the authorized requestor are required. Applications and Certificate of Identity forms are available on our website at www.placer.ca.gov/clerk. Individuals permitted to receive an AUTHORIZED CERTIFIED COPY: * The registrant or a parent or legal guardian of the registrant. * A party entitled to receive the record as a result of a court order, or an attorney or a licensed adoption agency seeking the birth record in order to comply with the requirements of Section 3140 or 7603 of the Family Code. * A member of a law enforcement agency or a representative of another government agency, as provided by law, who is conducting official business. * A child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse or domestic partner of the registrant. * An attorney representing the registrant or the registrant's estate, or any person or agency empowered by statute or appointed by a court to act on behalf of the registrant or the registrant's estate. * Any funeral director that orders certified copies of a death certificate on behalf of any individual specified in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, or subdivision (a) of Section 7100 of the Health and Safety Code. Jim McCauley Placer County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar * * * * * [End of public notice.] After July 1st, when you order birth or death certificates for genealogical use, be sure to order an "Informational Certified Copy," not an "Authorized Certified Copy." This legislation is effective state-wide, not just in Placer County. Thank you to Joyce House, President of the Placer County Genealogical Society, for bringing this notice to my attention. Barbara Leak Research Chair, Placer County Genealogical Society www.pcgenes.com/pcgs.html Treasurer, Genealogical & Historical Council of Sacramento Valley www.sacvalleygenes.org Join us for: "A Golden Prospect" National Genealogical Society's Conference in the States Sacramento Convention Center 19-22 May 2004

Got this web site from another e-mail list. It is for John Charles Fremont's Long Camp, in 1844 http://www.longcamp.com/picture.html George --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

Looking for my Noyes family... they settled at some point in Placer County.  Nettie (Buckingham) and Arthur Noyes married and had children born late 1890's, early 1900's:  Dorothy, Donald, John, Edwin, Margery and Gladdie.  The children raised their families here too...  hoping to find obits and city directory listings to trace down the generations.  Nettie was my great grandma's sister and I know little of her life till now, just starting to learn about her children/grandchildren.  Grandchildren include:  Donald, Richard, Robert, Marjorie, Edwin, Gladys, Vincent and others I have not yet found names on.  Anything sound familiar?   Does Placer County have any marriage indexes searchable by bride's name?   Death indexes searchable if exact year not known?   Any info would be helpful.   Thanks!! Patti

Dear Friend, Shopadelic and its affiliates have teamed up with Marketshare Recovery, Inc., to bring you big, often exclusive savings across the board! As a subscriber you will receive special offers and updates on an ongoing basis. Shopadelic is committed to delivering you a highly rewarding and FREE online experience with special opportunities designed with you in mind. We suggest that you give our mailings a try, risk free! There is never any purchase necessary, and there are no strings attached when you receive mail from a Shopadelic affiliate. You know it's really worth opening! Remember, we provide an instant removal link in all of our mailings so you can always end your subscription at any time with just a click of a button. So check us out! We trust you will enjoy our helpful services. Of course, we also wish to give you the opportunity to opt out of our mailings before you receive a single promotion. Remember, you can always unsubscribe later if you want to learn more about Shopadelic and its partners before making a decision. But if you are sure you are not interested in receiving communications from Shopadelic, you may click the following link to unsubscribe (if you cannot click the link, please paste the following URL into your web browser): http://www.Shopadelic.com/unsub.asp?email=caplacer%2dl%40rootsweb%2ecom If you decide to take no action today, we will begin sending you our great offers! One of the best ways to start saving is by finding low cost providers for your every day bills! Copy and paste the link below to compare prices from LowerMyBills and save up to $400 per year: http://www.qksrv.net/click-661607-4135289

Placer county Roseville appears to be "survivor" of what could have been many others. >From CALIFORNIA PLACE NAMES, Gudde, 1949: "Roseville [Placer]. The name was applied to the station when the Central Pacific reached the place in the spring of 1864. It was chosen by the residents, at a picnic, for the most popular girl present (Sacramento Bee, Oct 20, 1931). Other similar stories are told about the origin of the name, but it is just as possible that it was chosen because of the pleasant sound, like many other Rosevilles then in existence." I believe "sorting out of duplicates" throughout the State came with setting up of Federal postal system. Vern D --- [email protected] wrote: > ATTACHMENT part 1 message/rfc822 > > CAPLACER-D Digest Volume 03 : Issue 12 > > Today's Topics: > #1 [CAPlacer] Roseville in San Diego ["Ronald > R. Powell" <[email protected]] > #2 Re: [CAPlacer] Roseville in San Di ["Fran" > <[email protected]>] > #3 [CAPlacer] Roseville in San Diego ["Lynne > Robinson" <[email protected]] > > Administrivia: > To unsubscribe from CAPLACER-D, send a message to > > [email protected] > > that contains in the body of the message the command > > unsubscribe > > and no other text. No subject line is necessary, > but if your software > requires one, just use unsubscribe in the subject, > too. > > ______________________________ > ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822 > Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:19:57 -0700 > From: "Ronald R. Powell" > <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [CAPlacer] Roseville in San Diego or Placer > County on February 25, 1891 ? > > Hello Everyone: > > Rootsweb.com Town/County Database lists Roseville in > both San Diego or Placer County, California. > > Does anyone know in which county Roseville was > located on February 25, 1891? > > I wish to thank you in advance for your assistance. > > In Christ, > > Ron Powell > > ______________________________ > ATTACHMENT part 3 message/rfc822 > Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:13:27 -0700 > From: "Fran" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CAPlacer] Roseville in San Diego or > Placer County on February 25, 1891 ? > > From the history book "on August 13, 1864, the plat > of a new town call > Roseville was filed with the Placer County > Recorder's Office in Auburn". > Prior to that it was known as "The Junction". > > From Roseville, > Fran > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ronald R. Powell" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:19 AM > Subject: [CAPlacer] Roseville in San Diego or Placer > County on February 25, > 1891 ? > > > > Hello Everyone: > > > > Rootsweb.com Town/County Database lists Roseville > in both San Diego or > Placer County, California. > > > > Does anyone know in which county Roseville was > located on February 25, > 1891? > > > > I wish to thank you in advance for your > assistance. > > > > In Christ, > > > > Ron Powell > > > > > > > > > > ============================== > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion > online genealogy records, > go to: > > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > > ______________________________ > ATTACHMENT part 4 message/rfc822 > Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:02:32 -0700 > From: "Lynne Robinson" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [CAPlacer] Roseville in San Diego or Placer > County on February 25, 1891 ? > > There was a Roseville in San Diego that time [not > now]. See one reference at > http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/56january/railroad.htm > or go to > www.sandiegohistory.org and look for "SAN DIEGO > HISTORICAL SOCIETY > QUARTERLY January 1956, Volume 2, Number 1". > > Lynne Robinson SDGS Queries > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com

Hello Everyone: Rootsweb.com Town/County Database lists Roseville in both San Diego or Placer County, California. Does anyone know in which county Roseville was located on February 25, 1891? I wish to thank you in advance for your assistance. In Christ, Ron Powell

There was a Roseville in San Diego that time [not now]. See one reference at http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/56january/railroad.htm or go to www.sandiegohistory.org and look for "SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL SOCIETY QUARTERLY January 1956, Volume 2, Number 1". Lynne Robinson SDGS Queries

From the history book "on August 13, 1864, the plat of a new town call Roseville was filed with the Placer County Recorder's Office in Auburn". Prior to that it was known as "The Junction". From Roseville, Fran ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronald R. Powell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:19 AM Subject: [CAPlacer] Roseville in San Diego or Placer County on February 25, 1891 ? > Hello Everyone: > > Rootsweb.com Town/County Database lists Roseville in both San Diego or Placer County, California. > > Does anyone know in which county Roseville was located on February 25, 1891? > > I wish to thank you in advance for your assistance. > > In Christ, > > Ron Powell > > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

Just so every one knows, these are the list, that I am sending all these messages to, plus to the county lists where the person lived and/or died. Also I looked at the first listed that they did in June of 1907, and these people were not members, but were pioneers, that they were honoring, on their death. If you like to forward them, to other lists, either other places i.e. states, or to a name list, feel free to do that. CA-CEMETERIES <[email protected]>, CA-GOLDRUSH <[email protected]>, CA-HISTORY <[email protected]>, CA-NORCAL <[email protected]>, CA-SOCAL <[email protected]> In doing a look-up I was checking the Oct 1909, Grizzly Bear, which was the Official organ of the Native Sons of the Golden West, and the Native Daughters of the Golden West, and each month they would listed pioneers who had died recently: Ralph Boles, one of Placer county's oldest Pioneers, died at Auburn recently aged 92 years. In 1850 he came from his native State of Ohio around the isthmus to California. He settled at Rattlesnake Bar, between Auburn and Folsom, and had resided there continuously up to four years ago, when he went to Auburn. Three daughters and a son survive. George --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

I am forwarding the following message to this list as it affects California research and California researchers. Barbara Leak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iris Jones" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: Budget Cuts - State Library CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY BUDGET TO BE CUT BY 38% The Governors proposed budget will cut the operating cost of the State Library by $35.7 million dollars. This is a 38% cut in funding. There will be no funding for any acquisitions. There will be 60 library staff laid off. This is a major lose, leaving the Library so understaffed that many programs will be cut. Just reshelving materials will become a major problem. Just the impact of the proposed cuts has already cost the Library staff as people have left and not waited to be laid off. To make up for lost funding, the Governor has proposed, 'State Library Service User Fee' will charge patrons for a library cards for using the Library. Earlier researchers were told that fee COULD be as high as $100 a month. The figures I am hearing now are much greater. Remember that this will include Sutro Library. It is part of the State Library system. Even when Sutro is moved to the University, it will still be part of the State Library and be manned by Library Staff. The following is a copy of the Senate Budget Hearing re: California State Library with the details. While everyone expects cuts, this is outrageous. This is our State Library. This will create problems which will take years to rectify. Entire departments could be shut down and moth balled for years. By charging extremely high fees for use of our own State Library, it will put the public's ability to use the library out of reach for thousands. Write the Governor and your State Representatives [Senate and Assembly], today. Governor Gray Davis State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-445-4633 [email protected] ------------------------------ Hearing on Monday, April 28, 2003 - Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 - California State Library. Governor's Proposed Budget includes reductions to a variety of programs administered by the California State Library. Proposed amount includes a total of $61.2 million. $35.7 million is from the General Fund, which he claims is a 38% reductions from 2002 budget. In their breakdown of all cuts it totals 49%[the difference is accounted for by the elimination of two programs]. Background: The Library provides library and information services to the legislative and executive branches of state government, members of the public and California public libraries. They also administer and promote literacy outreach programs develops technological systems to improve resource sharing and enhance access to information and administers the Public Library Foundation [They distribute state funding to support basic services at local libraries, to assist in staffing, maintaining hours of operations, develop and expand literacy programs, purchase books, research materials and bookmobiles.] A. Public Library Foundation funding will be cut by 50% [this funding has been reduced by nearly $20 million dollar since 2000-2001.] B. Civil Liberties Education Program will be eliminated (through trailer Bill language). Initially created as a three year program in 1999, and extended for an additional two years. A grant program to develop and disseminate educational material on the exclusion, forced removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans. C. Consolidation of English Language Literacy Programs. There are three programs presently, they will be consolidated and cut by $5.3 million. These are funds that go to local libraries. D. Library of California Program will be eliminated. Designed to connect libraries statewide to share information and resources, required. The funds have never been appropriated. E. Transaction-Based Reimbursements to be eliminated. Actually changed from State reimbursement process to a fee-for-services system. This included 'direct loans' - allowing individuals to borrow materials from libraries anywhere in the State. The fee will be $1 per book. 'Indirect loans' or 'interlibrary loans' will be charged $5 per book to cover costs. *F. California State Library - State Operations. The budget will be cut by $4.7 million (35%). Governor believes the proposed 'State Library Service User Fee' will offset $3 million of this cut. Staff notes: the is not likely: 1. Patrons utilizing service for the blind. These services also receive Federal funds which mandates no fee may be charged. 2 A. great percentage of use is by state agencies and departments, if charged the fee would have to be paid by those agencies, amounts to no saving to the State. The Hearing was attended by State Librarian, Kevin Starr, representatives for the blind and several area professional genealogist. While official testimony was taken, the Chair said they did not want testimony from the audience. Although several did get a chance to speak. The proposal will now go to the Floor of the Senate for a vote. The Assembly has already passed their version. *The Library cuts will be implemented IN-HOUSE by the Library. Another item of interest to researchers is a 20% cut in the funding for the California Newspaper Project, but there is funding of $20,510,000. As I recall, most of this funding originally came from a Federal Grant. May 7, 2003---Iris Carter Jones <[email protected]>

Greetings, I received a query this morning asking why I had posted my most recent message (about the idea of grazing sheep in Pacheco Cemetery as a method to clearing the grounds) to a certain county's list. With the thought that others might have the same question, it occurred to me I should share the following thought. The genealogy mailing lists provide a good way to communicate what is occurring to our precious and valuable historic cemeteries in California. California Saving Graves (CSG) is working very hard to try to bring some respect and protection to these places, many of which are presently endangered or are to a point where abuse and neglect are threatening their very removal. The information contained on gravestones in these cemeteries are invaluable genealogical research tools. The value of the information that the people now "residing" in our California cemeteries is priceless and irreplaceable. Many rest within them for which no marker locates the grave and descendants are left to wonder what happen to them. It is a strangely unique feeling to go to a cemetery to encounter the gravestone of an ancestor for the first time. That feeling is akin to tying the knot that binds us with that ancestor. The gravestone may be the only tangible proof of an ancestor's very existence. Oftentimes cemeteries are the only true links the past many will acquire. In including the genealogy mailing lists, CSG is hoping to engender support for others with cemetery problems. The more people that politicians and lawmakers know are watching these situations, the better the chances are to get them to make the right moves to assist those cemeteries in jeopardy. The Internet and Email gives we, the people, more power to observe and participate in events that affect us in our daily lives and to let our presence and voice be known. We hope you will not only agree that knowing what is going on at the historic cemeteries within California is a valuable service, but will appreciate the chance to be a part of the "cure." In closing, the legal title to the vast majority of the historic cemeteries of our state's earliest communities vested in the public through operation of an 1872 statute known as Political Code Section 3105; excluding, of course, those belonging to religious entities and fraternal associations by recorded deeds. We the people (the public) have the right to defend our title to those places so they do not become abused by counties which ignore the public's legal interest or allow them to fall prey to private cemetery corporations which will undoubtedly (as already has happened many times) take advantage of the fact there are no historic records or maps of all of the burials, especially the unmarked older graves. In those instances, old used graves are being resold for current and future use. We hope you will agree. Sincerely, Sue Silver, State Coordinator California Saving Graves http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/state/ A 4th Generation Californian with roots (and ancestors buried) in: Alameda (Oakland), Amador (Drytown, Forest Home, Jackson), Contra Costa (Pacheco), El Dorado (Drytown, Pilot Hill), Imperial (Brawley, Calexico, El Centro) Los Angeles (Burbank), Riverside (Fontana), Sacramento (Sacramento City), San Bernardino (San Bernardino City), San Diego (Pt. Loma, Penasquitos, Escondido), San Francisco (City), and Sutter (Pleasant Grove) counties.

Re: Pacheco Cemetery, Contra Costa County, CA This message was sent out to the Friends of Pacheco Cemetery which has been trying to persuade the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors that the public acquired title to this cemetery through operation of law. The supervisors refuse to claim the public's legal interest. (For more info, go to: www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/state/Pacheco_Cem.htm. ) A new "owner" just took "possession" of the public's cemetery last week. The following message is meant to query responses to the subject question.... I'm sure Ms. Williams would like to hear from others as to the appropriateness of grazing sheep in a nearly destroyed historic California cemetery. Please send your comments to her at [email protected] She will pass them on to the new "owner." Sue Silver, State Coordinator California Saving Graves ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 1:30 PM Subject: Sheep in the Cemetery? Members..... Mr. Bianco has asked for our input on an idea to "rent" sheep for a time and have them dig out and eat the weeds. It would mean the cemeery would have to be locked for that timeframe, not sure how long, a few weeks? maybe. I told him I'd send the idea out for reaction and get back to him. Let me know, please. Christine

Greetings, As the new State Coordinator, I have recently been working on updating the California Saving Graves website. We hope you will visit the site and take a look at what information is available there. The URL is http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/state/. The ENDANGERED CEMETERY REPORTS have been updated to include two new cemetery reports - PACHECO CEMETERY (Contra Costa County) and HOPETON CEMETERY (Merced County). Of particular interest are the events surrounding the Pacheco Cemetery. This pathetic historic cemetery has been bounced around under private ownership since it was "shed" by the IOOF in the early 1970s. Since 1998, when the owner at that time was ordered out of the cemetery business by the State of California, this cemetery has been left abandoned by the County and the State. The Friends of Pacheco Cemetery performed outstanding research that we believe proves the public acquired legal title to this cemetery through operation of law (former Political Code section 3105). Despite this, the board of supervisors of Contra Costa County has chosen to default in their duty to the public by refusing to claim the public's legal title to this cemetery. This will be an interesting case to follow. Be sure to check the link, More about Pacheco Cemetery. We would like you to let Contra Costa County know that California will be watching as they stand by and let this cemetery fall into yet another set of private hands. There are many lessons to be learned through this one cemetery alone. Please contact Christine Williams, spokesperson for Friends of Pacheco Cemetery if you have family or friends interred in this cemetery. Her email address is [email protected] For the Hopeton Cemetery in Merced County, we included some history on the area. I have already contacted the supervisor of the district where it is located. Supervisor Deidre Kelsey forwarded my inquiry to the Snelling Cemetery District, but I have heard nothing from the district or the supervisor's office since my original inquiry. It may be that the district has not yet met to take up my request for information about the Hopeton Cemetery. In the days and weeks to come I hope to continue adding to this website. There is a lot of information that will help those interested in historic cemetery protection and preservation and it will take some time to add it all. Please visit the site often to check on it's progress. If you should have any questions about the website, about California Saving Graves or about becoming a County Coordinator for your county, please feel free to contact me. I would also like to thank all the people who have expressed appreciation for my efforts on behalf of our state's historic cemeteries. As I have said to them personally, this is not something I do alone. Your support and response has been extremely helpful and valuable. Together we, as Californian's, CAN make a difference in how the old grave yards and cemeteries of our ancestors are treated. They are irreplaceable historical and cultural resources. They must be protected and preserved for the generations to come. Sincerely, Sue Silver, State Coordinator California Saving Graves Email: [email protected]

Hello - Thanks to all who sent emails voicing your concerns about Section 9055 that allows public cemetery districts to sell ("convey") a district's cemetery to another cemetery authority. The Chair of the Senate Local Government Committee made some amendments to Sec. 9055 when this bill came before that committee for its vote. The amended text follows this message. We were not successful in having Sec. 9055 deleted or it's predecessor Sec. 8963.5 (Health and Safety Code) repealed. Senator Torlakson's amended text, however, does provide some safeguards; though we would have preferred to see these public cemeteries remain in public hands. We will be watching this bill as it moves through the next processes and will contact you again if there is a need to voice opposition to any future amended language. Thank you all again for responding to the Committee regarding this matter. Sincerely, Sue Silver, State Coordinator California Saving Graves AMENDED SECTION 9055: 9055. (a) A district may convey a cemetery owned by the district to any cemetery authority, pursuant to this section. (b) The board of trustees of a district that proposes to convey a cemetery owned by the district to a cemetery authority shall adopt a resolution of intention that contains: (1) A description of the cemetery that the district proposes to convey. (2) The name of the cemetery authority to which the district proposes to convey the cemetery. (3) An appendix that reports the cemetery's current assets and current liabilities and contains a reasonable projection of the district's ability to finance the ownership, improvement, expansion, and operation of the cemetery in the future. (4) The terms and conditions of the proposed conveyance. The terms and conditions shall require that the all of the following: (A) The cemetery authority maintain the cemetery as a endowment care cemetery pursuant to Sections 8738 and 8738.1. The terms and conditions shall provide for appropriate consideration. (4) A statement of the facts justifying the proposed conveyance. (B) Appropriate consideration, as determined by the board of trustees. (C) A restriction in the deed that conveys the cemetery to the cemetery authority that will permit the district or another public agency as the district's successor in interest to enter the cemetery and perform any repairs, restoration, or maintenance that the district or its successor deems necessary to protect the public interest, and will require the cemetery authority to reimburse the district or its successor for those costs. (D) Any other terms and conditions that the board of trustees determines to be necessary to protect the public interest in the cemetery. (5) A declaration that the proposed conveyance is in the public interest and in the best interests of the district. (c) The board of trustees shall send its resolution of intention to the board of supervisors of the principal county. (d) Within 60 days of receiving a resolution of intention adopted pursuant to subdivision (b), the board of supervisors shall hold a public hearing on the proposed conveyance. The board of supervisors shall give notice of its hearing by publishing a notice pursuant to Section 6061 6064 of the Government Code in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction of the district with the first day of publication at least 10 30 days before the hearing. The board of supervisors shall post the public notice in at least three public places within the jurisdiction of the district, at least 10 30 days before the hearing. One of the public places shall be at the cemetery that the district proposes to convey, and one of the public places shall be at the offices of the district. In addition, the board of supervisors shall mail the notice at least 10 30 days before the hearing to the district, the cemetery authority, and any other person who has filed written request for notice with the clerk of the board of supervisors. (e) At its hearing, the board of supervisors shall receive and consider any written or oral comments regarding the proposed conveyance of the cemetery. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of supervisors shall make a finding regarding the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn and take one of the following actions: (1) If the written protests filed and not withdrawn are at least 50 percent of the registered voters of the district or property owners owning at least 50 percent of the assessed value of the land within the district, the board of supervisors shall adopt a resolution that terminates the proceedings to convey the cemetery. (2) If the written protests filed and not withdrawn are less than 50 percent of the registered voters of the district or property owners owning less than 50 percent of the assessed value of the land within the district, the board of supervisors may by a four-fifths vote adopt a resolution that concurs in the conveyance of the cemetery to the cemetery authority. (f) The board of supervisors shall send copies of its resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (e) to the district and the cemetery authority. (g) If the board of supervisors adopts a resolution that concurs in the proposed conveyance of the cemetery, the board of trustees may order the conveyance of the cemetery to the cemetery authority, subject to the terms and conditions set by the board of trustees and concurred in by the board of supervisors.

Hello all, I want to thank everyone who has responded to my prior requests to send messages opposing SB 341 because of the effect of Section 9055. The response has been terrific! I was contacted again today by the Committee's consultant, Peter Detwiler. Mr. Detwiler and I discussed this matter a little more, and it became apparent to me that he felt the committee would vote to approve SB 341 as written. He pointed out that the proposed language is superior in placing requirements on the public cemetery district's over that which is presently on the books (Health and Safety Code section 8963.5). He is correct in that assessment. Mr. Detwiler said that if the committee struck the proposed section 9055, that would leave section 8963.5 in place. In a question recently posed to the Working Group and Advisors, Mr. Detwiler asked "Should the Committee Adopt More Reforms?" (related to Section 9055). I have again reviewed the list of potential additional restrictions and believe that if we were to request the Committee to add them, this will be the best we can hope for at this time. They are: 1. Require a district to prepare a public report on the assets and liabilities of the cemetery it proposes to sell. 2. Expand the public notice for the county supervisors' hearing: publish the newspaper notice once a week for four weeks; post the notices for four weeks; and mail individual notices to the owners of the cemetery plots. 3. Require the county supervisors to either turn down the proposed sale or call an election of the district's voters, if the protests reach 25% of either the district's voters or landowners. 4. Increase the county supervisors' approval from a 4/5-vote to a unanimous vote. 5. Require the district to impose a deed restriction on the sale that would allow the district to reassert control if the new owner failed to properly maintain the cemetery. I feel these provisions would help strengthen the proposed section 9055 and place tighter restrictions on district's that might wish to sell (convey) a cemetery to another cemetery authority. With the above five items, I think the district's will be less likely to consider this option in the first place. I am recommending that we change our course at this time and seek the addition of the five items above. If you concur, please cut and paste the following text and send it to Peter Detwiler at [email protected], also copying me at [email protected] Should you have any questions, please contact me direct. I will be attending the hearing this coming Wednesday and would be happy to express any additional concerns you might send to me. Thank you for your continuing support on this issue. Sue Silver, State Coordinator California Saving Graves Email: [email protected] TEXT FOLLOWS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Tom Torlakson, Chair Senate Local Government Committee Re: SB 341 - Request for Consideration re: Section 9055 Dear Chair Torlakson and Honorable Committee Members: I understand the Committee's consultant, Peter Detwiler, has formulated additional reforms related to the proposed Section 9055 for the Committee's consideration. I have reviewed the list contained in Mr. Detwiler's memorandum dated March 24, 2003, and believe Detwiler's list would place adequate additional requirements upon the public cemetery district's which might consider selling a district's cemetery. These suggested reforms would help ensure that a district's decision would be adequately reviewed by both the board of supervisors and the residents of the district. Provided the following are added to the proposed Section 9055, I would SUPPORT SB 341: 1. Require a district to prepare a public report on the assets and liabilities of the cemetery it proposes to sell. 2. Expand the public notice for the county supervisors' hearing: publish the newspaper notice once a week for four weeks; post the notices for four weeks; and mail individual notices to the owners of the cemetery plots. 3. Require the county supervisors to either turn down the proposed sale or call an election of the district's voters, if the protests reach 25% of either the district's voters or landowners. 4. Increase the county supervisors' approval from a 4/5-vote to a unanimous vote. 5. Require the district to impose a deed restriction on the sale that would allow the district to reassert control if the new owner failed to properly maintain the cemetery. I hope you will consider adding these items to Section 9055. Respectfully, YOUR NAME YOUR ADDRESS

Try this email address: [email protected] I may inadvertently changed the capital "A" to a lower case "a" in my first transmittal. Sorry, Sue ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:34 AM Subject: Re: SUPPORT CA Legislation - AB 207 related to cemetery vandalism > The message to the Assemblyman about AB 207 came back as ont being in the > directory. Any update? Betty >

Hello all, Several people have asked me to send them suggested text for their messages to Assemblymember Maze. The following is what I have drafted. If you have had an experience with cemetery vandalism, it would be nice to say something about that also. Thank you! Sue Silver, State Coordinator California Saving Graves TEXT FOLLOWS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: AB 207 - SUPPORT The Honorable Bill Maze California State Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: SB 207 - SUPPORT Dear Assemblymember Maze: I was notified by California Saving Graves that you have introduced SB 207 to amend Penal Code Section 594.35 to strengthen punishment of those who would vandalize military veterans grave marker and monuments. Thank you for taking the time to address this issue which relates to cemetery vandalism in California. Please add my name to the list of those people or organizations as being in SUPPORT of AB 207. Respectfully, NAME ADDRESS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please send to: [email protected]

Dear Cemetery Friends, Good News! Assemblymember Bill Maze (34th Assembly District, serving Visalia, Tulare, Porterville, Barstow, Lindsay, Exeter, Farmersville, California City, Independence, Lone Pine) has introduced AB 207 to amend Penal Code Section 594.35 to include additional protection and punishment for vandalism of military veteran's grave markers and monuments. His idea for this legislation seems to have come about after heavy vandalism occurred at the Exeter Cemetery in his district. We commend Assemblymember Maze for this legislation and would ask that you send emails to him in SUPPORT of AB 207. Please send your emails under the Subject "AB 207 - SUPPORT" to Assemblymember Maze at: [email protected] Be sure to include your name and mailing address. To read the Amended Text of this Bill, go to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0201-0250/ab_207_bill_20030319_amended_asm.html To check on other pending cemetery legislation, go to http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm and search on the word CEMETERY. When you are at the screen for a specific bill, there is also a COMMENT link that allows you to comment while at that website. Thank you for your help in promoting further protections for our historic cemeteries and the "residents" within them. Sincerely, Sue Silver, State Coordinator California Saving Graves Email: [email protected]

WE NEED YOUR HELP! SB 341 is moving toward a hearing on April 2nd before the bill's author, the Senate Committee on Local Government. We need you to support our request that the Committee delete the proposed Section 9055 from this bill to prevent the sale or conveyance of our historic public cemeteries to private cemetery authorities. I have placed a message on the El Dorado County Saving Graves website regarding this issue. Please see this message at: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/county/eldorado/Sec_9055_public_cemetery_district_law__se.htm For recommended text for your message, go to: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/county/eldorado/Sec_9055_text_for_your_messag.htm. These can be emailed to the Committee's consultant, Peter Detwiler at [email protected] We have a chance to ensure our public cemeteries remain public cemeteries. PLEASE HELP US PRESERVE OUR HISTORIC CALIFORNIA PUBLIC CEMETERIES IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP! But you need to ACT NOW! TO THOSE WHO ALREADY SENT EMAILS - The Committee's consultant sent a message to another opponent of the proposed Section 9055 stating the following: "The Committee's format doesn't distinguish among shades of support or opposition. We list respondents as either "support" or "oppose." Everyone else who wrote to the Committee with a "qualified support" position will show up on the bill analysis in the "support" column. A few folks, like yourself, have asked us to move them to the "oppose" column and we'll do that." If you have previously sent an email to the Committee under "Qualified SUPPORT", please send a message stating you OPPOSE SB 341. (You may use the recommended text link above.) Anyone who has a question may contact me direct. Thank you! Sue Silver, State Coordinator California Saving Graves [email protected]

Hello everyone, I just received a list of people and organizations who have so far written in support or opposition to SB 341 which I sent out to you last week. THANK YOU to all who responded in opposing Sec. 9055 of the Bill that would allow a public cemetery district to sell it's public cemetery to a private cemetery authority. I also checked the old Legislative Record on when the original section was written in 1961. Usually a law is written to meet a specific need. In this case I expected to find that one public cemetery district needed help so the law might have been written just for that specific district. What I found was that the Bill's author in 1961 told the Governor it would help reduce taxes(!). AND, the only organization mentioned who formally Supported the original bill was the Interment Association of California which is comprised of cemetery industry companies and organizations! Not one cemetery district was listed as having written to support the bill. To me this says a lot. It says the private cemetery operators were trying to figure out how to get ownership of public cemeteries when prior to that such a transfer was not authorized by law! If there is anyone else who is interested in knowing how to voice your opposition to this Bill unless Sec. 9055 is dropped so district's cannot give away our public cemeteries, please contact me direct. Again, THANKS to EVERYONE who sent emails to the Senate Local Government Committee on this issue. With email and the internet, we do have a voice! Sue Silver, State Coordinator California Saving Graves Email: [email protected] Website: www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/state1