agreed

In light of the discussions on this subject, things could be worse. In New York, many of the historical documents and records are in the hands of the town historian. Most are wonderful sharing people, but the one in the area I am searching acts as if it's an imposition to even be asked. Then she would never let anyone LOOK at the records, just gives info out on the phone. MY experience has been that looking at the records and searching them gives so many more hints than just looking at the name. y the way, the town historian in question lives only a mile from my house. Won't even consider letting me look at the records Betty Wilson

<A HREF="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>

I do my own research at the town hall or if before 1850 at the state library. I know Jane Devlin's site and someone named Ray has a lot of records posted and I am sure others as well. I just didn't keep track of them. > Are you willing to share with us where to look? >

I suggest that we all politely voice our opinion to the City of New Haven, and to mayor John DeStefano Jr. at: [email protected] Bob..

Bill, I do not have a copy of the law, but if you go on line under the state name, the web site will take you to the state page. There you can look over the RSA's Revised Statutes Annotated. There you can print out the current law. Good luck. Someone needs to rattle some doors. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [CTNEWHAV] Access to CT Genealogical Records > In a message dated 1/20/02 2:08:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > I do wonder if the policy in New Haven of opening to genealogists just 2-1/2 > > hours per week complies with the law (During ALL NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS...). > > Perhaps, New Haven received special dispensation?? > > Does anyone have the "cite" to this part of the law? I would love to > photocopy the actual statute and show it to the people in New Haven. > > I have had no problems to speak of here in CT except for this restriction in > New Haven. The problem with it (other than the obvious problem of limited > time for those travelling a long distance and needing to check many entries) > is that everyone is there at one time and their facilities are woefully > inadequate (despite the fact that they are housed in a brand new building). > My only other [minor] problem was in Westport where the Town Clerk decided > that you have to sit at a desk outside the vault and ask for one book at a > time. > > My only experiences outside of CT were in western Massachusetts where I have > had excellent results getting copeis by mail (often in less than a week) and > New York State where they don't even bother to reply to your requests. > > Bill Coley > Orange, CT > > > ==== CTNEWHAV Mailing List ==== > Please do not send messages with attachments, HTML, MIME, or any other > enhanced text to the list. RootsWeb does not allow messages with those > settings through their servers and will only return them to you. > > > ============================== > 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 > >

It is fortunate you are able to go the New Haven to do the research. What about those of us who have to travel by plane, then taxi, stay in a hotel and have 2 1/2 hours to do research "standing up". I am 65 years old and have just retired. Before not had to work to save for this trip. Still think there could be a better way. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:57 AM Subject: [CTNEWHAV] Problem solving > Perhaps one way to ease relations with Vital Records New Haven is to leave > requests for copies ( $$ and a SASE) rather than have them stop at the end of > the 2 1/2 hours and make the copies. I have made a template ofr all records > and fill them in when I am there. This gives me the information on the spot. > I have never understood why the system must be so user-unfriendly. > > > ==== CTNEWHAV Mailing List ==== > Need to reach Colleen, the discussion coordinator? Send her an email > at <[email protected]>. > > > ============================== > 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 > >

Perhaps one way to ease relations with Vital Records New Haven is to leave requests for copies ( $$ and a SASE) rather than have them stop at the end of the 2 1/2 hours and make the copies. I have made a template ofr all records and fill them in when I am there. This gives me the information on the spot. I have never understood why the system must be so user-unfriendly.

In dealing with New Haven, you have to travel long distances because they flatly refuse to do anything for you by mail or phone. You can't even find out if the requested record exists. The last time I took a trip to CT, I had the allotted time problem with Bridgeport also. The rest of the surrounding small towns were absolutely wonderful and very cooperative. June In a message dated 1/20/2002 3:41:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > The problem with it (other than the obvious problem of limited > time for those travelling a long distance and needing to check many > entries) > is that everyone is there at one time and their facilities are woefully >

...Are you willing to share with us where to look? ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 8:08 PM Subject: [CTNEWHAV] Re: CTNEWHAV-D Digest V02 #23 > many of CT's records are online too, if you know where to look....

many of CT's records are online too, if you know where to look.... > What happened to serving the public? > I'm sitting here in PA and it's easier to find my > ancestors in England than it is in CT. England has > put TONS of their records on line, and when I send for > a certificate- birth, marriage or death, it arrives in > 2 weeks flat. No picture ID needed. No genealogy > society membership necessary

There is a new rootsweb list called Look ups in Ct or some such name...also the Ct Soc of Genealogists for years maintained a list of people in each town who would do look ups...i was part of it for 15 yrs until i moved to Fla and then back here and didn't put my name on again. > A Rootweb volunteer there does it instead. People email her with their > requests, and she goes to the courthouse once a week to find and photocopy > records. Perhaps this could be done in some of the CT towns where the town > clerk either can't or won't search the records.

and in return each issue you get a good number of the Barbor Files records in the issue. O now have nearly a complete record of everything before 1850 in my books. > Yes, I had to join a genalogical society to get > records (I joined CT Society of Genealogists), but it was worth the price > to me.

It is my understanding that has been tried numerous times with no resulting change in policies. >In a message dated 1/20/02 2:08:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, >[email protected] writes: > > >> I do wonder if the policy in New Haven of opening to genealogists just 2-1/2 >> hours per week complies with the law (During ALL NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS...). >> Perhaps, New Haven received special dispensation?? > >Does anyone have the "cite" to this part of the law? I would love to >photocopy the actual statute and show it to the people in New Haven. > >I have had no problems to speak of here in CT except for this restriction in >New Haven. The problem with it (other than the obvious problem of limited >time for those travelling a long distance and needing to check many entries) >is that everyone is there at one time and their facilities are woefully >inadequate (despite the fact that they are housed in a brand new building). >My only other [minor] problem was in Westport where the Town Clerk decided >that you have to sit at a desk outside the vault and ask for one book at a >time. > >My only experiences outside of CT were in western Massachusetts where I have >had excellent results getting copeis by mail (often in less than a week) and >New York State where they don't even bother to reply to your requests. > >Bill Coley >Orange, CT > > >==== CTNEWHAV Mailing List ==== >Please do not send messages with attachments, HTML, MIME, or any other >enhanced text to the list. RootsWeb does not allow messages with those >settings through their servers and will only return them to you. > > >============================== >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

In a message dated 1/20/02 2:08:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > I do wonder if the policy in New Haven of opening to genealogists just 2-1/2 > hours per week complies with the law (During ALL NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS...). > Perhaps, New Haven received special dispensation?? Does anyone have the "cite" to this part of the law? I would love to photocopy the actual statute and show it to the people in New Haven. I have had no problems to speak of here in CT except for this restriction in New Haven. The problem with it (other than the obvious problem of limited time for those travelling a long distance and needing to check many entries) is that everyone is there at one time and their facilities are woefully inadequate (despite the fact that they are housed in a brand new building). My only other [minor] problem was in Westport where the Town Clerk decided that you have to sit at a desk outside the vault and ask for one book at a time. My only experiences outside of CT were in western Massachusetts where I have had excellent results getting copeis by mail (often in less than a week) and New York State where they don't even bother to reply to your requests. Bill Coley Orange, CT

GENEALOGICAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS: ...Okay, so maybe I shouldn't stick my oar in on this records access issue, but...well, here goes: (Forgive me if I should not be doing this on this particular list). ...There are in my opinion, two main sides to this issue: As someone with 300-plus-years of New England ancestry on all sides....(no better or no worse than anyone else, just another sense of "uniqueness"), I can understand the arguement that town and city records which concern my ancestors, (who "made" that community), ought to be accessible to me and others without impediment. On the other hand...as anyone knows who has been in local government, especially if one feels responsible to local voters for keeping a reign on local expenses...(far too few, sadly, take this responsibility seriously these days), then...having scads of inquirers and inquiries invade a town clerk's office on any given weekday, can certainly be a distraction to office staff with other responsibilities, if not the source of a great deal of extra expense. After all, the primary usefulness of such records is their application to current legal issues, such as inheritance and property rights. So is it any wonder that some municipal employees might feel "put-upon" when asked to deal with genealogical records which do not necessarily fit into the category of what some would call the "practical" or "necessary" concern of local government? ...I do not necessarily support either viewpoint...I merely offer these as a representation of both sides of the issue. ..So is/are their solution(s)? Well, before addressing that, may I suggest that there is another controversy inherent in genealogical research which needs addressing, if our solution(s) are to be effective. You have all experienced this to some degee...on one side of genealogical research are the volunteers, who pursue genealogical research mainly of their own lines, and show a spirit of generosity towards fellow researchers of the same type...sharing what they know when and where they can. On the other side are those professional genealogists, either individuals or organizations, who pursue genealogy for a fee...either to cover costs, or at times, for profit. There are valid points for both positions... Another major complication is...copyright. Some genealogical research publications and directories of over 100 years are in the public domain, though the layperson is not able to easily determine what is copyrighted, and what is not, which complicates the reproduction for public posting of out-of-print works of general interest, making for a rather expensive market-by-default of "rare" genealogical books. Another important complication is the fact that there appears to be no "authenticated" source of (internet databased) genealogical records, so that many, many people are constantly duplicating the efforts of earlier genealogical recordkeeping...imagine how you would feel if you were a town clerk assistant, and you knew that the records being requested by the fifth amateur researcher this month, were already available, and already cross-referenced, somewhere else, such as in a state library or historical society? Not only does the lack of a properly authenticated genealogical database on line cause an infinite amount of duplication of effort...effort which could be better spent researching genealogical issues not yet researched...but it promotes the dissemination of already published bad genealogical work which is copied by amateurs who are not aware of subsequent corrections or better records sources. (Perhaps one of the best places to observe this problem of duplication of effort, and of how research errors can be perpetuated, is on the otherwise wonderful L.D.S. website...the L.D.S. obviously believing it beyond their capabilities or control, to be personally responsible for verifying for everyone else, their vast volume of on-line genealogical data...which they make available to non-believers without cost). So how can the access to genealogical records problem be solved? I suggest that enough genealogical societies and individuals have to be willing to abandon...some economic self-interest, to band together in supporting not only a central repository which is on-line accessible, but also be willing to contribute to, and support...a situation-by-situation "system of authenticity", whereby a ranking to primary sources are given to the central repository's "official" database of family lines, and whereby a bibliography of sources is posted along with each genealogical entry. This same repository should then pursue prioritized research efforts, imputting to the database the highest-ranked primary sources of information first, and then footnote any discrepancies afterwards. It should also allow for referencing further research discoveries as they occur, and should include subsequent research judged "of sufficient value", as it occurs, so that major controversies can be addressed as well. (For those determined to pull a profit out of their efforts...I would like to point out that such a system of primary-source verified records might be more "salable" to the widest market, if those buying the research could know before paying, that what they were receiving had some imprimatur of authenticity...after all, more and more of us are no longer satisfied with the cachet "approved by XYZ Society", when we know that there are better governmental primary sources out there... For myself, I believe such a database should seek non-profit status, and receive its funding through donations and modest usage fees. Public access on the internet and in libraries to such a database would solve the problem of municipal records access...no longer would anyone have to go to the town hall, if an authenticated facsimile of the birth/death certificate in question, census account, etc., were accessible in both print and image form through the database, and to the degree good research had been built into that database, the information would actually be more concise and more "usable" than that from town hall sources. Also...no longer would someone have to buy a volume of data, just to access two or three persons...if the database charged for access, it could charge just for the information used.... The existence of such a database would also give independent researchers wishing to donate their own research, a public repository to give to, which would not try to "profit financially from, and subsequently market for a fee", their freely-given research donations. I submit that not all genealogical amateurs have spurious data to offer, and that quite a bit could be quite valuable...if research standards could be applied to such free donations, and if the donors didn't sense that they might be abused by the places to which they donated... Now...from a practical standpoint...it is not realistic to expect genealogical societies with their own long histories as research institutions, to voluntarily "give up" their own collected work, especially when they have been able to market that collection to the public, for remuneration. But the lack of a centralized, primary source qualitatively-indexed genealogical database, perpetuates many undesirable impediments to sound genealogical research. It promotes the perpetuation of inaccurate genealogical work. It is the primary cause of an infinite volume of duplication of effort. It greatly increases through duplication, the cost of maintaining archives in numerous diverse places, and it is responsible for the waste of scads of internet bandwidth. Up to now, knowing one's family history has been an interesting, historically-meaningful pastime, but the time is coming, if it is not already here.. when accurate DNA records will have an important medical and health application... ...Please forgive my use of bandwidth here...if there is a better forum for addressing these concerns, please tell me where it is...

Hi, The 1996 CT law regarding access to Genealogical Records restricts access to birth records less than 100 years old to the individual (if over 18), parent, spouse or child or a member of an accredited genealogical society. The law is actually less restrictive than the law here in Oregon. No one but the individual, his parent, child or spouse has access to birth records less than 50 years old. Also, you must be a spouse or direct descendent of a person to obtain a death record less than 50 years old. My experience has been that the CT law is not overly restrictive and I can't think of many town or county records offices anywhere that have enough staff to perform genealogy research for individuals. In reading the CT law I do find one thing interesting, though. I'm am not a lawyer so I may be missing something but the law reads: DURING ALL NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS, MEMBERS OF GENEALOGICAL SOCIETIES INCORPORATED OR AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS OR CONDUCT AFFAIRS IN THIS STATE SHALL (1) HAVE FULL ACCESS TO ALL VITAL RECORDS IN THE CUSTODY OF ANY REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS, INCLUDING CERTIFICATES, LEDGERS, RECORD BOOKS, CARD FILES, INDEXES AND DATABASE PRINTOUTS, EXCEPT CONFIDENTIAL FILES ON ADOPTIONS, (2) BE PERMITTED TO MAKE NOTES FROM SUCH RECORDS AND (3) BE PERMITTED TO PURCHASE COPIES OF SUCH RECORDS. I do wonder if the policy in New Haven of opening to genealogists just 2-1/2 hours per week complies with the law (During ALL NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS...). Perhaps, New Haven received special dispensation?? Overall, I have had great experiences researching in my home state of CT. The law (Public Act No. 96-258) is on the web at: http://www.cslib.org/pa/pa258.htm Here's an excerpt: PUBLIC ACT NO. 96-258 AN ACT CONCERNING ACCESS TO GENEALOGICAL RECORDS AND THE VALIDATION OF CERTAIN MARRIAGES. ANY PERSON EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY PURCHASE COPIES OF MARRIAGE AND DEATH RECORDS, AND COPIES OF RECORDS OF BIRTHS WHICH ARE AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD, IN THE CUSTODY OF ANY REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS. DURING ALL NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS, MEMBERS OF GENEALOGICAL SOCIETIES INCORPORATED OR AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS OR CONDUCT AFFAIRS IN THIS STATE SHALL (1) HAVE FULL ACCESS TO ALL VITAL RECORDS IN THE CUSTODY OF ANY REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS, INCLUDING CERTIFICATES, LEDGERS, RECORD BOOKS, CARD FILES, INDEXES AND DATABASE PRINTOUTS, EXCEPT CONFIDENTIAL FILES ON ADOPTIONS, (2) BE PERMITTED TO MAKE NOTES FROM SUCH RECORDS AND (3) BE PERMITTED TO PURCHASE COPIES OF SUCH RECORDS. Diane [email protected] > Perhaps someone could set up an e-mail letter to one of the Conn Congressmen > siting the problem their laws have creadte and start a ball rolling to > change this law. I believe it should be someone with good organizational > skills, a knowledge of how to change laws. But you are all right. These > records are cared for by employees of taxpayers. The records are not going > to present anybreach inan individuals identity, These records are 100 years > old, and no social security numbers or records that can help create an > identity will be a violation of anyones privacy. These records belong to > the people as long as tere is no possable use to commit fraud. > > Could someone get the ball rolling? > Thank you to all of you who replied to my initial remarks. >

"...scads of inquirers and inquiries invade a town clerk's office...." Scads? In all the county clerk's offices we have ever been in we have never seen "scads" of genealogists!!!! Let's keep this in perspective! It seems most other states in the union do not need an excuse to stiff out-of-state visitors with fees. Specifically, when those visitors are only searching for ancient documents the county clerks don't even use anymore. In the vast majority of county clerk's offices we have visited the office personnel have always been accommodating, even actively assisting us in some cases. But never have we met hands out in response to our queries. Nor have we been dunned for fees other than for photocopies. We are fully aware that all county employees have more important duties than waiting on people indulging in a hobby. We are always willing to wait for any assistance, but not with big fees attached! WDA and LEA end ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry H. Browning" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 9:44 AM Subject: [CTNEWHAV] Genealogical Access to (CT) Public Records > GENEALOGICAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS: > > ...Okay, so maybe I shouldn't stick my oar in on this records access issue, > but...well, here goes: > (Forgive me if I should not be doing this on this particular list). > > ...There are in my opinion, two main sides to this issue: As someone with > 300-plus-years of New England ancestry on all sides....(no better or no > worse than anyone else, just another sense of "uniqueness"), I can > understand the arguement that town and city records which concern my > ancestors, (who "made" that community), ought to be accessible to me and > others without impediment. > > On the other hand...as anyone knows who has been in local government, > especially if one feels responsible to local voters for keeping a reign on > local expenses...(far too few, sadly, take this responsibility seriously > these days), then...having scads of inquirers and inquiries invade a town > clerk's office on any given weekday, can certainly be a distraction to > office staff with other responsibilities, if not the source of a great deal > of extra expense. After all, the primary usefulness of such records is > their application to current legal issues, such as inheritance and property > rights. So is it any wonder that some municipal employees might feel > "put-upon" when asked to deal with genealogical records which do not > necessarily fit into the category of what some would call the "practical" or > "necessary" concern of local government? > > ...I do not necessarily support either viewpoint...I merely offer these as a > representation of both sides of the issue. > > ..So is/are their solution(s)? Well, before addressing that, may I suggest > that there is another controversy inherent in genealogical research which > needs addressing, if our solution(s) are to be effective. You have all > experienced this to some degee...on one side of genealogical research are > the volunteers, who pursue genealogical research mainly of their own lines, > and show a spirit of generosity towards fellow researchers of the same > type...sharing what they know when and where they can. On the other side > are those professional genealogists, either individuals or organizations, > who pursue genealogy for a fee...either to cover costs, or at times, for > profit. There are valid points for both positions... Another major > complication is...copyright. Some genealogical research publications and > directories of over 100 years are in the public domain, though the layperson > is not able to easily determine what is copyrighted, and what is not, which > complicates the reproduction for public posting of out-of-print works of > general interest, making for a rather expensive market-by-default of "rare" > genealogical books. Another important complication is the fact that there > appears to be no "authenticated" source of (internet databased) genealogical > records, so that many, many people are constantly duplicating the efforts of > earlier genealogical recordkeeping...imagine how you would feel if you were > a town clerk assistant, and you knew that the records being requested by the > fifth amateur researcher this month, were already available, and already > cross-referenced, somewhere else, such as in a state library or historical > society? Not only does the lack of a properly authenticated genealogical > database on line cause an infinite amount of duplication of effort...effort > which could be better spent researching genealogical issues not yet > researched...but it promotes the dissemination of already published bad > genealogical work which is copied by amateurs who are not aware of > subsequent corrections or better records sources. (Perhaps one of the best > places to observe this problem of duplication of effort, and of how research > errors can be perpetuated, is on the otherwise wonderful L.D.S. > website...the L.D.S. obviously believing it beyond their capabilities or > control, to be personally responsible for verifying for everyone else, their > vast volume of on-line genealogical data...which they make available to > non-believers without cost). > > So how can the access to genealogical records problem be solved? I suggest > that enough genealogical societies and individuals have to be willing to > abandon...some economic self-interest, to band together in supporting not > only a central repository which is on-line accessible, but also be willing > to contribute to, and support...a situation-by-situation "system of > authenticity", whereby a ranking to primary sources are given to the central > repository's "official" database of family lines, and whereby a bibliography > of sources is posted along with each genealogical entry. This same > repository should then pursue prioritized research efforts, imputting to the > database the highest-ranked primary sources of information first, and then > footnote any discrepancies afterwards. It should also allow for referencing > further research discoveries as they occur, and should include subsequent > research judged "of sufficient value", as it occurs, so that major > controversies can be addressed as well. (For those determined to pull a > profit out of their efforts...I would like to point out that such a system > of primary-source verified records might be more "salable" to the widest > market, if those buying the research could know before paying, that what > they were receiving had some imprimatur of authenticity...after all, more > and more of us are no longer satisfied with the cachet "approved by XYZ > Society", when we know that there are better governmental primary sources > out there... For myself, I believe such a database should seek non-profit > status, and receive its funding through donations and modest usage fees. > Public access on the internet and in libraries to such a database would > solve the problem of municipal records access...no longer would anyone have > to go to the town hall, if an authenticated facsimile of the birth/death > certificate in question, census account, etc., were accessible in both print > and image form through the database, and to the degree good research had > been built into that database, the information would actually be more > concise and more "usable" than that from town hall sources. Also...no > longer would someone have to buy a volume of data, just to access two or > three persons...if the database charged for access, it could charge just for > the information used.... The existence of such a database would also give > independent researchers wishing to donate their own research, a public > repository to give to, which would not try to "profit financially from, and > subsequently market for a fee", their freely-given research donations. I > submit that not all genealogical amateurs have spurious data to offer, and > that quite a bit could be quite valuable...if research standards could be > applied to such free donations, and if the donors didn't sense that they > might be abused by the places to which they donated... > > Now...from a practical standpoint...it is not realistic to expect > genealogical societies with their own long histories as research > institutions, to voluntarily "give up" their own collected work, especially > when they have been able to market that collection to the public, for > remuneration. But the lack of a centralized, primary source > qualitatively-indexed genealogical database, perpetuates many undesirable > impediments to sound genealogical research. It promotes the perpetuation of > inaccurate genealogical work. It is the primary cause of an infinite volume > of duplication of effort. It greatly increases through duplication, the > cost of maintaining archives in numerous diverse places, and it is > responsible for the waste of scads of internet bandwidth. Up to now, > knowing one's family history has been an interesting, > historically-meaningful pastime, but the time is coming, if it is not > already here.. when accurate DNA records will have an important medical and > health application... > > ...Please forgive my use of bandwidth here...if there is a better forum for > addressing these concerns, please tell me where it is... > > > > ==== CTNEWHAV Mailing List ==== > Need to reach Colleen, the discussion coordinator? Send her an email > at <[email protected]>. > > > ============================== > 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 >

Perhaps someone could set up an e-mail letter to one of the Conn Congressmen siting the problem their laws have creadte and start a ball rolling to change this law. I believe it should be someone with good organizational skills, a knowledge of how to change laws. But you are all right. These records are cared for by employees of taxpayers. The records are not going to present anybreach inan individuals identity, These records are 100 years old, and no social security numbers or records that can help create an identity will be a violation of anyones privacy. These records belong to the people as long as tere is no possable use to commit fraud. Could someone get the ball rolling? Thank you to all of you who replied to my initial remarks. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 2:00 AM Subject: CTNEWHAV-D Digest V02 #23

Elizabeth, In my experiences getting records from CT and from other states, I've actually found CT to be one of the better states. Yes, I had to join a genalogical society to get records (I joined CT Society of Genealogists), but it was worth the price to me. I'm able to get records for my family and for the family of a good friend (I'm researching his family also). In many other states I'm not able to get the records at all because I'm not a direct descendant. In New York, for instance -- my friend has many ancestors from there and I can't order the records myself; I have to fill out the paperwork and give it to him to sign and mail. I have a lot of ancestors from Iowa and am able to get birth records only for my direct line. I tried to get some for five first cousins who died at birth in the 1940s (the children of my mom's sister) and was told I'm "not entitled" because I'm not a direct relative; even my mother can't get them, and there is no one else alive who is "entitled" (I went round and round with them by letter and phone, trying to explain this, but to no avail). Granted the same information is available on the death records (which I was able to get), but I found a mistake on the first one so would prefer to have the birth records to verify the information. Maybe I've just been lucky so far, but I've found all of the CT town clerks I've dealt with to date to be very helpful. That means a lot because I live in Colorado and am not able to do my own research in CT. In Shelby Co., Indiana, the town clerks don't have time to search the records. A Rootweb volunteer there does it instead. People email her with their requests, and she goes to the courthouse once a week to find and photocopy records. Perhaps this could be done in some of the CT towns where the town clerk either can't or won't search the records. Just an idea anyway. Deborah Bay Denver, CO elizabeth godfrey wrote: > Perhaps someone could set up an e-mail letter to one of the Conn Congressmen > siting the problem their laws have creadte and start a ball rolling to > change this law. I believe it should be someone with good organizational > skills, a knowledge of how to change laws. But you are all right. These > records are cared for by employees of taxpayers. The records are not going > to present anybreach inan individuals identity, These records are 100 years > old, and no social security numbers or records that can help create an > identity will be a violation of anyones privacy. These records belong to > the people as long as tere is no possable use to commit fraud. > > Could someone get the ball rolling? > Thank you to all of you who replied to my initial remarks.