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

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. >