Forwarding for those following SB1614 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - JUNE 27, 2002 I want to bring you a quick update: The 'new language' for SB1614 is now out and up on the Internet at <http://www.sen.ca.gov>. But there is nothing new about the language. It is worded slightly different, and the dollar amount has been placed at $400,000. Dept of Health Service [DHS] will continue to maintain the comprehensive index, forbidden for public use, with the exception of certain governmental agencies [as prescribed by law]. The language states, "On or before January 1, 2004, contingent upon funding. . . the State registrar shall establish separate noncomprehensive electronic indices to all California birth and death records [will exclude social security numbers of deceased person] available to county recorders statewide . . . no part of these indices may be released to any individual or entity, . . . (indices) shall be available at the State Registrar's office and in county recorders' offices for public inspection only at computer terminals designed for this purpose. . " And as stated in the previous language, it requires the development of a standardized form to be signed before viewing the indexes. DHS will be able to establish a charge which will help offset the cost of setting up the files. =20 The language goes on to state, "An individual, corporation, or other business entity that purchased a comprehensive index prepared by the State registrar pursuant to subdivision (a) from the State Registrar prior to December 31, 2001, may not use, or sell, share, or disclose any of the information contained therein to a third party. This puts that person in violation of the law and they "may be denied further access to any personally identifying information or confidential information maintained by the department. That person shall also be subject to the assessment of a civil penalty." I believe, this bill was stripped of the language and sent through the Senate as an 'intent bill' in a effort to bypass the Legislative deadline to get it out of the house of origin. While the opposition cooled their heels waiting for new language, hoping that our opinions would be addressed by the author, we are faced with the same bill we had in June. The money was a big issue, if you will recall 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." The 'new language' really does not address the money issue. In Section 102231 (f) it states, 'The amount of four hundred thousand dollars is hereby appropriated from the Health Statistics Special Fund to the department for purposes of developing the noncomprehensive indices . . ." Is this a new appropriation? It was my understanding that the department did not have the money to facilitate this program. We might note that $400,000 is a long way from the estimated $2 million as stated by The Appropriations Committee Fiscal Council. What has changed?=20 Meanwhile, the bill does not address the issue of public access to any birth or death indexes. Must the public wait till the Dept of Health Service establishes a new noncomprehensive index? They have until January 1, 2004 if the bill is passed. Originally SB1614 was scheduled to be heard July 1, 2002 by the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The Council for that Committee has requested that Senator Speier postpone the hearing of the bill before their committee until August 6, 2002. The Senator has agreed. So, we have some time to organize another letter writing campaign and decide what else we can do to stop SB1614.=20 There is massive opposition to this bill. As you know, we have worked with several groups over the years, who like us, wish to maintain access to our public records. This includes the Newspaper Publishers Association and the First Amendment Coalition, several of the large law firms, professional researchers groups, several state and national genealogical and historical organizations. Just before SB1614 was scheduled to a Senate floor vote, the BastardNations, an adoptee's rights organization, rallied at the State Capital to protest the passage of the bill. Since then, their members have established a Email Network of organizations opposed to the bill. I have agreed to represent CSGA and the Council in the Network. We have been joined by nearly thirty organizations. By sharing our information, sources and resources this can only add momentum to our opposition. As you may know, the Federation of Genealogical Societies [FGS] and National Genealogical Society [NGS] proclaimed and presented to the California Senate Appropriations Committee a Joint Resolution and Petition against SB1614 prior to its final hearing in the Senate. So, the movement against the bill is growing.=20 We must continue our efforts. I will bring you a list of Assembly Committee members and contact addressed so that we can write our opposition to the members of the committee, Senator Speier, the Governor and your own representative. We have had favorable feedback from several Senators and Assembly Members as a result of individuals contacting their own representatives. We do need to individually let our own representatives know of our opposition. It means more when they know they could loose votes from their own constituents. I will also bring you updates on other legislation we are following. To follow State Legislation, check the State Web site at 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, <[email protected]>.---27 June 2002, CSGA Legislative Network Coordinator, Iris Carter Jones. [Permission granted to reprint Legislative reports. Please cite your source.]=20