David, Finding the impetus for your question took me a bit, but I found that you're referring to the Fall 2004 schedule. As Joan's note stated, the Spring 2006 information will be online shortly. Michelle Chubenko GSNJ Trustee & Webmaster David Compton wrote: > I note that one of your lectures is scheduled for Friday, November 10th. > > I believe that that date is Veteran's Day (a state Holiday). > > Will that change things? > > > ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== > Save the Date!!! Save the Date!!! Save the Date!!! > GSNJ 2006 Spring Conference -- Saturday, June 3rd >

I note that one of your lectures is scheduled for Friday, November 10th. I believe that that date is Veteran's Day (a state Holiday). Will that change things?

Bob pointed out that I missed an important element in my big announcement of the Jersey Roots / Spring Program announcement! And he sure was right... Some of you just MIGHT want to know what time things start - or even end! The evening lectures will start at 6:30, and light refreshments will be served. The microfilm reading room will stay open for lecture attendees until 6:00 pm on those Wednesdays. The Saturday event begins with registration from 8:30-9:30 and lectures, lunch, book vendors, and Ask the Experts sessions running until about 3:30. I hope I didn't miss anything else - but if you have more questions - give a holler... (Thanks Bob!) Regards, Joan Joan M. Lowry mailto:jmlowry@earthlink.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert H. Smith > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 7:54 AM > Hi Joan, > What time do these evening lectures start... Trenton is > hardly centrally > located. > > Thanks, Bob Smith Port Murray, NJ

Hello All Part two of GSNJ's newest program announcements!! GSNJ is a co-sponsor for a series of workshops that will run in the Spring and Fall. The other sponsors are the State Historical Records Advisory Board (SHRAB) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Archives Conference (MARAC-NJ Caucus). Some of these workshops are geared towards the people who create and maintain archives and collections. Other lectures are geared more towards the "general public" and those of us who use the archives and collections. Several of the dates and topics have been announced. See the web page for SHRAB for more information: http://www.njarchives.org/links/shrabworkshops.html and for registration fees and information. The first two workshops sure sound "user friendly" and should be of interest to genealogists and historians! The first workshop will be on "Researching in Religious Archives" (which will cover many different faiths.) This workshop is June 8 (and again on Nov 10). The June 8 date will be at Drew University in Madison NJ. Nov 10 will be held at the NJ State Archives The second workshop is "County Archives: Reference Services." This will be presented on June 10 and Oct 11. First in Gloucester Co (at Gloucester Co Historical Society) and second at Monmouth Co Archives. The Oct 11 date will include a tour of the Monmouth Co Archives. I hope you all will check them out and help make the workshop series a success! Regards Joan Joan M. Lowry Genealogical Society of New Jersey mailto:membership@gsnj.org website: www.gsnj.org

Hi Folks - Spring is finally arriving and with it - lecture series and workshops are "busting out all over." First up -- "Exploring Your Jersey Roots III" GSNJ is very pleased to announce that once again we are co-sponsoring a wonderful lecture series with the NJ State Archives - "Exploring Your Jersey Roots III" There are too many details to squeeze into an email - but here are the highlights! "Jersey Roots III" will be held on Wednesday evenings from April 26 through May 24 and the grand finale for the series will be the all-day GSNJ Spring Program on Saturday, June 3. ("Jersey Roots" I and II were held in the Fall of 2003 and 2004. Many people had suggested the evening lecture series be held in the Spring to take advantage of the longer days for people driving to Trenton - Well here you go!) The evening lectures have wonderful topics and speakers - information follows: 26 April: Internet Sources for NJ Genealogy John W. Konvalinka 3 May: Using the Records of the East and West Jersey Proprietors Joseph R. Klett 10 May: The New Face of FamilySearch.org Cheri Wortmann 17 May: Tracing Your Immigrant Family at the New Jersey State Archives Bette M. Epstein 24 May: Genealogy for Kids: Activities and Projects to Celebrate Family History Catherine Wilkinson Zahn Saturday, June 3 will have a military theme and will be part of a two track event. Lectures will be: 1. Tracing your Revolutionary War Ancestor at the NJ State Archives Catherine S. Medich 2. The Veterans' Reverie, Researching genealogy (military biography) at the US Army Military History Institute Richard Baker (MSgt, USAF, ret.) 3. Website and Database Sources for Military Research at the NJ State Archives Veronica Calder & Vivian Thiele 4. Twentieth-Century Military Research Larry Fermi The second track on Saturday will be "Ask the Experts." There will be both a panel format and one-on-one consultations with either an Archives staff member, a GSNJ Trustee, or other professional genealogist. Saturday, June 3, will also feature a genealogy book fair with a number of vendors. BooksNJ, the Capital Bookstore, will also be open for the day (and offering a 10% discount to all attendees!) Everything will be happening in Trenton. The evening lectures will all be held in the NJ State Archives manuscript reading room and will also feature some extended hours in the microfilm reading room for attendees. Saturday's events will be hosted in the NJ State Museum Auditorium and the NJ State Archives building. Details and Registration forms will be available very soon on both the GSNJ website and on the NJ State Archives websites - as soon as the webmasters can get the details arranged in an easy to access format... GSNJ hopes to have the information up on the website over the weekend. Please take a look at <www.gsnj.org> The State Archives should also have the information up very soon. See their website at <www.njarchives.org/links/archives.html> We hope that you will all be able to join us for at least a few of these exciting topics and events! Regards, Joan Joan M. Lowry Genealogical Society of New Jersey mailto:membership@gsnj.org website: www.gsnj.org

Hi, from NY. Last year I joined your list of members & have been receiving the emails re: the Legislation on Vital Records Access. I am from MA and my husband is from NJ, but we live in upstate NY, & are interested in getting more info on his NJ relatives, we certainly did not look forward to being cut off from this research. I was glad to read this email & hope the Assemblywoman is able to change the wording of the bill, as you have worked so hard on finding a way to take care of those of us doing family research. I look forward to hearing more about this in the future. MA was also doing something about the VR access, but I don't know where it is in the process. I belong to NEHGS also, but have not heard from them on whether this issue was resolved in that state. Thanks for all your hard work. Judy H. --- Joan M Lowry <jmlowry@earthlink.net> wrote: > Hello Everyone > > Time for an update on the Assembly Bill we all love > to hate! (A-1390, > the vital records access legislation) However, this > time the news is > good! Please forward this message to other lists, > as you did with our > original emails on this issue. > > On Tuesday, 3/21/06, Assemblywoman Joan Quigley met > with two > representatives from GSNJ and one from the Advocates > for NJ History. > GSNJ was represented by Barbara Babcock and me, Joan > Lowry. (Barbara is > the GSNJ member who got the whole meeting ball > rolling. Thank you > Barbara for all your help!) The representative for > the Advocates was > their lobbyist (yes, a real live lobbyist!), Judy > Shaw. > > The meeting went exceptionally well and I was very > glad to have these > two more politically experienced hands on board for > the meeting. > Assemblywoman Quigley was very pleasant and more > than willing to > entertain our suggestions. I felt that she was open > and interested and > that she was upfront with us. > > She readily agreed that the years we suggested > remain readily accessible > (80 years for births, 50 for marriages and 40 for > deaths) were more than > reasonable. She seemed to suggest that adding in > language that states > that allows for informational or non-certified > copies within those > guidelines would be no problem. She also said that > she had no problem > with simply deleting the section that said no > sharing or disclosing the > information. > > In addition, we discussed the possibility of further > changing the bill, > using language that was recently drafted by the > Advocates and GSNJ with > guidance and input from the NJ State Archives. It > might be possible to > basically redraft the whole bill and make it a > really good bill from all > viewpoints. This language is not yet posted > anywhere. It may be fairly > soon - and, when it is, I'll let you know. > > The new language would make more clear what records > would be > "restricted" and who and how people would be able to > get those more > recent records. It would also make clear what > records would remain and > become available and allow for more ready access to > them. The newer > language we suggested also includes language that > would allow for (or > actually require) the Dept of Health to turn over > more of the older > records to the archives. This would continue to > make them available to > the public to search and would allow for archives > staff (rather than the > Health Dept) to service the mail requests for copies > of the records. > > Assemblywoman Quigley was interested in the proposal > and promised to > consider the newer suggestions. We offered to be > available to work with > her (and her staff) on the language if she wanted > and suggested that we > would be glad to answer any questions that might > arise. She offered to > allow us to see a draft of the new language before > it gets released so > that we can make sure that it meets our needs. > > All in all, it was a very positive meeting with a > legislator who was > responsive to our needs and anticipates working with > us to (try to) make > everyone happy. > > GSNJ and the Advocates for NJ History will stay in > touch with > Assemblywoman Quigley's office and will make sure > that progress > continues to be made. Assemblywoman Quigley, > however, is also on the > Assembly Budget Committee and she and her staff will > have their hands > fairly full over the next few weeks with the budget > battle. We won't > let them forget about us - but can't push too hard > right away. > > For now - we do suggest that if you have already > written - please hold > off on making further contacts until they have a > chance to consider what > we gave them. If you haven't already written, > please contact > Assemblywoman Quigley's office and offer your > support of our proposed > changes You also could mention that you appreciate > her willingness to be > so responsive to our concerns. > > I have many off-list emails from list members that > haven't been answered > on this issue yet. I hope this may answer some of > your questions and do > promise to try to get to all the individual emails > as soon as I can. > > Thank you all for your help, concern, contacts, and > willingness to be > involved in the process. > > Joan M. Lowry, President > Genealogical Society of New Jersey > mailto:membership@gsnj.org > website: www.gsnj.org > > > > > ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== > GSNJ Newsletter: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~njgsnj/newsletter.html > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million > records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the > world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Here is a page which explains how to obtain records from Catholic Church's in the Diocese of Newark. http://www.rcan.org/history/sacramentalrecords.htm Kate Dodds, mentioned as a contact if you don't know the parish, spoke at an MCGS meeting a year or two ago, and gave us and example of the work she had done to track down the records of an ancestor. Karen -----Original Message----- From: Sandra [mailto:skbdesign@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:05 PM To: NJ-GSNJ-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [GSNJ] Re: JC Catholic Church Thank you, Charlene. I will look into it. Sandra charlene lovegrove <charslist@yahoo.com> wrote: I think mnay church records are also at SEton Hall University, West Orange (?) NJ archives. You might try to contact them. - ------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== New Jersey Legislative Alerts: http://www.rootsweb.com/~njgsnj/legislation.html ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ______________________________

Joan: You and your society have certainly done an excellent job of getting our point across to significant legislators who hopefully can persuade their colleagues to agree with our position from a genealogical perspective. Congratulations on a fine report and we will continue to keep our fingers crossed. Ken > Hello Everyone > > Time for an update on the Assembly Bill we all love to hate! (A-1390, > the vital records access legislation) However, this time the news is > good! Please forward this message to other lists, as you did with our > original emails on this issue. > > On Tuesday, 3/21/06, Assemblywoman Joan Quigley met with two > representatives from GSNJ and one from the Advocates for NJ History. > GSNJ was represented by Barbara Babcock and me, Joan Lowry. (Barbara is > the GSNJ member who got the whole meeting ball rolling. Thank you > Barbara for all your help!) The representative for the Advocates was > their lobbyist (yes, a real live lobbyist!), Judy Shaw. > > The meeting went exceptionally well and I was very glad to have these > two more politically experienced hands on board for the meeting. > Assemblywoman Quigley was very pleasant and more than willing to > entertain our suggestions. I felt that she was open and interested and > that she was upfront with us. > > She readily agreed that the years we suggested remain readily accessible > (80 years for births, 50 for marriages and 40 for deaths) were more than > reasonable. She seemed to suggest that adding in language that states > that allows for informational or non-certified copies within those > guidelines would be no problem. She also said that she had no problem > with simply deleting the section that said no sharing or disclosing the > information. > > In addition, we discussed the possibility of further changing the bill, > using language that was recently drafted by the Advocates and GSNJ with > guidance and input from the NJ State Archives. It might be possible to > basically redraft the whole bill and make it a really good bill from all > viewpoints. This language is not yet posted anywhere. It may be fairly > soon - and, when it is, I'll let you know. > > The new language would make more clear what records would be > "restricted" and who and how people would be able to get those more > recent records. It would also make clear what records would remain and > become available and allow for more ready access to them. The newer > language we suggested also includes language that would allow for (or > actually require) the Dept of Health to turn over more of the older > records to the archives. This would continue to make them available to > the public to search and would allow for archives staff (rather than the > Health Dept) to service the mail requests for copies of the records. > > Assemblywoman Quigley was interested in the proposal and promised to > consider the newer suggestions. We offered to be available to work with > her (and her staff) on the language if she wanted and suggested that we > would be glad to answer any questions that might arise. She offered to > allow us to see a draft of the new language before it gets released so > that we can make sure that it meets our needs. > > All in all, it was a very positive meeting with a legislator who was > responsive to our needs and anticipates working with us to (try to) make > everyone happy. > > GSNJ and the Advocates for NJ History will stay in touch with > Assemblywoman Quigley's office and will make sure that progress > continues to be made. Assemblywoman Quigley, however, is also on the > Assembly Budget Committee and she and her staff will have their hands > fairly full over the next few weeks with the budget battle. We won't > let them forget about us - but can't push too hard right away. > > For now - we do suggest that if you have already written - please hold > off on making further contacts until they have a chance to consider what > we gave them. If you haven't already written, please contact > Assemblywoman Quigley's office and offer your support of our proposed > changes You also could mention that you appreciate her willingness to be > so responsive to our concerns. > > I have many off-list emails from list members that haven't been answered > on this issue yet. I hope this may answer some of your questions and do > promise to try to get to all the individual emails as soon as I can. > > Thank you all for your help, concern, contacts, and willingness to be > involved in the process. > > Joan M. Lowry, President > Genealogical Society of New Jersey > mailto:membership@gsnj.org > website: www.gsnj.org > > > > > ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== > GSNJ Newsletter: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~njgsnj/newsletter.html > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >

Thank you Joan for all the hard work and the update. I passed it on to all the lists; I made aware of the bill. We are all looking forward to a good ending. Julie B in NC -----Original Message----- From: Joan M Lowry [mailto:jmlowry@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 12:48 AM To: NJ-GSNJ-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [GSNJ] A1390 Legislation Update (long) Hello Everyone Time for an update on the Assembly Bill we all love to hate! (A-1390, the vital records access legislation) However, this time the news is good! Please forward this message to other lists, as you did with our original emails on this issue. On Tuesday, 3/21/06, Assemblywoman Joan Quigley met with two representatives from GSNJ and one from the Advocates for NJ History. GSNJ was represented by Barbara Babcock and me, Joan Lowry. (Barbara is the GSNJ member who got the whole meeting ball rolling. Thank you Barbara for all your help!) The representative for the Advocates was their lobbyist (yes, a real live lobbyist!), Judy Shaw. The meeting went exceptionally well and I was very glad to have these two more politically experienced hands on board for the meeting. Assemblywoman Quigley was very pleasant and more than willing to entertain our suggestions. I felt that she was open and interested and that she was upfront with us. She readily agreed that the years we suggested remain readily accessible (80 years for births, 50 for marriages and 40 for deaths) were more than reasonable. She seemed to suggest that adding in language that states that allows for informational or non-certified copies within those guidelines would be no problem. She also said that she had no problem with simply deleting the section that said no sharing or disclosing the information. In addition, we discussed the possibility of further changing the bill, using language that was recently drafted by the Advocates and GSNJ with guidance and input from the NJ State Archives. It might be possible to basically redraft the whole bill and make it a really good bill from all viewpoints. This language is not yet posted anywhere. It may be fairly soon - and, when it is, I'll let you know. The new language would make more clear what records would be "restricted" and who and how people would be able to get those more recent records. It would also make clear what records would remain and become available and allow for more ready access to them. The newer language we suggested also includes language that would allow for (or actually require) the Dept of Health to turn over more of the older records to the archives. This would continue to make them available to the public to search and would allow for archives staff (rather than the Health Dept) to service the mail requests for copies of the records. Assemblywoman Quigley was interested in the proposal and promised to consider the newer suggestions. We offered to be available to work with her (and her staff) on the language if she wanted and suggested that we would be glad to answer any questions that might arise. She offered to allow us to see a draft of the new language before it gets released so that we can make sure that it meets our needs. All in all, it was a very positive meeting with a legislator who was responsive to our needs and anticipates working with us to (try to) make everyone happy. GSNJ and the Advocates for NJ History will stay in touch with Assemblywoman Quigley's office and will make sure that progress continues to be made. Assemblywoman Quigley, however, is also on the Assembly Budget Committee and she and her staff will have their hands fairly full over the next few weeks with the budget battle. We won't let them forget about us - but can't push too hard right away. For now - we do suggest that if you have already written - please hold off on making further contacts until they have a chance to consider what we gave them. If you haven't already written, please contact Assemblywoman Quigley's office and offer your support of our proposed changes You also could mention that you appreciate her willingness to be so responsive to our concerns. I have many off-list emails from list members that haven't been answered on this issue yet. I hope this may answer some of your questions and do promise to try to get to all the individual emails as soon as I can. Thank you all for your help, concern, contacts, and willingness to be involved in the process. Joan M. Lowry, President Genealogical Society of New Jersey mailto:membership@gsnj.org website: www.gsnj.org ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== GSNJ Newsletter: http://www.rootsweb.com/~njgsnj/newsletter.html ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/286 - Release Date: 3/20/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/286 - Release Date: 3/20/2006

Joan, I would like to add my appreciation and admiration to all of you who have devoted your time and energy for the good of all. I will report the news to the San Ramon Valley Genealogical Society, we have been supporting you all the way! Sandra in CA, but from NJ Joan M Lowry <jmlowry@earthlink.net> wrote: Hello Everyone Time for an update on the Assembly Bill we all love to hate! (A-1390, the vital records access legislation) However, this time the news is good! Please forward this message to other lists, as you did with our original emails on this issue. On Tuesday, 3/21/06, Assemblywoman Joan Quigley met with two representatives from GSNJ and one from the Advocates for NJ History. GSNJ was represented by Barbara Babcock and me, Joan Lowry. (Barbara is the GSNJ member who got the whole meeting ball rolling. Thank you Barbara for all your help!) The representative for the Advocates was their lobbyist (yes, a real live lobbyist!), Judy Shaw. The meeting went exceptionally well and I was very glad to have these two more politically experienced hands on board for the meeting. Assemblywoman Quigley was very pleasant and more than willing to entertain our suggestions. I felt that she was open and interested and that she was upfront with us. She readily agreed that the years we suggested remain readily accessible (80 years for births, 50 for marriages and 40 for deaths) were more than reasonable. She seemed to suggest that adding in language that states that allows for informational or non-certified copies within those guidelines would be no problem. She also said that she had no problem with simply deleting the section that said no sharing or disclosing the information. In addition, we discussed the possibility of further changing the bill, using language that was recently drafted by the Advocates and GSNJ with guidance and input from the NJ State Archives. It might be possible to basically redraft the whole bill and make it a really good bill from all viewpoints. This language is not yet posted anywhere. It may be fairly soon - and, when it is, I'll let you know. The new language would make more clear what records would be "restricted" and who and how people would be able to get those more recent records. It would also make clear what records would remain and become available and allow for more ready access to them. The newer language we suggested also includes language that would allow for (or actually require) the Dept of Health to turn over more of the older records to the archives. This would continue to make them available to the public to search and would allow for archives staff (rather than the Health Dept) to service the mail requests for copies of the records. Assemblywoman Quigley was interested in the proposal and promised to consider the newer suggestions. We offered to be available to work with her (and her staff) on the language if she wanted and suggested that we would be glad to answer any questions that might arise. She offered to allow us to see a draft of the new language before it gets released so that we can make sure that it meets our needs. All in all, it was a very positive meeting with a legislator who was responsive to our needs and anticipates working with us to (try to) make everyone happy. GSNJ and the Advocates for NJ History will stay in touch with Assemblywoman Quigley's office and will make sure that progress continues to be made. Assemblywoman Quigley, however, is also on the Assembly Budget Committee and she and her staff will have their hands fairly full over the next few weeks with the budget battle. We won't let them forget about us - but can't push too hard right away. For now - we do suggest that if you have already written - please hold off on making further contacts until they have a chance to consider what we gave them. If you haven't already written, please contact Assemblywoman Quigley's office and offer your support of our proposed changes You also could mention that you appreciate her willingness to be so responsive to our concerns. I have many off-list emails from list members that haven't been answered on this issue yet. I hope this may answer some of your questions and do promise to try to get to all the individual emails as soon as I can. Thank you all for your help, concern, contacts, and willingness to be involved in the process. Joan M. Lowry, President Genealogical Society of New Jersey mailto:membership@gsnj.org website: www.gsnj.org ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== GSNJ Newsletter: http://www.rootsweb.com/~njgsnj/newsletter.html ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

THANK YOU, JOAN. We all appreciate your time and effort. You are making history yourself. Ann Marie

Thank you so much Joan and Barbara and the lobbyist!! It certainly sounds like your meeting went exceptionally well. I hope you know how grateful we all are for your efforts thus far. Please let us know right away if you suspect any straying from promises made -- we'll be happy to jump right back in!! Pat Peoples Ormond Beach, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joan M Lowry" <jmlowry@earthlink.net> To: <NJ-GSNJ-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 12:48 AM Subject: [GSNJ] A1390 Legislation Update (long) > Hello Everyone > > Time for an update on the Assembly Bill we all love to hate! (A-1390, > the vital records access legislation) However, this time the news is > good! Please forward this message to other lists, as you did with our > original emails on this issue. > > On Tuesday, 3/21/06, Assemblywoman Joan Quigley met with two > representatives from GSNJ and one from the Advocates for NJ History. > GSNJ was represented by Barbara Babcock and me, Joan Lowry. (Barbara is > the GSNJ member who got the whole meeting ball rolling. Thank you > Barbara for all your help!) The representative for the Advocates was > their lobbyist (yes, a real live lobbyist!), Judy Shaw. > > The meeting went exceptionally well and I was very glad to have these > two more politically experienced hands on board for the meeting. > Assemblywoman Quigley was very pleasant and more than willing to > entertain our suggestions. I felt that she was open and interested and > that she was upfront with us. > > She readily agreed that the years we suggested remain readily accessible > (80 years for births, 50 for marriages and 40 for deaths) were more than > reasonable. She seemed to suggest that adding in language that states > that allows for informational or non-certified copies within those > guidelines would be no problem. She also said that she had no problem > with simply deleting the section that said no sharing or disclosing the > information. > > In addition, we discussed the possibility of further changing the bill, > using language that was recently drafted by the Advocates and GSNJ with > guidance and input from the NJ State Archives. It might be possible to > basically redraft the whole bill and make it a really good bill from all > viewpoints. This language is not yet posted anywhere. It may be fairly > soon - and, when it is, I'll let you know. > > The new language would make more clear what records would be > "restricted" and who and how people would be able to get those more > recent records. It would also make clear what records would remain and > become available and allow for more ready access to them. The newer > language we suggested also includes language that would allow for (or > actually require) the Dept of Health to turn over more of the older > records to the archives. This would continue to make them available to > the public to search and would allow for archives staff (rather than the > Health Dept) to service the mail requests for copies of the records. > > Assemblywoman Quigley was interested in the proposal and promised to > consider the newer suggestions. We offered to be available to work with > her (and her staff) on the language if she wanted and suggested that we > would be glad to answer any questions that might arise. She offered to > allow us to see a draft of the new language before it gets released so > that we can make sure that it meets our needs. > > All in all, it was a very positive meeting with a legislator who was > responsive to our needs and anticipates working with us to (try to) make > everyone happy. > > GSNJ and the Advocates for NJ History will stay in touch with > Assemblywoman Quigley's office and will make sure that progress > continues to be made. Assemblywoman Quigley, however, is also on the > Assembly Budget Committee and she and her staff will have their hands > fairly full over the next few weeks with the budget battle. We won't > let them forget about us - but can't push too hard right away. > > For now - we do suggest that if you have already written - please hold > off on making further contacts until they have a chance to consider what > we gave them. If you haven't already written, please contact > Assemblywoman Quigley's office and offer your support of our proposed > changes You also could mention that you appreciate her willingness to be > so responsive to our concerns. > > I have many off-list emails from list members that haven't been answered > on this issue yet. I hope this may answer some of your questions and do > promise to try to get to all the individual emails as soon as I can. > > Thank you all for your help, concern, contacts, and willingness to be > involved in the process. > > Joan M. Lowry, President > Genealogical Society of New Jersey > mailto:membership@gsnj.org > website: www.gsnj.org > > > > > ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== > GSNJ Newsletter: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~njgsnj/newsletter.html > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >

This is great news Joan! I am keeping my fingers crossed. Thank you and the others for all of your hard work. I sure do apreciate it. Stephanie Faycik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joan M Lowry" <jmlowry@earthlink.net> To: <NJ-GSNJ-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 12:48 AM Subject: A1390 Legislation Update (long) > Hello Everyone > > Time for an update on the Assembly Bill we all love to hate! (A-1390, > the vital records access legislation) However, this time the news is > good! Please forward this message to other lists, as you did with our > original emails on this issue. > > On Tuesday, 3/21/06, Assemblywoman Joan Quigley met with two > representatives from GSNJ and one from the Advocates for NJ History. > GSNJ was represented by Barbara Babcock and me, Joan Lowry. (Barbara is > the GSNJ member who got the whole meeting ball rolling. Thank you > Barbara for all your help!) The representative for the Advocates was > their lobbyist (yes, a real live lobbyist!), Judy Shaw. > > The meeting went exceptionally well and I was very glad to have these > two more politically experienced hands on board for the meeting. > Assemblywoman Quigley was very pleasant and more than willing to > entertain our suggestions. I felt that she was open and interested and > that she was upfront with us. > > She readily agreed that the years we suggested remain readily accessible > (80 years for births, 50 for marriages and 40 for deaths) were more than > reasonable. She seemed to suggest that adding in language that states > that allows for informational or non-certified copies within those > guidelines would be no problem. She also said that she had no problem > with simply deleting the section that said no sharing or disclosing the > information. > > In addition, we discussed the possibility of further changing the bill, > using language that was recently drafted by the Advocates and GSNJ with > guidance and input from the NJ State Archives. It might be possible to > basically redraft the whole bill and make it a really good bill from all > viewpoints. This language is not yet posted anywhere. It may be fairly > soon - and, when it is, I'll let you know. > > The new language would make more clear what records would be > "restricted" and who and how people would be able to get those more > recent records. It would also make clear what records would remain and > become available and allow for more ready access to them. The newer > language we suggested also includes language that would allow for (or > actually require) the Dept of Health to turn over more of the older > records to the archives. This would continue to make them available to > the public to search and would allow for archives staff (rather than the > Health Dept) to service the mail requests for copies of the records. > > Assemblywoman Quigley was interested in the proposal and promised to > consider the newer suggestions. We offered to be available to work with > her (and her staff) on the language if she wanted and suggested that we > would be glad to answer any questions that might arise. She offered to > allow us to see a draft of the new language before it gets released so > that we can make sure that it meets our needs. > > All in all, it was a very positive meeting with a legislator who was > responsive to our needs and anticipates working with us to (try to) make > everyone happy. > > GSNJ and the Advocates for NJ History will stay in touch with > Assemblywoman Quigley's office and will make sure that progress > continues to be made. Assemblywoman Quigley, however, is also on the > Assembly Budget Committee and she and her staff will have their hands > fairly full over the next few weeks with the budget battle. We won't > let them forget about us - but can't push too hard right away. > > For now - we do suggest that if you have already written - please hold > off on making further contacts until they have a chance to consider what > we gave them. If you haven't already written, please contact > Assemblywoman Quigley's office and offer your support of our proposed > changes You also could mention that you appreciate her willingness to be > so responsive to our concerns. > > I have many off-list emails from list members that haven't been answered > on this issue yet. I hope this may answer some of your questions and do > promise to try to get to all the individual emails as soon as I can. > > Thank you all for your help, concern, contacts, and willingness to be > involved in the process. > > Joan M. Lowry, President > Genealogical Society of New Jersey > mailto:membership@gsnj.org > website: www.gsnj.org >

Dear Joan and Barbara, Thank you so much for all the time and energy you've put into making this bill workable for the genealogical community. It sounds like your meeting went very well indeed. I hope that Assemblywoman Quigley follows up with her promise to allow you to review the draft. Sharon Clouse Chester, NJ | -----Original Message----- | From: Joan M Lowry [mailto:jmlowry@earthlink.net] | Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 12:48 AM | To: NJ-GSNJ-L@rootsweb.com | Subject: [GSNJ] A1390 Legislation Update (long) | | Hello Everyone | | Time for an update on the Assembly Bill we all love to hate! | (A-1390, the vital records access legislation) However, this | time the news is good! Please forward this message to other | lists, as you did with our original emails on this issue. | | On Tuesday, 3/21/06, Assemblywoman Joan Quigley met with two | representatives from GSNJ and one from the Advocates for NJ History. | GSNJ was represented by Barbara Babcock and me, Joan Lowry. | (Barbara is the GSNJ member who got the whole meeting ball | rolling. Thank you Barbara for all your help!) The | representative for the Advocates was their lobbyist (yes, a | real live lobbyist!), Judy Shaw. | | The meeting went exceptionally well and I was very glad to | have these two more politically experienced hands on board | for the meeting. | Assemblywoman Quigley was very pleasant and more than willing | to entertain our suggestions. I felt that she was open and | interested and that she was upfront with us. | | She readily agreed that the years we suggested remain readily | accessible (80 years for births, 50 for marriages and 40 for | deaths) were more than reasonable. She seemed to suggest | that adding in language that states that allows for | informational or non-certified copies within those guidelines | would be no problem. She also said that she had no problem | with simply deleting the section that said no sharing or | disclosing the information. | | In addition, we discussed the possibility of further changing | the bill, using language that was recently drafted by the | Advocates and GSNJ with guidance and input from the NJ State | Archives. It might be possible to basically redraft the | whole bill and make it a really good bill from all | viewpoints. This language is not yet posted anywhere. It | may be fairly soon - and, when it is, I'll let you know. | | The new language would make more clear what records would be | "restricted" and who and how people would be able to get | those more recent records. It would also make clear what | records would remain and become available and allow for more | ready access to them. The newer language we suggested also | includes language that would allow for (or actually require) | the Dept of Health to turn over more of the older records to | the archives. This would continue to make them available to | the public to search and would allow for archives staff | (rather than the Health Dept) to service the mail requests | for copies of the records. | | Assemblywoman Quigley was interested in the proposal and | promised to consider the newer suggestions. We offered to be | available to work with her (and her staff) on the language if | she wanted and suggested that we would be glad to answer any | questions that might arise. She offered to allow us to see a | draft of the new language before it gets released so that we | can make sure that it meets our needs. | | All in all, it was a very positive meeting with a legislator | who was responsive to our needs and anticipates working with | us to (try to) make everyone happy. | | GSNJ and the Advocates for NJ History will stay in touch with | Assemblywoman Quigley's office and will make sure that | progress continues to be made. Assemblywoman Quigley, | however, is also on the Assembly Budget Committee and she and | her staff will have their hands fairly full over the next few | weeks with the budget battle. We won't let them forget about | us - but can't push too hard right away. | | For now - we do suggest that if you have already written - | please hold off on making further contacts until they have a | chance to consider what we gave them. If you haven't already | written, please contact Assemblywoman Quigley's office and | offer your support of our proposed changes You also could | mention that you appreciate her willingness to be so | responsive to our concerns. | | I have many off-list emails from list members that haven't | been answered on this issue yet. I hope this may answer some | of your questions and do promise to try to get to all the | individual emails as soon as I can. | | Thank you all for your help, concern, contacts, and | willingness to be involved in the process. | | Joan M. Lowry, President | Genealogical Society of New Jersey | mailto:membership@gsnj.org | website: www.gsnj.org | | | | | ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== | GSNJ Newsletter: | http://www.rootsweb.com/~njgsnj/newsletter.html | | ============================== | Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records | added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the | world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx | |

THREE CHEERS for Joan, Barbara and Judy!!!!!!!!!! Thank you so very much -- your hard work is so appreciated! Terri in WA, but "from" NJ

Hello Everyone Time for an update on the Assembly Bill we all love to hate! (A-1390, the vital records access legislation) However, this time the news is good! Please forward this message to other lists, as you did with our original emails on this issue. On Tuesday, 3/21/06, Assemblywoman Joan Quigley met with two representatives from GSNJ and one from the Advocates for NJ History. GSNJ was represented by Barbara Babcock and me, Joan Lowry. (Barbara is the GSNJ member who got the whole meeting ball rolling. Thank you Barbara for all your help!) The representative for the Advocates was their lobbyist (yes, a real live lobbyist!), Judy Shaw. The meeting went exceptionally well and I was very glad to have these two more politically experienced hands on board for the meeting. Assemblywoman Quigley was very pleasant and more than willing to entertain our suggestions. I felt that she was open and interested and that she was upfront with us. She readily agreed that the years we suggested remain readily accessible (80 years for births, 50 for marriages and 40 for deaths) were more than reasonable. She seemed to suggest that adding in language that states that allows for informational or non-certified copies within those guidelines would be no problem. She also said that she had no problem with simply deleting the section that said no sharing or disclosing the information. In addition, we discussed the possibility of further changing the bill, using language that was recently drafted by the Advocates and GSNJ with guidance and input from the NJ State Archives. It might be possible to basically redraft the whole bill and make it a really good bill from all viewpoints. This language is not yet posted anywhere. It may be fairly soon - and, when it is, I'll let you know. The new language would make more clear what records would be "restricted" and who and how people would be able to get those more recent records. It would also make clear what records would remain and become available and allow for more ready access to them. The newer language we suggested also includes language that would allow for (or actually require) the Dept of Health to turn over more of the older records to the archives. This would continue to make them available to the public to search and would allow for archives staff (rather than the Health Dept) to service the mail requests for copies of the records. Assemblywoman Quigley was interested in the proposal and promised to consider the newer suggestions. We offered to be available to work with her (and her staff) on the language if she wanted and suggested that we would be glad to answer any questions that might arise. She offered to allow us to see a draft of the new language before it gets released so that we can make sure that it meets our needs. All in all, it was a very positive meeting with a legislator who was responsive to our needs and anticipates working with us to (try to) make everyone happy. GSNJ and the Advocates for NJ History will stay in touch with Assemblywoman Quigley's office and will make sure that progress continues to be made. Assemblywoman Quigley, however, is also on the Assembly Budget Committee and she and her staff will have their hands fairly full over the next few weeks with the budget battle. We won't let them forget about us - but can't push too hard right away. For now - we do suggest that if you have already written - please hold off on making further contacts until they have a chance to consider what we gave them. If you haven't already written, please contact Assemblywoman Quigley's office and offer your support of our proposed changes You also could mention that you appreciate her willingness to be so responsive to our concerns. I have many off-list emails from list members that haven't been answered on this issue yet. I hope this may answer some of your questions and do promise to try to get to all the individual emails as soon as I can. Thank you all for your help, concern, contacts, and willingness to be involved in the process. Joan M. Lowry, President Genealogical Society of New Jersey mailto:membership@gsnj.org website: www.gsnj.org

Thank you, Charlene. I will look into it. Sandra charlene lovegrove <charslist@yahoo.com> wrote: I think mnay church records are also at SEton Hall University, West Orange (?) NJ archives. You might try to contact them. --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== New Jersey Legislative Alerts: http://www.rootsweb.com/~njgsnj/legislation.html ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

I think mnay church records are also at SEton Hall University, West Orange (?) NJ archives. You might try to contact them. --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

Forgot this person. Being old is great sometimes. I knew everyone on the bottom list. lol PEARL ANDERSON mar. Raymond Vlearbone of hunterdon co. dau Barbara mar. Howard Teets. had children but these should remain unk for now unless you ask via my addy, and have a connection to the family. Below are very old, and I don't think that matters. Franor@atmc.net Norma ----- From: "Franor" <Franor@atmc.net> To: <NJ-GSNJ-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:15 PM Subject: [GSNJ] Fw: Aunt Jennie//NJ Blizzard 1888 > I think you are right. Our Aunt Jennie was born during the storm and it > was always told. She lived almost to 100 in 1988. > This is some from my Tree. Might be interesting to someone in the Hund. > Co area. > > 1. JENNIE6 SHEPHERD (JAMES WILSON5, ELIAL4, JOHN S.3, RICHARD2, SCHAFER1) > was born 17 Mar 1888 in Reaville, Hunterdon Co., N.J., and died Oct 1986 in > Doylestown, Bucks Co., Pa.. She married JAMES P. ANDERSON 12 Nov 1905. He > was born Abt. 1876, and died Abt. 1949. > More About JENNIE SHEPHERD :Burial: Pleasant Ridge, Ringoes, New Jersey > > More About JAMES P. ANDERSON: Burial: Pleasant Ridge, Ringoes, New Jersey > > Children of JENNIE SHEPHERD and JAMES ANDERSON are:i. FLORENCE7 ANDERSON, > b. Abt. 1918; d. Abt. 1983; m. SCHONER. > > More About FLORENCE ANDERSON: Burial: Pleasant Ridge, Ringoes, New > Jersey2. ii. PEARL ANDERSON, b. 21 May 1909, Flemington, Hunterdon Co, New > Jersey; d. Aug 1990, New Hanover Co. Wilmington, North Carolina.iii. DOROTHY > ANDERSON, m. JOHN MULENHAUER; b. Germany.iv. ELLEN ANDERSON, d. Flemington > Hunterdon Co., N.J.; m. CLARENCE (SHINE) WORTHINGTON; d. Flemington > Hunterdon Co., N.J.. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alice" <alice34@alltel.net> > To: <NJ-GSNJ-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 12:10 PM > Subject: Re: [GSNJ] NJ Blizzard 1888 > > > > oops....did a quick search and find that the east coast Blizzard also > > known as the "Blizzard of 1888" came two months later in March on the > 11th > > and apparently paralized the east coast for several days...Sorry....I > had > > thought they were probably one and the same blizzard... > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alice" <alice34@alltel.net> > > To: <NJ-GSNJ-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:49 AM > > Subject: Re: [GSNJ] NJ Blizzard 1888 > > > > > > > > ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== > GSNJ Newsletter: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~njgsnj/newsletter.html > > ============================== > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find > marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >

Sandra, All of the Catholic church records in Jersey City have been microfilmed by the Mormon church. You can order the St. Anthony records at your local Mormon branch for about $3 per roll and view the microfilm at their library. I have done this for St. Joseph and St. John church records and it is awesome! Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Sandra [mailto:skbdesign@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 1:52 PM To: NJ-GSNJ-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [GSNJ] Jersey City Catholic Church Hi All, Does anyone have any connection with Saint Anthony's Polish Church on or near Monmouth Street in Jersey City? I would like to find some records and wondered whom I would contact, whether by phone or mail, and if they are willing to do searches for someone who can't go there in person. Thank you, Sandra in CA Researching ADAMCZYK, KORDULASINSKI (KORDELL) - Jersey City, NARUCKA - Jersey City, STAMPORA, STEMPORA - Cliffside Park, Jersey City SWIECICKI TYBUS - Jersey City TYBURSKI - NJ, also in Staten Island, NY ZYWIATKOWSKI (ZEVITS) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ==== NJ-GSNJ Mailing List ==== Save the Date!!! Save the Date!!! Save the Date!!! GSNJ 2006 Spring Conference -- Saturday, June 3rd ============================== New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=1459 9&targetid=5429