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