A joint committee of the Federation of Genealogical Societies, the National Genealogical Society, and the International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies.
With thanks to Jan Meisels Allen for the following update on Pennsylvania legislation:
> Pennsylvania Open Records Act
>
> The newly enacted (2008) Open Records Act became effective January 1,
> 2009.
> The law declared that all state, county, and local government records
> are public unless specifically exempted. The law created a new Office
> of Open Records for Pennsylvania
> http://openrecords.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt To get more
> information IAJGS contacted the senior attorney for the new department
> and learned the charges per page ($0.25 maximum) do NOT apply to
> marriage and death records and due to other established law, birth
> and adoption records are NOT covered under the new law.
>
> From an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, April 11, 2009 it
> appears that Governor Rendell’s administration is going out of its way
> to block public access to government documents. The article quoted a
> letter from Commissioner Mutchler to the governor “Some agencies …
> are using the Right-to-Know law as a shield with which to block
> information rather than a tool with which to open records of
> government.”
>
> The Office of Open Records in Pennsylvania on a case brought by a
> genealogist who brought suit through the Office of Open Records
> against the Philadelphia Marriage Bureau for their charging $20-$30
> per record, charging for looking at a record, preventing use of a
> digital camera, and limiting the number of records one may request at
> a time. The case was decided July 31, 2009, and the plaintiff won on
> some points and lost on others–per the Office of Open Records the
> Philadelphia Marriage Bureau may only charge $2.00 per page plus $2.00
> for certification, the Registrar may not charge to view the
> record, no digital camera may be used to copy the records, the City
> conceded on the number of requests at one time. Currently the City
> would only provide certified copies and used that as part of the
> reason for their high charges. The City of Philadelphia has notified
> the parties that they will appeal their loss of the case in both in
> both the Common Pleas and Commonwealth Courts. While the case is being
> appealed the decision is in limbo. To read the decision go to:
> http://openrecords.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/open_records
> /4434/final_determinations/481690
>
>
> Pennsylvania HB563
>
> This bill requires the Department of Health to prepare an electronic
> database for all vital records. It would also require the transfer of
> all birth and death records after 100 years to the Pennsylvania
> Historical and Museum Commission. The bill is sitting in its original
> committee as of this posting no hearings have been scheduled.
>
> Pennsylvania HB 931
>
> This bill would establish an Internet-based electronic death
> registration system for creation, storage and transfer of the
> information. It would also establish, for birth and death records, to
> become public records and the information would become available at no
> fee, on an Internet-system maintained by the Department of Health.
> The Department of Health would be required to establish and maintain
> an Internet based-system for birth and death certificates as a
> searchable database open to the public. The database would be subject
> to any limitation on access and release required by other existing
> laws. In addition, the Department of Health would establish and
> maintain a searchable index database of all death records between 2-50
> years of age.
> A
> similar bill was introduced last year with no hearings held. RPAC has
> agreed to send a letter of support to Governor Rendell and key
> legislators on this bill.
>
With thanks to Jan Meisels Allen for the following update on pending legislation in California:
California
>
> California AB 130
>
> In 2002 the California legislature enacted, at the request of the
> County Recorders Association, the use of informational copies of birth
> and death records and that indices would be created without mothers’ maiden names.
> CA
> AB 130 addresses the same issue for marriage records. The rationale
> again is protection against identity theft. This bill passed the
> Assembly and is going through the Senate. There is a hearing
> scheduled in Senate Appropriations on August 17. The International
> Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies ( IAJGS) submitted a
> written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee before its
> hearing, which the committee passed out unanimously, and has submitted
> a statement to be considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
> IAJGS in speaking with the lobbyist for the County Clerks Association,
> who is the sponsor of the bill, explained that the genealogy community
> supports the informational copies, but at least IAJGS is opposed to
> the elimination of mothers’ maiden names from the index as it makes it
> difficult or not impossible to determine if one is ordering the
> correct record for those with common names. For tracing medical
> history, it is imperative to have the mothers’ maiden names to trace
> back for studying possible genetic diseases that might have been
> passed down. The fact that some County Recorders are already
> eliminating mothers’ maiden names from marriage indices does not mean
> codifying poor practice makes good public policy. It is expected that
> the bill will pass and probably be signed by the governor. It would
> become effective January 1, 2010.
>
> California VRIRSA System
>
> Part of the same 2002 legislation mentioned under AB 130, required
> developing a single, state-wide system for accessing redacted records.
> Information to be included on informational copies permitted under the
> 2002 legislation called for certain data elements to be redacted on
> informational copies. The system, Vital Records Image Redaction and
> Statewide Access is known by its acronym, VRIRSA. The information
> that is being redacted from birth and death records under VRIRSA are:
> Social Security Numbers, signatures and sensitive medical information.
>
> At present, the VRIRSA system fulfills public requests for
> Informational copies of birth certificates from 1985 to present, and
> for death certificates from 1996 forward. As additional birth and
> death records are converted to computerized images over the next
> several years, more informational copy requests will be handled by
> VRIRSA. “Manual redaction is not required for records that predate the
> range of records currently in VRIRSA. However, informational copies
> must still contain the legend “INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO
> ESTABLISH IDENTITY.”
>
> If AB 130 relating to marriage records is signed into law, marriage
> records will probably also be covered under the VRIRSA system.
>
> CA SB 40
>
> This bill as originally introduced would have redacted Social Security
> Numbers from any document filed with the county recorder. Due to
> VRIRSA, birth and death records are no longer included in this bill.
> As of this report, the bill has passed its house of origin and is
> awaiting the final floor vote before it goes to the governor for signature.
> ___________________________________________
In a post 9/11 world, the new millennium is faced with two significant social developments. First, the concern over the proliferation of personal information now made available and second, the need to legitimately identify a country’s citizens through official records that support that claim.
These seemingly competing issues present a significant challenge for local, state and federal lawmakers as they strive to ensure national security, combat terrorism and respond to the privacy needs of their electorate.The genealogical community is in complete support of lawmakers protecting sensitive information from misuse by those perpetrating crimes of identity theft or other illicit activities.
The Records Preservation and Access Committee (RPAC), a joint committee of the Federation of Genealogical Societies and the National Genealogical Society is leading the genealogical community to openly share perspectives on these vital issues and add their support to fostering education between lawmakers and genealogists. The committee believes that open communication between the nation’s genealogists and lawmakers can strike a reasonable balance between the public’s right to know while maintaining the lawmaker’s responsibility to its constituents.
This document is a project by the RPAC to provide information to lawmakers and those called to implement legislation about the genealogical community’s perspective of open access to records.
We envision that this will be a living document. Updates and corrections are welcomed and should be submitted to access@fgs.org .
This version has been approved by the Boards of Directors of the Federation of Genealogical Societies and the National Genealogical Society. At the time of posting, it has also been endorsed by IAJGS.
The Federation of Genealogical Societies is a nationwide umbrella organization of nearly 600 member societies representing the interests of over one million genealogists.The National Genealogical Society represents the national interests of genealogy in the United States with a membership in excess of ten thousand.The Records Preservation and Access Committee also includes representatives from the Association of Professional Genealogists, the Board for Certification of Genealogists, and the International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies.
Permission is granted for genealogical organizations to locally reproduce in its entirety the attached PDF version of the White Paper.
The Records Preservation and Access Committee have developed a tri-fold brochure entitled “The Case for Open Public Records.”
Special thanks are in order to President Jan Alpert of the National Genealogical Society for her role in coordinating the project and NGS for sponsoring the design of the brochure. We also thank Heather Henderson of Ancestral Origins for the graphic design of the brochure (and for her patience in managing the numerous edits of its content.) Copies of the printed brochure are available at 12 cents each plus shipping by contacting janalpert@aol.com.
We also want to thank the members of the RPAC committee who contributed information and provided editing support.
Permission is granted for genealogical organizations to locally reproduce in its entirety the attached PDF version of the brochure.
Congressmen Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Chris Cannon (R-UT) have issued a “dear colleagues” letter to the members of the House of Representatives, inviting them to sign on as original sponsors to the “Preserving the American Historical Record” (PAHR) bill.
PAHR proposed to increase federal support for state and local archival records held by government agencies, historical societies, libraries, and related organizations. This initiative would establish a program of formula-based grants to states for re-grants and statewide services to support preservations and use of historical records. The program, to be administered by the National Archives, will provide a total of $50 million per year nationwide. Each state would receive a portion of these funds for redistribution to organizations within its borders. This program would be in addition to the existing national grants program within the National Historical Publications and Records Commission.
How can you help?
Contact your Representative in Congress and urge them to sign on as an original sponsor of PAHR. Write a few sentences telling him or her how PAHR would help his or her constituents — you! (Tell them how vital it is to have records preserved and available to the public.) Also, spread the word about this action alert!
Time is critical. Deadline for action is Saturday, May 10.
Faxing your Representative is the preferred method of communication. The Humanities Advocacy Network maintains a website with all of the contact information for legislators: http://www.humanitiesadvocacy.org/action_ctr.html
Further information about PAHR, including the bill, background information, and the amount of funding for each state can be found at:
Information from Howard Margol, President, Litvak SIG (Special Interest Group), an independent organization, part of the JewishGen.org family has advised of the following changes in Lithuania’s privacy laws for records access.
Since Lithuania was no longer under the yoke of the Soviet Union, the
privacy law of the Lithuanian Archives was 50 years for death records and 70
years for all other records. As of January 1, 2005 Lithuania was accepted as a
member of the European Union and had to adopt their privacy law which was 50
years for death records and 100 years for other records.
Several months ago, the privacy law was changed. We do not know what
triggered the change but it was a welcome change never the less. The 50 year
requirement on death records, and the 100 year restriction on birth records,
remained in place. However, the 100 year restriction on marriage and divorce
records reverted back to the 70 year law.
GENEALOGISTS PUSH FOR OPEN RECORDS
Formation of the Keeping Genealogical Records Open Workgroup (KGROW)
WESTMINSTER, Colo., March 21 – The Association of Professional Genealogists (APG) contends that there is no proof that open records significantly contribute to ID theft or terrorism. In a position paper that outlines the case for open public records, APG asserts that open records are rarely used by identification thieves and maintains that the benefit of open access to records far outweighs any potential abuse.
APG has joined forces with other genealogical organizations including the National Genealogical Society (NGS), The Federation of Genealogical Societies (FGS) and the International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies (IAJGS) in endorsing the position paper and calling on legislators to keep records open.
“Public records allow genealogists and other professionals such as medical researchers, journalists, historians and academic researchers to do their jobs,” explains APG President, Jake Gehring. He urges that “concerned citizens tell their representatives that they want to keep public records open.”
A group of professional genealogists within APG formed the Keeping Genealogical Records Open Workgroup (KGROW) in 2007 and prepared the position paper. Melinde Lutz Sanborn, FASG (Fellow, American Society of Genealogists) and member of the committee, says, “Open records and transparency in government are the best protections we have against twenty-first century fraud.”
The KGROW committee recommends in their paper that “lawmakers respond to the ID theft problem, not try to prevent a nonexistent problem.” Further, they encourage “private companies and government improve their protection of personal data.” The Case for Open Public Records position paper is available on the APG website at http://apgen.org/publications/press.
The Association of Professional Genealogists is an independent organization whose worldwide members number over 1,800. The group’s principal purpose is to support professional genealogists in all phases of their work: from the amateur genealogist wishing to turn knowledge and skill into a vocation, to the experienced professional seeking to exchange ideas with colleagues and to upgrade the profession as a whole.
Contact: Kathleen W. Hinckley, CG, Executive Director, Association of Professional Genealogists P.O. Box 350998, Westminster, CO80035-0998 Phone 303-422-9371, fax 303-456-8825, e-mailadmin@apgen.org
An Associated Press study of state laws passed in the five years after 9/11 found that more than 1,000 laws regarding access to records were passed. Of these, for every one law that gave greater access there were more than two laws that restricted access.
New Jersey has introduced legislation pertaining to access to vital records. Bill A326 “establishes guidelines for dissemination of vital records,” and can be found at:
It keeps the same guidelines for genealogical (non-certified) copies: available 80 years after a birth, 50 years after a marriage, and 40 years after a death.
However, Section 2 states, “Vital records shall not be deemed to be a public or government record pursuant to P.L.1963, c.73 (C.47:1A-1 et seq.) or P.L.2001, c.404 (C.47:1A-5 et seq.).”
Further, Section 5 states, “A person or entity that uses, transfers, sells, shares or otherwise discloses any information as described in subsection b. of section 3 of this act in a manner that is not authorized under the provisions of this act or any other law shall be guilty of a crime of the fourth degree and shall thereafter be prohibited from making application to obtain any such information pursuant to this act.” It is unclear what would be the implications would be to genealogists using or sharing vital records.
Bill A326 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Joan M. Quigley (District 32, Bergen and Hudson) and Assemblywoman Nellie Pou (District 35, Bergen and Passaic); it is co-sponsored by Assemblywoman Vainieri Huttle.
Vermont House Bill H397 and Senate Bill S319 were recently introduced. Each calls for the redaction of Social Security numbers and causes of death from Vermont death certificates.
H 397 had a second hearing on February 1; S 319 will have its second reading very soon.
Representative Peg Flory, a member of the Vermont Judiciary Committee, has informed RPAC that the intent of the bill is to redact the information from the public copy at the Town Clerks offices, but that the information would be left on the copy at the Department of Health. According to Rep. Flory, “I expect we will be working to rewrite the bill so that it clearly gives access to anyone through the Dept. of Health.”
The Senate has not received the House Bill yet; the Government Operations office explained that they will wait until receipt of the bill to set the hearing date and to see what amendments have been made.
David Rencher, RPAC Chair, sent a letter from RPAC to Representative William J. Lippert, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, explaining RPAC’s position on the importance of keeping the Social Security numbers and the cause of death on the certificates. (Read a copy of the RPAC letter.)
RPAC member Jan Meisels Allen sent a letter from the International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies. (Read a copy of the IAJGS letter.)
RPAC will keep you updated with developments on these bills.
To advise the genealogical community on ensuring proper access to historical records of genealogical value in whatever media they are recorded, on means to affect legislation, and on supporting strong records preservation policies and practices.