[or-roots] HB 2093

[Kith-n-Kin]

Of course, I'd say 'nix the bill' -- but then, I'm in Arizona(!) so I'm
pretty sure they don't care what I think.

More to the point, let's talk about money. "Impact of loss of revenue?"  The
only revenue issue I see here is that for "current records" the HB charges
"walk-ups" for staff finding and copying the certificates, as well as the
cost of the copy machines. For "out of staters" I think Oregon uses
"VitalChek," so if anyone is making money, it is them.

The Archives (who would have the original documents) already pays for
storage, that would be their only cost, and the system is already in place
for charging us. (as I recall, if you make your own copies, it's pretty
cheap, if you write for one, it costs more, to pay for the staff, and
postage.)

Already, if you want a certificate that has not been sent to Archives, you
"prove" who you are, and order it. I have done this several times, and it is
no problem. 

As to the "revenue issue" of tourism. Really? Do you think tourists travel
all the way to Oregon just to get vital records? I doubt it. Yes, I go
there, and I do stop by and get records, but then, I also go to visit
cousins. If not for that, I'd just use the internet.

The point here is that using "revenue" as a point may backfire, unless
there's something here I don't see (won't be the first time). 

By the way, as further ammunition, California Death Index goes to 1997, the
Birth Index goes to 1995 (and readily available on Ancestry.com). I have
grandchildren younger than that! While they are not certificates, the
"information" that is being cried about is there! 

Pat
In Tucson

-----Original Message-----
From: or-roots-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us
[mailto:or-roots-bounces at listsmart.osl.state.or.us] On Behalf Of W David
Samuelsen
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 9:59 PM
To: Historic Cemeteries; Or-Roots; Oregon
Subject: [or-roots] HB 2093

To all,

The bill has been scheduled for April 10 in Health Care Committee.

Please take note of the amendments which have NOT been adopted.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/924

Still in need of few more tweaking.

1. One is changing to 105 years for birth records to be transferred to State
Archives. 125 is most extreme and only Oregon is pursuing it. 
Pennsylvania considered it and balked, going to 105 instead. Virginia
changed from 125 to 105.

2. There's nothing herein, requiring the State Archives to stamp or mark the
uncertified copies for genealogy purposes. This is a safeguard against
identity theft. Wisconsin do this.

3. Revenue is in question. Impact of loss of revenue for the Health Bureau.
What about tourism $ impact if the amendments are not adopted and the bill
is?

4. What about requiring the State Registrar to mark or stamp birth records
as deceased as soon as is known and VERIFIED. This will thwart the identity
theft because the thieves prefer CERTIFIED copy.

5. How about the possibility of having digital copies available online like
several states are doing now? Missouri (50 years death, 44 years for
marriages), Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, Utah (50 years deaths, births 100),
Montana (most liberal, births 2004!), Iowa (deaths to 1990) to name a few.

6. Least of all, this bill is written as if we are still in PRE-Internet
Age.

W. David Samuelsen, 6th (5th if native) generation Oregonian
_____________________________________________________
or-roots mailing list
or-roots at listsmart.osl.state.or.us
http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/mailman/listinfo/or-roots
Hosted by the Oregon State Library. The Library is not responsible for
content.
Questions related to message content should be directed to list owner(s) or
the sender of the message, by phone or email.
Technical questions? Call 503-378-8800.