[or-roots] HB 2093

[Glen Jones]

Pat 

you have missed the point what is wanted is to setup another 

Governmental department that would cost T axpayers Millions 

if not Billions to se tup and administer, and there are already other State 
Statues covering everything they want to do, the bill is not to increase revenue 

but to close records to prevent I/D theft, but this is not where I/D Thie ves 

get there info. 

Currently many Vital records are kept at the County level until the closed 

time expires then are transfered to the State Archives. 

Prior to that time only an immediate family member can obtain the 

record and you must prove you are an immediate family member, 

an immediate family member is spouse, child, or Brother/Sister or 

parent if you are a cousin then forget it, unless you have a written 

letter from an immediaate family member, my wife has gone through 

this with her late father's info when a cousin wanted to get info. 



I have answered this is another email Heritage tourism is the number one 

reason people traveled to Oregon this was a study commissioned by 

the Oregon Heritage Commission. 



Glen Jones 

Portland O regon  



----- Original Message -----
From: "Kith-n-Kin" <Kith-n-Kin at cox.net> 
To: "or-roots mail list" <or-roots at listsmart.osl.state.or.us> 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:47:25 AM 
Subject: Re: [or-roots] HB 2093 

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. 

_____________________________________________________ 
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. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/or-roots/attachments/20130405/d8e46a95/attachment.html>