Keep the Massachusetts Tradition: Open Records
What Governor Baker Got Wrong in the Budget Bill
In the Budget Bill recently released by Gov. Charlie Baker is Section 42 of the Outside Bill. It ends Massachusetts open records policies in civil registration -- policies that have been in force since 1641. This is what it says in justification.
This section, along with thirteen others, updates the laws governing the registration of births, deaths, and marriages and the disclosure of corresponding records to align with national best practices for the protection of personally identifiable data and confidential health information.
The problem with this is that it is entirely wrong.
Governments and companies have already sold our birth and residence information to data aggregators. It is widely available on the Internet.
Our own vital statistics office has already sold our data to the Social Security Administration and to online family history sites.
FBI crime statistics show that records closure periods have no relationship to whether consumer identity theft takes place.
If Gov. Baker wanted to protect us, he would have suggested an internet privacy bill. Such bills have already passed in the European Union and in the state of California. Those bills protect privacy.
FBI Statistics and the Changed National Norm
Alec Ferretti and Alex Calzareth developed a graph showing consumer identity theft against the period of time that birth and death records are closed. They found that there was no correlation between identity theft and closure periods. States with totally open records (such as Massachusetts) have slightly less identity theft than states where those records are closed for 100 or more years.
This graph and its underlying data are hosted on a website called GitHub. You can view the data and see the graph here.
Gov. Baker's assessment was based on the 2011 Model Act promulgated by the The National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (NAPHSIS). The previous model acts for vital statistics have all been approved by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. The last act the CDC approved was the 1992 Model Act.
Even NAPHSIS no longer stands by these draconian closure periods. The organization has a committee currently working on a 2020 Model Act. A senior official at NAPHSIS has commented that closure periods will probably be halved.
Ironically, Massachusetts has adopted every aspect of the 2011 Model Act that was appropriate to our deep history of open records. Massachusetts already has the computerized vital records system and security papers for certificates that the previous NAPHSIS-approved (but not CDC-approved) Model Act recommended. The Massachusetts Genealogy Council approved those aspects of the Act.
What Remedy Do We Have?
This is a time when genealogists from throughout the world should step up and be heard. It's not just Massachusetts genealogists who need to access this information. Genealogists across the US have ancestors in Massachusetts. Anyone filling out a Health Pedigree for their primary care physician needs access to the cause of death in these certificate. Health researchers at Harvard Medical School need this data. Women needing to prove family incidence of breast cancer to quality for medical genetics testing need access to this data. The governor's draconian measures hurt us all.
WRITE OR CALL THE GOVERNOR
There is an online form to email the Governor's office. There is a blank space for Subject. Although filling it in is optional, you will want to give the office a description so they will know what it is about. Just state, "Section 42 of the Budget Bill Outside Section."
WRITE OR CALL YOUR STATE SENATOR OR STATE REPRESENTATIVE
The Massachusetts General Court offers a website to find your state senator and state representative. You only have to put in your street address, town name, and zipcode. Go to this site:
The site will bring up photos of your legislators. Just click on their names and you will be taken to their individual pages. Their contact information is displayed there. You will have both their email and telephone contacts. Be sure to reference "Section 42 of the Budget Bill Outside Section."
You can also write to the Massachusetts Joint Committee Ways and Means by using a contact link here https://malegislature.gov/Committees/Detail/J39. If your legislator is listed here as a committee member, you can directly click on his or her name. Your voice in this matter will be especially powerful.
What Everyone Is Saying About This
GENEALOGISTS DISCUSS GOV. BAKER'S OUTSIDE SECTION
Judy G. Russell, The Legal Genealogist, on January 31, 2020, published "Open since 1641..." She observes, "And, sadly, it’s the same old tired “model” vital records act stuff that came out almost a decade ago from a conference of vital records officials that even that group no longer fully supports: if adopted, records that are absolutely open today — and have been for nearly 380 years — will be shuttered away for decades — birth and marriage records will be closed for 90 years from the date of birth or date or marriage, and death records will be close for 50 years from date of death."
Dick Eastman of Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter (EOGN), on 31 January 2020, published "Massachusetts Governor Seeks to Cut Access to Public Domain Records." He said, "Governor Charlie Baker is seeking to dramatically restrict who has access to Massachusetts birth records, death certificates, and marriage notices under a proposal that, if adopted, would exempt many of the documents from public view for a virtual lifetime."
Ryan Wood, EVP and COO of American Ancestors/New England Historic Genealogical Society, wrote a letter to the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. It is posted here.
Dick Eastman on February 13, 2020, posted "NEHGS Issues Statement Opposing Mass. Governor's Budge Proposals."
Judy G. Russell posted on February 14, 2020, her call to action, "Yes in Virginia. No in Massachusetts." She notes the case Ryan Woods made for open records. She says succinctly, "It’s really pretty simple: no records, no genealogy."
NEWSPAPERS COVER THE IMPACT
Matt Stout, state house reporter for the Boston Globe, broke this story on January 30, 2020, "In 'drastic' change, Baker wants births, death records secret in most cases. Marriage records would only become publicly available on the couple's 90th anniversary."
The Editorial Board of the Boston Globe wrote on February 1, 2020, "More sunshine, not less, needed with Massachusetts public records. A Baker Budget amendment would hinder public records access."
Christian W. Wade, the statehouse reporter for The Eagle-Tribune (Andover, Mass.), covered the issue on January 31, 2020, in "Massachusetts Gov. Baker Wants to Limit Vital Records Access." His article was also published in the Salem News.
Christopher Gavin, a reporter for the Boston Globe, wrote on January 31, 2020, "Charlie Baker wants to restrict access to birth, death, and marriage records. Here’s what to know."
Steph Solis, a reporter for MassLive, reported on 31 January 2020, "Tucked into Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker’s budget is a provision to make birth, death certificates mostly secret."
The Salem News editorial board, on February 4, 2020, published, "Our view: Don't deny access to vital records."
Karen Anderson, a reporter for WCVB Channel 5, covered this issue on January 31, 2020, in her segment on "Gov. Baker's birth certificate proposal raises freedom of information questions"
Dr. Monica Bharel, the Massachusetts Commissioner of Public Health, wrote a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe on February 12, 2020. She stated, "Missing in the Globe’s editorial was that the state’s Public Health Council will develop regulations that specify the levels of access to vital records for the general public, including genealogists, historians, and journalists. These regulations will undergo a robust public process prior to implementation."
MGC President Barbara Mathews wrote our response to Dr. Bharel's letter. The Letter to the Editor was published in the Boston Globe on February 18, 2020, as "State officials can't obscure fact that their bid would hinder access to public records."
In her Feb. 12 letter to the editor (“With digital data, state must consider how to protect people’s personal information”), Dr. Monica Bharel, the state’s commissioner of public health, wrote, “Missing in the Globe’s editorial was that the state’s Public Health Council will develop regulations that specify the levels of access to vital records for the general public, including genealogists, historians, and journalists. These regulations will undergo a robust public process prior to implementation.”
That all sounds great until you realize that the regulations cannot undo the law. If the law says no one can access a marriage record for 90 years, regulations cannot legally say anything else.
As for the promise of a “robust public process prior to implementation,” actually, that is what we do in testimony at legislative hearings involving upcoming legislation. We have a public process, a robust discussion that includes all the stakeholders, before the Legislature determines whether a bill ever becomes law.
I want to make sure that Globe readers are not misled by Bharel’s generous statement of inclusion. The law determines the boundaries of access. Regulations are written later, and they cannot change the law.
Massachusetts Genealogical Council
Susan Spencer, reporter for the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, on February 15, 2020, published "Concerns raised about gov's proposed limits on access to vital documents." She interviewed many town and city clerks who were perplexed about the closure periods contemplated. Ryan Woods of American Ancestors/NEHGS represented the genealogists' point-of-view. This article has also been published on MetroWest Daily and Wicked Local, thus covering many communities.
Paul Leighton, a staff writer for the Salem News, on February 18, 2020 published "Closing the book: Vital records plan leaves volunteer in limbo." His interview with Dan Driscoll, a volunteer at Beverly City Hall, shows how much good open records have done over the years. Driscoll is just as puzzled about records closure as the town clerks were in the article by Susan Spencer.
INTERNET PRIVACY BILLS
Sam Dean, a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times, wrote on January 1, 2020, "It’s 2020 and you have new privacy rights online. But you might have to show ID."