 |  |
|
Editorial: State officials rushed to judgment on open records
| | |
By KEITH JENSEN, Associate Publisher
| 03/23/2006 |
| | |
If it weren't true, it would be funny -- but the reasons used by public officials who pushed closing records of marriage licenses, births and deaths to public view are ludicrous.
Readers need some background first: The state's vital records law was amended in 2005 over concerns that public records might enable terrorist activities.
The original version of the bill would have closed the records to anybody other than the person in the document. But criticism arose and a compromise was reached between Health Department officials and the state's newspaper and genealogical associations, which ensured that the public still could get non-certified informational copies.
No mention was made in the law of indexes, so state officials interpreted that as meaning they were closed.
The state genealogist organization, which uses the indexes to research family tree information, was concerned over that and cut a deal with the Health Department to make the indexes available to members of the S.D. Genealogical Society members.
What a farce! "Quite frankly, it isn't very hard to get a card from the genealogy association," admitted Kathleen Mueller, state registrar, in defending the closure. No kidding! How about the members of, let's say, the Farmers Union. They need to cut a deal, too!
The S.D. Newspaper Association was offered the same deal, but wisely declined. David Bordewyk, general manager of SDNA, said it would not be proper to provide privileged access to members of the media. "If it is a public record, then that's just what it is," said Bordewyk -- meaning open to everyone.
Now here's the kicker, folks: Doneen Hollingsworth, secretary of the state Health Department, defended the department by indicating they needed to make the change because federal rules were being drafted which would require it.
So, along comes a query to Charlie Rothwell, director of the federal Division of Vital Statistics, who said of federal law changes: "There will be nothing involved with marriages...For the most part, this will be involved with birth certificates."
At a time when the public is demanding more openness from government, this scenario plays out like a tragic opera.
Jerry Hofer, director of the Health Department's division of administration, indicated the policy setup for the genealogy group was allowed under a different state statute that gives the secretary of health some latitude in release vital records information.
Fair enough. Since federal regulations are no longer the "driving force" here, the secretary should utilize that latitude to open up the indexes -- so that public records again are available to public access.
| |
©Madison Daily Leader 2013
| |
| |
|
  | Send us your community news, events, letters to the editor and other suggestions. Now, you can submit birth, wedding and engagement announcements online too!
Copyright © 1995 - 2013 madisonet.com All Rights Reserved. |
|
