Five thousand voices unheard
New York has always been the Black Hole of northeastern genealogy in the United States.
Between records that were never created in the first place and records that have been lost over the years, research in New York can be a challenge and a half.
And the darkness is about to get a little deeper in New York City.
The New York City Health Department has just announced that it is essentially ignoring all of the more than 5,000 comments it received and all of the witnesses who testified on a proposed rule to lengthen the period when birth and death records will be unavailable to researchers.
Instead of rethinking its position, it’s moving ahead full steam to put the new rule into effect next week.
Once the rule takes effect — and the date on the Health Department notice is March 13 — New York City’s records will be unavailable to ordinary folks like you and me for a very long time:
• birth records will be locked up for 125 years; and
• death records will be inaccessible for 75 years.
The usual reasons were offered — these are documents that maybe somebody might use for identity theft — despite the fact that death certificates in particular can hardly be used to open bank accounts, obtain credit, file for tax returns or any of the other usual reasons identity thieves might want the information, and despite the fact that fewer than 2100 people in the entire city were shown as over age 100 on the 2010 census, much less over 105 years or 110 years.
And the sop tossed to medical and family researchers was a promise to consider maybe someday putting in a rule to expand the groups of family and related researchers who can access the certificates during the closure period.
You can read it and weep here in the Notice of Adoption of Amendment to Article 207 of the New York City Health Code.
There’s no call to action for our community at this point, but keep an eye on this space. It may be that the New York City Council is the next stop, and it certainly will be the genealogical community’s goal to hold the Health Department to its promise to look at expanding those eligible to get certificates in the interim.
But this is truly disappointing and dismaying. More than 5,000 voices were raised on this issue, all in opposition to this rule.
And so far we have not been heard.
Or they’ve HEARD us but not actually LISTENED to what we said. Or they simply don’t care and want what is easiest for them. In any case, it’s not a good day for researchers.
I need a copy of my moms death certificate. She died in 1992. I was going to order it tomorrow. If I were to forget, or if I hadn’t read this, would a family member have a problem once the new rules take effect?
As a child of the deceased you should be able to order a copy. You are within the range of close relative eligible to receive a copy.
So an agency run by unelected officials, aka as bureaucrats, have the power to make sweeping rules of this nature without consulting anyone else? My research has just taken me into New York after 40 years of searching for my grandmother’s family. After much money spend on professional genealogical services in Poland I found her brother in Buffalo a few weeks ago. We elect people to represent us and then they give this kind of power to unelected people. Somewhere in the Department of Health there is one individual who made this decision.
Thank you for update.
Time for marathon Family History Center session to download document images that are about to ‘disappear’.
Wait, does this mean this goes into effect on Tuesday of next week? As in, I need to get my arse to NYC tomorrow to obtain a copy of my deceased father’s birth certificate?
If your father was born after 1909, it is already too late. Records since 1909 are already not available. Records before 1910 will continue to be available at the NYC Municipal Archives. Records for 1910 will not be available until 2036
My brain emptied when I read the amendment and I wasn’t thinking, LOL. Duh, of course, now I remember why I haven’t obtained this birth certificate already. Back to making my mother rummage through her closets in hope that she has it.
I read through the notice and it sounds like a well-reasoned decision. Please read more carefully to understand that it’s the Board of Health (appointed by the mayor) that is making the amendment, not the Department of Health (city employees). It’s clear that the department provides the perspective of “on the ground” and is trying to get appropriate exceptions moved forward.
Also, not being familiar with NYC records, were these records available in any form before this amendment? It sounds like not and that this amendment the health code establishes a set schedule of release. This is good for both access and preservation as records are transferred to the Department of Records.
While it appears that the decision was not changed based on comments received, the notice does not indicate how many of those comments were for or against, let’s not assume.
Not a single comment was received in favor of this idea. NYC has a separate Dept of Health. It does not answer to the mayor, according to them. The sole public hearing on this topic was held in October 2018. Sixty two people testified from various constituencies. The entire hearing is on the Department’s website. No one supported this. The previous rule was 100 years for birth certificates, but none have been released since 2010. For death certificates, the rule was 50 years, but none have been released since 2000.
That’s deplorable. There is no good reason to have any delay on releasing death info. When a person dies, it’s usually noted in the community and is not kept secret from the public. Also, for the public to be able to check if a person is deceased could cut down on identity theft.
Deplorable is a good word for it…
A couple of things come to mind.
One: they will “consider an amendment”, essentially to make a concession to genealogists (Judy’s “sop” above). Seems to me it would be easier to write it into the original Health Code Amendment, rather than saying it can be changed later. I would think that might be like Sysiphus’ job.
Two: The citation of the NYS Consumer Protection death certificate scam does not take into account that this scam is virtually never practiced on 50-year old death certificates, but on recent ones. And, in fact, that NYS scam warning indicates that the normal progression of this scam begins with scanning obituaries. Are identity thieves going to libraries and looking at microfilms of old newspapers? Think they have a subscription to Newspapers.com or GenealogyBank? No, they’re buying the newspaper on the street and scanning yesterday’s obits, hoping for a likely target. The Board of Health has bought into an old wive’s tale on death certificates.
Three: Birth certificates are somewhat different, and it can be argued that the BoH is between a rock and a hard place. Yes, people are living longer, and I’m sure it was their intent to leave NO exclusions, which would mean stretching beyond the ubiquitous 100-year standard. However, looking at the HHS paper (referenced by the BoH), it seems that New York State is the absolute very worst in the 50 states for compounding the birth certificate fraud problem, just by the very structure of their state government.
Comparing the state entities that are authorized to issue birth certificates in New York and Ohio (the state listed right below NY in the list) shows:
State Entity issuing birth certificates: NY – 1 and OH – 1
County Entity issuing birth certificates: NY – 4 and OH – 88
City Entity issuing birth certificates: NY – 100 and Ohio – 55
Town[ship] Entity issuing birth certificates: NY – 1000 and Ohio – 0
Other Entity issuing birth certificates: NY – 400 and Ohio – 0
(Other includes villages, regional state offices, etc)
Totals are: NY – 1,505 entities and OH – 144 entities. With these totals, NY State ranks worst in the country, while Ohio places 11th worst. 2nd place worst goes to Texas with 866 entities and how much larger geographical area than New York?
The HHS document is concerned with strengthening shortcomings in current procedures of birth certificates (which lead to fraud), recognizing the innumerable differences in procedures, and resulting paper produced from them, to be in favor of the savvy fraudster taking advantages of the weaknesses inherent in those differences. The conclusion of the HHS paper is the realization that there will be no perfect (secure) solution, but only a need for at least some improvement. New York State, locked in with their form of government, is the worst case scenario of an inability to effect meaningful change to help prevent fraud. While New York City has their own authority to issue birth certificates, separate from New York State (and even ranked separately in the HHS document), New York City (as we are discussing here) is still part of that state. This has to have affected their decision somewhat. Doesn’t NYC sometimes look upon themselves as the “leader” in New York State, despite Albany?
I wonder who will follow suit…
I don’t agree what they are doing. For one I’ve done research on my birth parents family for 36 years now. I always fine something new. I’ve taken one side back to 1260 in Great Britain. My reseach will never be done. So what are they afraid of? Just another excuse if you ask me.
It should ALL be made public. Else some group I’ll leave unnamed will get access, and we’ll all pay through the nose for each single letter and date number.
Wikileak it all.
No, not everything should be public. Let’s not be so “we want it all” minded that we forget there are living people involved in some of these records. For example, your birth certificate or mine should only be accessed by you or by me — or by those we specifically authorize. Let’s keep the focus on the records that really should be open (all death records, for a start).
I not sure that’s right:
“your birth certificate or mine should only be accessed by you”
It’s a public record, much as many court proceedings which can be embarrassing but nevertheless, public. For example, I’m sure I could find your age, if that’s important, without the certificate itself. I think the days of blurring one’s age are gone.
On the other hand, what’s in a birth record one would like to keep private? States to issue new birth certificates for adoptees anyway.
I think the default should always be to open records.
There are many things people don’t wish to reveal while they are living, and our law and our genealogical ethics protect that decision. I personally agree with that, and would draw the line at the time of death — from that point on, yes, all records should be open. But I will grant to the living the right to remain private people to the extent they can and wish to.
New York is a nightmare for us mid-level genealogists already. Just last week I went to the NY public library to use the microfilm but for the entire 6 hours not a single machine was available. I drive 2.5 hours to get there and they tell me to just come back tomorrow. Really?
Ouch. That hurts.
I agree with Gina that the decision seems well-reasoned. Just because we all want to genealogy work, doesn’t mean the City should put individual’s identities at risk. That there may only be 2,100 NYCers over 100 is of no account — you’re assuming that the descendants of anyone named in these documents still lives in NYC? I’d love to have more access, but understand the decision.
There is absolutely no reason to close death certificates. Having easy access to proof of death ensures that identity theft can’t occur.
This won’t hold up in court, The Department Of Health cannot write the law. If the NYC city council passes a law however New York State law trumps a city code ordnance meaning these records are subject to freedom of information law requests under state law state statue of limitations.You cannot just say I don’t want to comply with the law so increase time limits. Under legal theory if lawmakers in Albany changed the law increasing time limits for vital record release. Any record eligible for release prior to the law being changed a FOIL can be filed for mircofilms of those years at the petitioners cost of duplication. Nice Try DOH it wont hold up wasting more tax dollars on wasteful lawsuits you’ll lose
Unfortunately, this is not an accurate statement of the law. The Department of Health has been delegated regulatory authority in this area and so is acting, as least in theory, with the permission and power of the City Council. The Council could override the decision, but it’s within the authority of the Department.
What are really saying those records have already been tossed in the dumpster years ago for lack of storage space. Led
Dgets of land deed record book also been tossed. Why many have received no reply for copies of great grand parents record/certicates. Fees were never refunded either.
Sort of related to this is a complaint of mine that records at the county level in some states are being moved to central repositories, generally in one of the capitol or one of the major universities. My research has been in Marionette, Wisconsin. I was able to go to the county clerk’s office and find a tremendous amount of information on my own or could ask the clerk for legal information in their files. All this was moved to a major university in Wisconsin and now I submit a search form for them to find things for me. After it’s over I am out $15 per record and no information. They cannot find anything because it’s just not as important to them as it is to me. I cannot tell you how many times I have found crucial information that was misfiled because a name was spelled wrong, or in one case I found an extremely important death record searching for another family member with a name beginning with the same letter. They are cutting off these original source records, and like the Lost Ark our records will be buried in the labyrinths of the bureaucrats’ version of the black hole.
If I want to get a copy of my mothers birth cert and my husbands fathers cert. born 1922 and 1909 long form so we can apply for an Irish passport, will we still be able to get them.
You should be considered closely enough related to get those.
My mother tried ordering her grandmother’s NYC death certificate a few days ago through VitalCheck and the next day she received an email saying the order was cancelled due to “insufficient information.” She provided almost all information necessary, except for her grandmother’s mother’s maiden name because we don’t have it (and one reason why we want the document). Was it cancelled because she’s not a close enough relation? Everyone closer in age (e.g., daughters, sisters) has passed. This is really ridiculous!
VitalCheck may not be able to get these now because of the need to prove relationships.