Posted by: Jan Meisels Allen
I recently posted to the this forum announcing an updated IAJGS Legislative Alert which included a link to the IAJGS statement for the record to the Senate Finance Committee Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth (www.iajgs.org click on legislation, then on latest alert). IAJGS's position of trying to forge a compromise is also shared by the other Records Preservation and Access Committee (RPAC) voting members:The Federation of Genealogical Societies (FGS) and the National Genealogy Society (NGS).
On April 4th Judy Russell, author/creator of the blog: The Legal Genealogist, devoted her blog to the appropriateness of this genealogical community --as exemplified by the RPAC position. This was an unsolicited endorsement of the RPAC position. I suggest your reading of that blog entry for an in-depthreview of the position.
All of us want the access to the SSDI to remain as it has been,--immediate and unfettered. The genealogical community was not invited to testify at either the House or Senate hearings, but we did submit statements for both. The statements of the IAJGS, FGS, NGS and RPAC and others, namely Kenneth Ryesky, a Jewish genealogist, who is a tax attorney, who teaches business law and taxation and former IRS attorney are posted to the RPAC blog: www.fgs.org/rpac . Political reality is such, that to try to get "a seat at the table", we have to be pragmatic and recognize that in the current situation of concerns over identity theft, which are not caused by genealogists, we had to forge what we thought was a reasonable approach. We recognize that some do not agree with the position, and respect their thoughts on this matter.
Jan Meisels Allen
IAJGS Vice President
Chairperson, IAJGS Public Records Access Monitoring Committee