Keeping personal records

[auntiedo]

"The shoemaker's children have no shoes"

 Often we are better at maintaining the records of our ancestors than we are with ourselves.

 

In a folder marked "My own personal records", keep photocopies of your own birth, baptism, marriage, divorce certificates; school report cards, membership applications, applications for pensions, bank statement, credit card statements, (it's not the balance, it's the numbers that count), lease, mortgage, medical records/prescriptions, census reports, citizenship card, passport, car registration and drivers licence. And if  you have pre-paid funeral arrangements through a Memorial Society, or a burial plot, that too. Your folder should also contain a sealed copy of your Will and a list of items that you would like distributed to certain people.  Photos of you, your parents and your family - all dated of course, would be a good thing also.  The best place to keep the folder would be in a safety deposit box.  Failing that, a metal, fire-proof box.

 

If something should suddenly happen to you, it would be useful to your family to have the details of your life in one place. And it would be a great benefit to some future genealogist in your family as it would tell your life story.

 

 

 

 

[Linda Vixie]

I've seen recently someone suggest we all photocopy our 2000 census report
and keep it with our files so our descendants don't have to wait 72 years
for it.

auntiedo <aunt...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:O8du4.14550$mK.10...@brie.direct.ca...

[Peter L Kessler]

> I've seen recently someone suggest we all photocopy our 2000 census report
> and keep it with our files so our descendants don't have to wait 72 years
> for it.

What an excellent idea. I don't know why that hasn't come up before. I'll
scan mine and add it to the CD of material I already have.

--
Best regards
Peter Kessler
pl...@tesco.net

[Elizabeth Richardson]

>> I've seen recently someone suggest we all photocopy our 2000 census
report
>> and keep it with our files so our descendants don't have to wait 72
years
>> for it.
>
>What an excellent idea. I don't know why that hasn't come up before. I'll
>scan mine and add it to the CD of material I already have.

Why? What questions are you answering that your long-time-in-the-future
descendants won't know about you? My questionnaire asked for my mailing
address is different than the pre-printed one, my birthdate and my race.
It didn't ask where I was born, how long I'd been married, how many
children I have, etc. No particularly interesting question on this year's
census. I'll be including much more in my genealogy reports.

Elizabeth Richardson, Ketchikan, Alaska
er...@ktn.net

[Sherry]

Elizabeth Richardson <er...@ktn.net> wrote in message
news:8a5qdf$l2b$1...@sparky.wolfe.net...

I've seen the long form. If you get that, there are a lot of questions
about birth, schooling, employment, finances (not only how much you made the
previous year, but where the money came from) and health (type of ailments
you have and your ability to do daily activities). Frankly, I don't approve
of the questions on the long form as they have nothing to do with
enumerations. However, 72 years from now, researchers will be tickled to get
the info about their ancestors lives, as we have been. I'm really mixed
about what I consider intrusive questions!

The short form is pretty basic and may not be of much genealogical value if
you're already working on a family history.

Sherry

[Cookie]

>
> I'm really mixed
> about what I consider intrusive questions!
>

I agree, wholeheartedly! And, I felt so angered by these questions I emailed
the Census Bureau and asked if I MUST answer these questions should I be one of
the few that receive the long form. Their answer to me was: Yes, and it is
against the law NOT to answer the quetions. What could they possibly do with
the information about my ability to do daily activities?

Cookie

--
"Whenever you think something sounds easy,
it turns out there's one part you didn't hear."

[Ethelind Wright]

At 03:18 PM 3/8/00 -0800, you wrote:
>
> I agree, wholeheartedly! And, I felt so angered by these questions I
emailed
>the Census Bureau and asked if I MUST answer these questions should I be
one of
>the few that receive the long form. Their answer to me was: Yes, and it is
>against the law NOT to answer the quetions. What could they possibly do with
>the information about my ability to do daily activities?

Perhaps they could identify those areas where there is a large
concentration of people with some level of disabilities so that they can
fund additional community support services (e.g. home health aides,
visiting nurses, rehabilition services, long term care facilities).

Lin

[Ethelind Wright]

(sorry, sent too soon)

Specifically, from the census web page:

Disability

Determination of housing needs for elderly and persons with
disabilities under the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970
(Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Allocation of funds for state vocational education programs for
persons with disabilities (Department of Education)
Allocation of funds for transportation services for elderly and
for persons with disabilities (Federal Highway Administration--Department
of Transportation)
Allocation of funds for projects encouraging car pools for elderly
and persons with disabilities (Federal Highway Administration--Department
of Transportation)
Reports on status of persons with disabilities of working age
(National Institute of on Disability and Rehabilitation Research)
Evaluation of programs for persons with disabilities (National
Council on the Disability)
Annual report (President's Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities)
Allocation of funds for employment programs for persons with
disabilities (Department of Labor)
Allocation of funds for programs for elderly with special needs
under the Older Americans Act of 1965 (Department of Health and Human
Services)
Allocation of funds for mass transit systems for elderly and
persons with disabilities (Urban Mass Transportation
Administration--Department of Transportation)

Lin

[Tom]

Are they going to enter the answers in a database and toss the originals
or are they going to keep all the filled-in forms? If they plan on
keeping the forms maybe it would behoove us to volunteer some of our
ancestry on the form.

I know we all believe that all this genealogy we are collecting will
pass to all generations but I've seen too many cases where boxes of
records went to the land fill because no living relative wanted them.
Someone in a later generation may be interested but I have yet to see a
land-fill catalogue.

If you can squeeze in genealogy data on the Census form and it's going
to be preserved, there will always be a place where future generations
can find it.

[Merritt Mullen]

> From: Tom <t2...@bellsouth.net>

>
> Are they going to enter the answers in a database and toss the originals
> or are they going to keep all the filled-in forms? If they plan on
> keeping the forms maybe it would behoove us to volunteer some of our
> ancestry on the form.

I don't really know, but I strongly suspect that once the data is entered
into a computer, the original forms will be destroyed.

Merritt

[John Wiley]

It would be interesting to see what a consitiutional scholar or attorney
would say about invoking 5th ammendment rights to not answer. Not that the
constitution means much anymore, IMO.

John

"Cookie" <coo...@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:38C6DFA8...@linkline.com...

> >
> > I'm really mixed
> > about what I consider intrusive questions!
> >
>

> I agree, wholeheartedly! And, I felt so angered by these questions I
emailed
> the Census Bureau and asked if I MUST answer these questions should I be
one of
> the few that receive the long form. Their answer to me was: Yes, and it
is
> against the law NOT to answer the quetions. What could they possibly do
with
> the information about my ability to do daily activities?
>

[Dustbunny]

Sherry I think Elizabeth may have been speaking about people that don't do
genealogy *gasp* yes some don't but in the future her idea will provide many
clues and information to assist in making a family tree.
As far as invasion of privacy, I won't go there, everyone has there own
opinions on this, so I leave that stuff for the lawyers to figure out.
Robert in Canada
"Most times I only open my mouth to change feet"

Sherry <she...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:38c6...@news2.foxinternet.net...

> Elizabeth Richardson <er...@ktn.net> wrote in message
> news:8a5qdf$l2b$1...@sparky.wolfe.net...
> >

> > >> I've seen recently someone suggest we all photocopy our 2000 census
> > report
> > >> and keep it with our files so our descendants don't have to wait 72
> > years
> > >> for it.
> > >
> > >What an excellent idea. I don't know why that hasn't come up before.
I'll
> > >scan mine and add it to the CD of material I already have.
> >
> >
> > Why? What questions are you answering that your long-time-in-the-future
> > descendants won't know about you? My questionnaire asked for my mailing
> > address is different than the pre-printed one, my birthdate and my race.
> > It didn't ask where I was born, how long I'd been married, how many
> > children I have, etc. No particularly interesting question on this
year's
> > census. I'll be including much more in my genealogy reports.
> >
> > Elizabeth Richardson, Ketchikan, Alaska
> > er...@ktn.net
> >
>
>

> I've seen the long form. If you get that, there are a lot of questions
> about birth, schooling, employment, finances (not only how much you made
the
> previous year, but where the money came from) and health (type of ailments
> you have and your ability to do daily activities). Frankly, I don't
approve
> of the questions on the long form as they have nothing to do with
> enumerations. However, 72 years from now, researchers will be tickled to
get

> the info about their ancestors lives, as we have been. I'm really mixed

> about what I consider intrusive questions!
>

[shmar...@ticnet.com]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, John Wiley wrote:

> It would be interesting to see what a consitiutional scholar or attorney
> would say about invoking 5th ammendment rights to not answer. Not that the
> constitution means much anymore, IMO.
>
> John

He'd probably scratch his head trying to figure out what you're talking
about. The 5th says you can't be compelled to be a witness against
yourself in a criminal case. It says nothing about the government asking
nosy questions.
--

[shmar...@ticnet.com]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Elizabeth Richardson wrote:

>
> >> I've seen recently someone suggest we all photocopy our 2000 census
> report
> >> and keep it with our files so our descendants don't have to wait 72
> years
> >> for it.
> >
> >What an excellent idea. I don't know why that hasn't come up before. I'll
> >scan mine and add it to the CD of material I already have.
>
>
> Why? What questions are you answering that your long-time-in-the-future
> descendants won't know about you? My questionnaire asked for my mailing
> address is different than the pre-printed one, my birthdate and my race.
> It didn't ask where I was born, how long I'd been married, how many
> children I have, etc. No particularly interesting question on this year's
> census. I'll be including much more in my genealogy reports.
>
> Elizabeth Richardson, Ketchikan, Alaska
> er...@ktn.net

Amen.

After hearing everybody saying what a wonderful idea it was it xerox your
census form, I've been waiting for someone to ask the obvious question.
If you're leaving documents to your descendants, why do it right?

Steve
--

[shmar...@ticnet.com]

uh...I meant "why NOT do it right?"

[Tom]

John Wiley wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to see what a consitiutional scholar or attorney
> would say about invoking 5th ammendment rights to not answer. Not that the
> constitution means much anymore, IMO.
>
> John

It doesn't apply unless your occupation is "Gangster" or something
because 5th amendment is the right to not incriminate yourself. Then, it
doesn't apply because it can't be subpoenaed by the justice dept and if
they do get ahold of it you can have itsuppressed because of it's
source.

There have been a number of Supreme Court decisions affirming the right
of the government to enumerate you because it's in the Constitution to
enumerate the population. I was a Census Taker in 1980. We were told
that we were Federal Marshalls while performing our duties (with all the
pertinent penalties applicable to interference with a Federal Marshall's
duties). Not replying to the Census (back then anyway) was a misdemeanor
with a $100 fine.

[Lee Nelson]

Tom wrote:
>
> Are they going to enter the answers in a database and toss the originals
> or are they going to keep all the filled-in forms? If they plan on
> keeping the forms maybe it would behoove us to volunteer some of our
> ancestry on the form.
>

My goodness, I hope they'll preserve the original forms! The issue of
permanence in electronic storage media, is one, I think that remains
largely unresolved.

>
> I know we all believe that all this genealogy we are collecting will
> pass to all generations but I've seen too many cases where boxes of
> records went to the land fill because no living relative wanted them.
> Someone in a later generation may be interested but I have yet to see a
> land-fill catalogue.
>
> If you can squeeze in genealogy data on the Census form and it's going
> to be preserved, there will always be a place where future generations
> can find it.
>

Why not donate (read bequeath) your research to a repository, from the
local to state level? There, future generations may peruse all of your
work, not just what you can "squeeze" in.

Just some thoughts,
Lee

[Tom]

Lee Nelson wrote:
>
> Why not donate (read bequeath) your research to a repository, from the
> local to state level? There, future generations may peruse all of your
> work, not just what you can "squeeze" in.

A great-aunt of my wife's did just that and the repository now claims
they have no such animal. The purpose of using the census form is that
we know exactly where these things are, they get microfilmed, you can
order them, and federal-level repositories seem a *lot* more reliable
than the state and local has proven to be. The latter are subject to the
whim of local politicians who decide to cut funds in favor of their own
pet projects. The federal census would be a million times harder to do
this to.

[Lesley Robertson]

Tom <t2...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:38C9CA7D...@bellsouth.net...

> Lee Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Why not donate (read bequeath) your research to a repository, from the
> > local to state level? There, future generations may peruse all of your
> > work, not just what you can "squeeze" in.
>
> A great-aunt of my wife's did just that and the repository now claims
> they have no such animal.

That happened to my great Uncle's photo albums after his possessions were
donated to a local folk museum. I tend to think that the FHSs (either local
or national level) are the safest place - with a duplicate hard copy to the
local archives/library.
Lesley Robertson