One Day Email HIT on NSW BMD

[sparrett]

Smart strategy Neil   

Sue

[Warin]

the other (email) to the BDM saying that I have emailed the minister with these complaints and is anything going to be done?

How would you respond to the second email as BDM? 
I don't think the second email is at all helpfull and I'd advise strongly against it. What response are you trying to gain by the second email? Maybe  the most appropriate response from the BDM to your second email is "We will respond to the Minister and the Minister will then respond to you ". Adds nothing and identifies you to the BDM.

[Neil Todd]

Warin, Maybe if you let the BDM know how to respond they can do so in like manner. As for me I don't care who knows who I am at either the BDM or the Ministers office. The BDM can respond in whatever manner they like, but as I am not given to going behind peoples back, I intend to let them know that I have communicated to their Ministerial overseer and a response is actually required. If they attempted to do as you say, "fob me off" and only reply to the minister, they would be well outside of their brief as a government department and as such could be taken to task in any number of ways not only by me but also the responsible ministerial dept.

Neil

MODIFIED.
I meant to add that when someone actually complains to the BDM about product or service then the email goes to the Attorney Generals Department anyway. see: bdm-complaints@agd.nsw.gov.au

[majm]

I think email the Minister and email the BDM direct is sensible.   To me, you are being 'transparent' in your actions.    To me this is in contrast to the BDM, for several of their responses to my enquiries seem to be trying to "turn" my complaint into ME not knowing how to use a computer, or an assumption on their call centre operators that IF you use a landline phone to contact them, then you must be TOO OLD to understand ... anything.     (Try asking the call centre about Early Church Records, and why the online index has removed the Volume numbers ....  so earlier this week  I have been TOLD by the operator that I do not need to know WHY the index has changed ! just that it has been changed )

Ummm.... the fact that I have been preparing a great number (several trunk loads) of private papers for lodging with the Mitchell Library, and that these include original NSW Supreme Court certs, and certified NSWBDM issues certificates from those same Early Church Records with the Volume no. on these, and many fully referenced Theses and the like ........  all with the NSW BDM references cited throughout, ......   WHICH NOW CHANGE due to this update to the ONLINE index,  ..... errrr .... Obviously it is the NSWBDM operator who does NOT understand.

Cheers,  JM

[cando]

I receive an email from one of the accredited transcription agents who commented on the NSW BDM website ....

Problems with the new index

There are several problems which the Registry currently have under review. These include (but are not limited to)

    *The index does not show the Volume number for pre 1856 Early Church Records.

    *Both a groom and bride’s name is required to conduct a marriage search.

    *Sometimes the search times out, especially when the * wildcard is used.

    *It needs to be clearer which fields are required and which can be left blank – you do NOT   need to know the registration number or district to be able to search.

We are working with the Registry to identify the issues and suggest what needs to be done to make the index easier for researchers to use.

BUT are the staff who deal with the public understand the issues....obviously not

Links provided by the transcription agent to the old search engine
http://www.shortfamilytree.com/nswbdm/nsw_bdm_search.php

Cando

[muss]

Hi
  Article in the Newcastle Herald today on the web site  or page 9 in hard copy "Dad in limbo after  Mum's death "  concerning  a fathers  wait for vital documentation  after the death of his wife and a birth certificate for his child, also  highlights other problems concerning BDM's

I had to sign probate papers for my late  husband yesterday and was told of the problems the lawyers are having and the waiting times for documents from BDMs.

So I think BDMs   are well aware of all of the issues, they just do not know how to solve them quickly

Muss

[cando]

I keep thinking about the cost  .....

Well for $17.3 MILLION that this LifeLink Project has cost so far I'd expect a lot better 

Merlin

I think we all agree with Merlin's comment.

Candp

[sparrett]

Will you join the Monday hit Cando?

Sue

[cando]

Yes happy to send a third email

Cando