The Probate Court in Cambridge, the home of the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds, suffered an electrical failure early this afternoon. The power was restored in a relatively short period of time, but not before a number of customers traveled to Lowell to record their Cambridge documents at our satellite office. They were disappointed to learn, upon their arrival, that when Cambridge is down, the satellite office is down. That's not because we share a power supply - we don't - but because we share a computer server. The recording terminals that are physically located in the satellite office in Lowell are connected to the Cambridge registry server. That is how we are able to record documents simultaneously with Cambridge. With the wonders of modern technology, the work station that's 20 miles away performs just as well as the one that's 20 feet away. If Cambridge had stayed down for an extended period of time, say more than a day, we would be capable of bypassing the Cambridge server and recording directly to the Internet server in Boston. All the registries are working on disaster recovery plans right now that address that sort of scenario. Fortunately, the outage was short and we didn't have to improvise. But it was a reminder of the need to get those disaster recovery plans finished.

As May 1 approaches, we are receiving more inquiries about the new Notary Public regulations. From our perspective, the two most important developments that occurred were that (1) the effective date was pushed back again to mid-May and (2) a clarification from the Governor's Office specifically stated that no one shall refuse to record a document just because it does not comply with the regulations. This is good news for everyone doing recordings since a majority of registers of deeds had intended to reject such documents as soon as the rules went into effect (we didn't agree with that interpretation). Early next week we'll update the main part of our website with the latest on the Notary rules (tomorrow is the last day of the month and a Friday so we'll be too busy recording documents to do anything with the website). During a lull in today's activities, we did finally upload sales data from March 2004 and for all of 2003. Sorry for the delay. We'll try not to let that happen again.

A lengthy and interesting telephone conversation with a lawyer earlier today got me thinking about indexing standards. A big part of our discussion was how the registry and our computer handle last names that contain spaces (De La Maya) or punctuation marks (O'Brien). According to the indexing standards, spaces and punctuation marks are omitted, so De La Maya would be indexed as DELAMAYA and O'Brien as OBRIEN. It is crucial that the registry follows these standards, otherwise users conducting searches might miss a document. For example, if you conduct your search in accordance with the Indexing Standards and enter OBRIEN, but we've kept the apostrophe when we put the name in the index (O'BRIEN), the entry with the apostrophe will not appear. Out of curiosity, I did a search for O' which would find any name in our index that started with the letter O and was followed by an apostrophe and then other letters. I'm embarrassed to say that I found several dozen. We'll address that with our employees first thing in the morning and will correct the index entries by removing the apostrophes from the database. Of course, any time we make such a change, we keep a precise record of what we changed and when we changed it in case any questions arise. I now want to conduct an extensive review of our index to discover any other instances where we are not complying with the Indexing Standards. If you care about this (and if you've bothered to read this far, you probably do), I'd really appreciate it if you would send me an email with names that tend to cause these types of problems so I can put them on a type of "watch list" for regular checking in the future.

We continued to experience problems with the website today, although I just performed a search and retrieved a document image. Everything seemed to be working OK. When you experience a problem, let me know by email. I submitted three different work orders to our computer company to resolve problems identified by customer emails. When not reporting problems with the website, we did more experimentation with the new electronic recording system. The mechanics of it are terrific. The obstacle we face is that it is part of a nationwide system, so much of the data that is supposed to be filled in doesn't really work for Massachusetts. We're working with ACS (the computer company) to try to make it more Massachusetts-friendly.

We installed the Electronic Recording system at the registry this weekend. It's only connected to a test database right now to give us an opportunity to experiment and learn how to use it. So far, it looks very promising. If you are at the registry and have a few minutes to spare, please ask us for a demonstration. In the next few days I hope to add some detailed information about the process to our website. If you have any questions, please send me an email.

I got my first look at the Electronic Recording interface that the customer will see. It seems like a very usable system, although many of the terms used either don't apply in Massachusetts or are called something else. But that's why we will test the system for several weeks. Either the company will be able to customize parts of it to fit our laws and legal practices, or we'll know what kind of instructions to provide users to ensure a problem free experience. This weekend we install the in-registry portion of the system, so look for updates Saturday and Sunday evenings.

This morning we received several reports from people who experienced problems with our website last evening. Sometime after 7:00 p.m., the database started malfunctioning, so that when the user did a name search, the information that was retrieved was some combination of letters and numbers, but not a person's name. Then if you used the "back one page" button and tried the search again, you would get the names that you should have received the first time. Another problem was that the dates in the date range boxes seemed to change on their own. As one user described it, the system was "acting wacky." If you had anything like that happen to you while on our website, please send me an email with details of your experience.

Our testing of the new document types went very well, so well, in fact, that we started the conversion sooner than we expected. Most of it is already complete and we will finish it during the day (and right after work) on Thursday. In the great majority of cases, the customer will notice no differences either at the registry or on the website. That is because you usually see the full document name, not the abbreviated code that is used in the computerized database. As I said last night, if you would like more information about these new document types, please visit the lower right hand portion of the main page of our website. And as always, please send me your questions or comments by email.

We're back after a short break for the Patriot's Day holiday. There are some major changes in process at the registry. We're in the process of changing the document codes that are used in our database. There are several documents available on our website that explain the conversion process. Just follow the link on the lower right hand side of the main webpage. We are making these changes for several reasons. The new codes were developed in cooperation with several other registries, so using them is another step towards statewide registry standardization. The new codes will also simplify registry operations: we have reduced the new codes to several dozen, down from the hundreds that were formerly in use. Finally, the new codes will make the installation of electronic recording an easier process. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments or concerns.

The new Notary Public rules are back in the news. Their implementation date has been pushed back (again) to May 15. And one previously ambiguous area of great interest to the Registry of Deeds and its users has now been clarified. Here's what the revised order says: "Failure of a document to contain the forms of acknowledgment, jurat, signature witnessing, or copy certification set forth in this Executive Order should not be the basis of refusal to accept the document for filing, recordation, registration, or acceptance by a third party." Put another way, even if the notarization clause of a document does not meet the strict requirements of this order, we will still record it. That's exactly how we had planned to handle such situations, but as I've written previously, the majority of Registers of Deeds had interpreted the order to mean that registries should refuse to record documents that did not strictly comply with the order. Hopefully this clarification from the governor's office will put that view to rest.

The website has been acting up again. Several people (including me) have experienced a "timing out" of the search capability. When I tried to do an Internet name search earlier today, a popup message appeared, declaring "your session has expired; please select another county." I tried a number of things to bypass this problem, but the only way I could was to close my browser entirely and start from the beginning. I notified ACS. This is an old problem, one that had been disposed of months ago. Apparently, the earlier solution had been to work around the problem. Unfortunately, when a new version of the website was installed this weekend, the "patch" became dislodged, and the problem reappeared. It's like in one of those 1980s horror movies when the bad guy, despite being stabbed, shot, drowned and electrocuted, keeps getting up and coming after the good guys. When we think we have this problem fixed (again) we'll let you know.

Sorry to have missed a couple of days of blog entries. It won't happen again (for a while, at least). There's a lot going on behind the scenes. The "search land records" button on the website now gives you the option of searching the plan index and retrieving plan images through the Internet search screen. Plans used to be on a separate section of the website, and even there you could only view the images. Now you can also search the index and download the files. If you do chose to view plan images on line, please use the high quality image viewer. The "quick one page viewer" gives you an illegible image. A very big change that's coming soon is our conversion to standard document codes. Several other registries did this back in January, but we want to change the codes for all documents - those that have already been recorded as well as ones that will be recorded in the future. It's a complicated task, so we've proceeded slowly. We should make the change sometime next week. We'll give you plenty of notice and will publish the new document codes on the website. And finally, ACS arrives on the weekend of April 24 with our electronic recording hardware. In the weeks following its installation, we'll be experimenting with the process and providing demonstrations and on-line updates of our progress.

Last weekend our computer company added plans to our website. Formerly, you had to use a separate link to view plans which were only retrievable by the plan book and plan number. If you didn't know those references, there was no plan index to help you find the plan that was of interest to you. Now, the same searchable plan index that is available on the registry's public access computers is on the Internet. One important note - don't use the "Quick One Page Viewer" to retrieve the image of the plan. That viewer has a very low resolution and makes the lines and numbers on the plan very fuzzy and almost impossible to read. Instead, use the "High Quaility Viewer" which will give you a crisp, clean, easy to read image. This new system also gives you the ability to download the image of the plan to your own computer. We will keep our old plan viewing system on the Internet for a while, at least until this new system proves its reliability over the next few weeks. Please let us know if you have any comments or suggestions and don't forget to log onto the chat room tomorrow at 3:00 P.M. to learn the latest on electronic recording.

Today the ACS users group (which consists of representatives of the five registries now using the ACS system, folks from the Secretary of State's Office, and key ACS employees) met in Northampton. Nothing earth shattering occurred, but I always welcome a chance to visit Northampton which has a lively, interesting downtown. One item that generated some heat involved the use of standardized document codes. Last fall, this users group developed a standard set of document codes that would eventually be used by all five registries. The registries that switched to the new codes back on January 2 are upset that others (like Lowell) have not yet made the switch. The reason I'm in no rush to start using these new codes is that they will inject a large amount of uncertainty into the index if not handled correctly. For example, let's say the old code for mortgage was MTG and the new one is MORT. If we were to simply start using the new codes, the old documents would remain as MTGs, the newer ones as MORTs. When you do your search, what do you look for? Unless you do two searches, one for each document type, you're likely to miss something. The proper way to make this change is to convert the old document types so they're identical to the new. But such a conversion is a complex operation that requires significant testing and experimentation. Once we are finished that phase, we will convert our existing document codes to the new ones and then make the switch to the new codes for all future documents. Sorry to plunge into so much detail about this, but moving fast on this simply for the sake of moving fast creates an unreasonable risk of a mix up by you, the person examining the title - and we certainly don't want to cause that to happen. We'll keep you posted.

The computer system seems to have stabilized, although there are still some images missing from our website and from the internal Cambridge system. The images aren't really missing. They exist and can be viewed administratively in a roundabout way, but they don't appear on the Public Access computers. I'm still not sure what's causing this. I did compile a list of all of the problems that emerged over the past few days and emailed it to the president of the ACS division that is responsible for our computers. I'll let you know what becomes of it. Tomorrow is the ACS users group meeting in Northampton, so tomorrow night's blog entry will report on that as will Friday's 3 P.M. chat.

Tonight we have good news and bad news. The good news is that the searchable plan index and the plan images themselves are now part of the "search records" portion of the website. This means that the website will contain all of the information that is available on the public access computers at the registry. The bad news is that our computer company, ACS, tainted the launch of this new feature by allowing the website to go down for at least several hours this morning. I say at least several hours, because I don't know when the problem commenced, only that it was resolved at about 10 a.m. I still don't know what caused it to go down but I assume it was related to the modifications they made. Some of the recent modifications which they made without consulting with me, aren't needed and make the site even more difficult to use (i.e., having a "search by certificate" tab appear when you're still in recorded land). I'm trying to get that part of the site put back the way it was, but that will take some time. For all of you who were inconvenienced by this latest outage, I'm sorry for that, but you can be assured I'm doing my best to eradicate these kind of stupid mistakes.

This Wednesday, April 7, the five registries that use the ACS computer system will meet in Northampton. We have formed an ACS Users' Group and meet every couple of months. Up until now, the meetings have been dominated by perceived problems with the ACS system. I say "perceived" because in the 21 months that it's been in operation in Lowell, the ACS system has worked well. But as the system is installed at each additional registry, a new set of complaints crop up. I'm not saying that the system could not be improved upon, just that it does what we ask it to do very efficiently. Still, if you have any complaints about the system, or just questions about why it works a certain way, please send them to me using the above email link no later than close of business Tuesday.

Be sure to check out the new Middlesex South website - www.cambridgedeeds.com. Besides giving you the ability to search their records on-line, the new site contains helpful information including directions to the registry, hours of operations, a recording checklist, and photos of all employees. Sorry I missed the chat session this afternoon, but I'm sure Tony Accardi did an outstanding job answering all of your questions. I'll be back online next Friday to discuss electronic recording and anything else that is of interest to you.

Remember to join Assistant Register Tony Accardi in the chat room at 3:00 P.M. on Friday, April 2. We have some new things that will be added to the website early next week. The March sales report is ready and we've created Plan Indexes for each of our towns. These are in a PDF format and are sorted by street name. Each entry shows the plan book, plan number and date the plan was recorded. The first group covers the years 1930 to 2000 and will not change, so you only have to download it once to your own computer. Then we're preparing a plan index for 2001 to the present. This will be updated monthly. When you come to the registry, the plan index is readily available on our Public Access computers. Unfortunately, this feature has not made it onto the website yet. The plans are there, but unless you already have the plan book and plan number, you really can't find anything. These new PDF files should help fill that online gap.

Assistant Register of Deeds Tony Accardi will be in the registry chat room this Friday at 3:00 P.M. Tony's the guy who runs the registry on a day-to-day basis, so it will be a great opportunity for you to learn more about how we operate. I'm sure he'll have some interesting things to say. Business does seem to be picking up. Historically, the last day of the month (i.e., today) has always been busy, but this has not been the case in January and February. But today, both Lowell and the Cambridge satellite office had a steady stream of customers. The (relatively) new ACS computer system in Cambridge certainly was sluggish by the end of the day. That system went online in mid-January and, because of the lull in business, this was the first day that had a high enough number of recordings to put some strain on the system. (Was this just my imagination, our did anyone else find the system to be working slowly this afternoon?). Hopefully, it's just a matter of a few adjustments with the program to keep it running at a reasonable speed.

The electronic recording initiative is about to heat up. You may recall that we had an initial meeting with potential users at the end of January, but soon thereafter our website suffered a major malfunction. That proved to be quite a distraction, but now that the website's been working reliably for six weeks, we can resume our planning for electronic recording. Our computer company, ACS, will also provide our initial e-recording system. The ACS process, known as eRX, has been customized to Massachusetts requirements and thoroughly tested in the ACS labs. By mid-April, we hope to have a test system installed in Lowell. This will allow us to learn how it works and to adapt our operations to incorporate electronic recording. It will also allow us to demonstrate the process for customers before they are asked to use it to record live documents. Stay tuned for more information about this.

One reason our record books remain valuable to registry users is the presence of marginal references within their pages. These notations are the book and page numbers of related documents that were written in the margin - hence the name "marginal references" - some time after the record book was created. The most obvious example is when a mortgage is paid off. A discharge of the mortgage is recorded and placed in a new record book. In the past, a registry employee would go to the book where the mortgage being discharged was located, open the book to that mortgage, and write in the margin "see discharge at Book 1234, Page 567." That way, when someone looked at the mortgage, they would immediately see from the marginal reference the location of the discharge of that mortgage. Information about the discharge was entered in the Grantor and Grantee Indexes, but the primary means of finding the discharge was by the marginal reference on the mortgage. Eventually, computers that created a type of hyperlink from document to document made this whole marginal reference concept obsolete. But those scribblings in the margins of record books remain valuable which is why we've spent many hours capturing marginal references from years past. Soon this data will be imported into our current computer system which will cause related documents that were recorded years ago to be linked electronically.

The Sunday Boston Globe had two related stories about busing and neighborhood schools. Comparing two Boston elementary schools, the stories compared the pros and cons of the two school assignment models. The way these stories were written, the neighborhood school seemed much better than the school attended by students who all arrived by bus. The busing story highlighted problems with buses arriving on time and drivers disputing which children were to get on the bus. In contrast, the neighborhood school spoke of the benefits of having 90% of the parents waiting at the front door each day at dismissal. This allowed teachers to hold impromptu conferences and get to know the parents better. No one would argue that when a parent has the flexibility to bring a child to and from school each day, the child benefits. But the reality is that most children come from households where both parents (or the one parent in a single parent household) work and work schedules rarely coincide with arrival and dismissal times of a child's school. For many, putting a child on the bus and having that same bus deliver that child to a day care provider in the afternoon is a big help schedule-wise. Busing is no bargain - the millions of dollars spent on transportation could certainly be used elsewhere. But for many, the nostalgic longing for "neighborhood schools" is a search for a world that doesn't exist anymore. For working families, a more useful discussion would involve before school and after school care and activities that would serve as affordable, safe and productive substitutes for expensive day care and stressful juggling of parental schedules to accommodate school start and end times.

Friday's chat session featured a lively discussion about the future of record books. With images on a reliable computer system, duplicated on the Internet, the need to have physical record books available to registry users is greatly diminished. Because we stopped making books several years ago, the registry in Lowell has not experienced the pressure to find new shelf space every day. Still, the limited space we do have could be put to better use and, if a new Judicial Center is ever built in Lowell, the registry would be able to fit into a smaller space than we now occupy. Users involved in our chat session expressed a number of concerns: What happens if the computers are down? What about the marginal references that are only written in the record books but are not in the computer? When making copies, putting an open book on a copier gives you two pages for fifty cents while printing from the computer costs you $1 per page. These are all legitimate concerns. For those of you who weren't able to join us on Friday, the blog will answer these and other book-related questions over the next few days.

Be sure to join us at 3:00 P.M. on Friday for our live chat session. We'll start the discussion with an explanation of our plans to place most record books in storage since all of the information contained in the books is also available on the in-house registry computer and on the Internet. We will also talk about the Department of Revenue's plans to record child support and tax liens state wide and not just at the registry the includes the town in which the debtor lives. And, of course, we'll talk about anything else that interests you. To participate, just click on the "Chat" link on the first page of our website. Because the chat service we use is free of charge, there are a few ads and it takes some time - close to a minute - to fully open. Not exactly state of the art, but the price is right. Please check it out.

A few weeks ago I wrote about a Department of Revenue proposal to establish a separate index for child support and tax liens. Under this scenario, DOR would maintain the index and, no matter where in the state your property was located, you would have to check this lien index to be sure you had clear title. Today I joined some folks from the Secretary of State's office in a meeting with DOR officials about this proposal. The meeting was very productive. We agreed to work with DOR to find a way for them to record their liens within the traditional registry system in a fast, efficient manner. If successful, that will avoid the need for a separate index which would be good news for anyone doing business at the registry of deeds.

We'll be back in the chat room this Friday at 3:00 P.M. Although it's a completely open forum, I expect to talk about our plans to put our record books into storage. There's no time table yet and we won't do anything before we get some feedback from our users, but with the computer system we now have, books are pretty much obsolete. So, if you have any thoughts or comments on this topic, please join us on Friday. If you can't make the live chat session, however, please send me your comments by email beforehand.

In a sign of the times, the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts has issued an order that all pleadings be filed electronically. Failure to comply with this order will result in sanctions which could include the court ignoring pleadings not filed electronically. This system of electronic filing has been in use for some time, and lawyers who have used it praise it, particularly its use of the Adobe PDF format. Several have urged me to look into the technology in use in the District Court for possible adoption by the registry. I'll certainly try to do that, but in the meantime, we're looking into expanding our use of PDF for a variety of data maintained by the registry.

There is some talk in the Sunday papers about a resurgence of the home refinancing market. Rates today are within two-tenths of a percentage point of last June's 5.21 percent. Who would refinance today? Well, someone who was late applying last summer and lost out on the lowest rates, or someone who went through with their mortgage but ended up with a higher rate. Others, still, might refinance to "cash out" the equity in their homes, taking advantage of the continued high home prices. I hope these projections are correct. The volume of recordings at the registry have been way down since last September. We had all gotten used to working at a good pace, processing at least 800 documents per day. Now, we're doing data entry projects that will benefit everyone in the long run, but staying busy makes the day go by faster.

IMPORTANT NEWS - The Middlesex South website is now operational. They are supposed to use www.cambridgedeeds.com but if you go there you won't find anything. Instead, go to www.masslandrecords.com and from the drop down menu, select "Middlesex South." Then you're in business. I had some other stuff to write about tonight, but nothing can compare to this news. If this is the first you've heard of it, please tell your friends about it. You might also tell them that they, too, can keep up on the latest registry news by visiting our blog each day.

We're taking advantage of the lull in recordings (our volume is down about 40% from last year at this time) by adding more data and images to the computer system. Thousands of marginal references have been entered in a database that will soon be imported into our regular computer system. We have also rescanned more than 900 plans to improve the quality of those images. Back in 1998 when we purchased our first plan scanner, it was relatively unsophisticated (as were we when it came to creating plan images), so quite a few of our early plan scans were not of the best quality. Since then, we've added a very accurate Xerox plan scanner that yields a much better quality image. That's what we've used to do these rescans. We are also scanning thousands of Registered Land documents. As most of you know, Registered Land is a separate recording system. Unlike recorded land, where we return original documents to the owners, all Registered Land documents are retained by the registry of deeds. Providing the paper original to a customer for viewing is a very inefficient way to operate, however, so we're scanning all of these documents right into our computer system. It's a big project - there are more than 150,000 documents to scan, but we've started and will keep you informed of our progress. Finally, don't forget our live chat session tomorrow (Friday) at 3:00 P.M. Just follow the link from our webpage.

A user recently suggested that we add the Plan Regulations for the registry to our website. We've done that - they'll be visible to you in the morning as a link in the "Connections" section. In the process of adding the regulations to the website, I discovered that they became effective on January 1, 1976. As far as I can tell, they've never been updated. And they seem seriously out of date, calling for linen plans and ink that affixes permanently to the plan material. If my memory is correct, there weren't a lot of CAD programs in use 28 years ago, so the archaic language is understandable - but it's only understandable as a historic artifact, not as a relevant, useful guide for modern practitioners. So, I'm asking for your assistance. Please view the plan regulations once they come on line, then send me your thoughts and suggestions on how they should be updated. And don't forget to check out our new bulletin board and, if you're not too busy on Friday at 3 p.m., visit our chat room so we can converse electronically in real time.

We activated two new features on the website today. One is a bulletin board that allows users to post comments on various topics. We hope that many of you will take advantage of this opportunity to share your thoughts with other registry users. The other feature is a chat room. We intend to use this in two ways: we'll do regularly scheduled chat sessions (I'm tentatively scheduled for Friday's at 3 P.M.) where I will be available online for live dialog with anyone who cares to join in. The second use for the chat room will be for special meetings that arise as needed. Both the bulletin board and the chat room are experimental - we think they will prove quite useful (much like this blog has), but we're not sure exactly how to best employ them. That's one of the reasons we're using free software and services for all of these things. The ads might be a bit annoying, but we're not spending a dime of our budget obtaining these capabilities. Of course, once we've developed a track record with these features, perhaps will invest some money in improved software. Until then, please join us and try out the chat room and the bulletin board.

A blog reader emailed that occasionally, he'll discover a typo in our index and pass it along to the registry staff. This reader suggested that a list of the changes we make could be made available online. It's a good suggestion since it addresses a topic of great importance to us all. Here's the nightmare scenario for you users: You're doing a rundown of Donald Trump, let's say. Earlier that day, the sheriff recorded an attachment against Mr. Trump but when we typed the name in the computer, it was entered as Thump. Well, when you searched "Trump" you didn't find anything, so you passed on the property. A few days later, someone tells us of our mistake, and we change Thump to Trump in the index. A few days after that - the way life works it's undoubtedly Friday at 5 P.M. - you get a call from someone telling you that you missed an attachment. How can you prove that you didn't miss it? Don't worry: you can subpoena the Keeper of the Records of the Registry to your malpractice trial. We keep a journal in which we record the date and content of all changes. The computer system actually keeps track of it too, but we've yet to master how to generate the appropriate reports, so we keep the old fashioned record book. If you have any suggestions about this, please let me know. And thanks, John, for suggesting this topic.

We're about to add a significant amount of new information to the registry's computer system. Although documents recorded between 1976 and 1987 have an index that allows you to search by name and address, that index does not have book and page numbers in the marginal reference field. This prevents users from easily seeing related documents. Since the document images for those (and earlier) years were obtained from microfilm that was created right after the documents were recorded, marginal references that were written in the margin of the record books are not captured on the electronic images either. To solve this omission, registry employees have spent the last few months going through thousands of record books, page-by-page, and entering all marginal references into a computerized database. After some testing, we will import this data into our computer system. Once that's done, the marginal reference links for pre-1987 index entries will be operational.

Even though we don't get many comments posted by readers using the blog comment feature, many of you have sent me emails responding to prior postings on the blog. I'm grateful for these messages for a number of reasons. First, they tell me that people are actually reading this. But in addition, the comments tend to be substantive and very helpful. For instance, a reader asked whether our regulations for plans are available electronically. They are not, but that's only because we hadn't thought about it. Tomorrow we will add our plan regulations to the website. Another person asked about the range of data and images on our website. That made me realize that nowhere on the website is that information mentioned. That will be fixed tomorrow, as well. If you can't wait until tomorrow, our index goes back to 1976 but our images go back to 1950. So if you have the book and page number of a document, you can retrieve it from our website provided it was recorded in 1950 or more recently. If you want to search by owner name or property address, however, you can only do that as far back as 1976 (for now, at least). These are just two examples of how readers and registry users are helping to improve the quality of service available to you electronically. If you have any similar suggestions, please don't hesitate to send them along - just CLICK HERE.

Even though "multiple documents" was an item on the agenda for the recent register's meeting, we ran out of time and didn't discuss it this time. What is a multiple document? It's a single piece of paper that tries to do two different things. Registries tend to calculate the recording fee for that one piece of paper as if it was two separate documents. It's indexed as if it's two separate documents, as well. But it is only one document and it gets only one instrument number. The purpose of this practice is to equate the fee with the amount of work performed. If you're indexing a single piece of paper as if it were two different documents, the registry would be doing twice as much work for the same fee (which would be unfair to all other customers). In Lowell, when confronted with such a document, we ask the person doing the recording whether they want it indexed as two different documents (say, an appointment of trustee and an acceptance) and if they are ready to pay twice the recording fee. When they hesitate or say no, we just record it and index it as if it were just one, simple non-complex document.

Today's Registers' meeting was dominated by a lively discussion on the governor's recent executive order regarding notaries. Many registers - certainly the majority - plan to reject documents with notary clauses that do not strictly comply with the format set out in the executive order. In Lowell, we plan a much less restrictive interpretation. In our view, the executive order is directed at notaries and clearly tells them how to perform certain tasks. Those of us who are notaries will comply explicitly with the order when notarizing documents. The order is silent as to the effect of any deviation from the order's standards on the recordability of a document with a non-complying notary clause. In my view, the notary involved would have violated the order, but the document should not be rendered unrecordable. But as I said, when the order goes into effect on April 19, you can expect to have some of the documents you present for recording at some registries rejected due to noncompliance with the executive order. More on this tomorrow.

The Registers of Deeds Association is meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) in Worcester. Tomorrow night's blog entry will be a complete report of all substantive items discussed. The agenda items vary widely: a representative from the state's Department of Capital Asset Management (a/k/a "DCAM", the folks who are in charge of all state buildings) will be there to discuss the need for additional space at some registries. How to get access to the money that's been raised through the $5 per document technology surcharge that went into effect last March is also on the agenda as is a discussion of the governor's Executive Order regarding Notary Publics. The final agenda item is "Fee for Multi-Document Recordings Camouflaged as a Single Document." I guess we can tell how the creator of the agenda feels about that topic. Please check back tomorrow night for a full report.

Each month, with economic reports show a depressingly low number of new jobs being created in the US, stories about outsourcing - sending jobs that have always been done within the United States overseas - start appearing. Yesterday's New York Times ran a story about outsourcing with a focus on companies that have backed off their prior policy of keeping jobs within the US. One company profiled was Countrywide Financial, one of the nation's largest mortgage lenders (how many times did we type "Countrywide Home Loan" in our index last summer?). Back in October, the chairman of Countrywide was quoted as saying "I feel it is Countrywide's responsibility to create jobs in the US, not outside the US." Well, Countrywide just leased 40,000 square feet of office space in Bombay and plans to create 250 customer service jobs there over the next two years. Seems like Countrywide's self-promoting statements about keeping jobs in the US lasted as long as the refinancing boom - you can't expect them to let patriotism mess up their bottom line.

At 2 P.M. I received a call from our computer company. They had just been informed that the state office building which houses the computer equipment for the Internet database for the registry of deeds will be without power tonight and during the day tomorrow. The reason is to repair the building's air conditioning system. Not counting the February 2 power surge (and all the problems that flowed from that), this is the third time the Internet database has gone down on a weekend for electrical work in this building. Unfortunately, moving the equipment to some dedicated computer data center with all kinds of extended back up power would be prohibitively expensive right now. But we do have to find ways to work around these types of problems. We just can't afford to have the system keep going down like this.

A blog reader sent an email suggesting that registries standardize the way they charge for marginal references and so-called multiple documents. Previously, registries would add $1 to the recording fee for each marginal reference beyond the first one, but last year's fee increase legislation eliminated the charge for extra marginal references. Now, a customer should be allowed an unlimited number of marginal references at no extra charge. A "multiple document" is something different, however. A single piece of paper that does more than one thing is called a multiple document. Let's say someone records a declaration of trust that also conveys real estate into the trust. That document does two things - it creates a trust and it conveys real estate. The document is given only one instrument number, but it is indexed as two separate documents (in this case, a deed and a declaration of trust) and incurs the recording fee of both documents. Here's an example that's more ambiguous. Let's say a borrower recorded a mortgage and an assignment of leases and rents. When the loan is paid off, the bank issues a document that discharges both the mortgage and the assignment of leases and rents. Some registries treat that as a multiple document, (a discharge of mortgage and a discharge of the assignment) and charge two fees. Other registries treat it as a single discharge, make marginal references to both the mortgage and the assignment of rents, and charge only one fee. The registries must figure out a standard way of charging for these types of documents so that users will know how much money to collect from their clients for recording fees.

Next Tuesday the Massachusetts Registers of Deeds Association has its winter meeting in Worcester. All registers and assistant registers are members of this organization that meets several times each year. One of the group's biggest accomplishments thus far was the creation and adoption of Deed Indexing Standards back in 2000. Hopefully, this meeting will be the start of an effort to update these standards to include many of the gray areas that have developed in the past few years. These meetings are always interesting because the group has many friendly factions: big versus small registries and county versus state registries to name just two. If any readers of the blog have suggestions about topics that should be raised at this meeting please let me know. I haven't seen the agenda yet, but there's always an opportunity to raise new business.

We did more testing on our chat room feature today. To keep our costs low, we're going to use free software. The only problem with that is that the "free" chat software is paid for by advertising on the site. Entering the chat room causes a few pop up ads to appear on your screen (annoying but not particularly offensive), but you just have to close the boxes and proceed. The software works very well. You type your end of the conversation and press send, and your remarks show up in a box that's seen by everyone who has logged into the chat session. Our plan right now is to have our first chat session with me this Friday from 2 pm to 3 pm. You can log in and just watch what's going on, or you can ask questions or make comments and I'll respond right away.

We're experimenting with a chat room function for the registry website. The mechanics of it seem easy enough, but we haven't quite figured out how we will use it. We may set aside a certain time each week, say Fridays from 2 pm to 3 pm, and have someone from the registry (me, in most cases) available to answer questions or discuss issues with anyone interested in an open forum. The other likely use is for virtual meetings on a specific topic such as electronic recording or indexing standards. Any suggestions or ideas would be welcome.

The registry was busier than usual on Friday. It was the last day of the month and a Friday which usually means an increase in recordings. Lately, however, things have been quite slow, especially compared to last year. In February 2003, for instance, we recorded 12,353 documents. This February, the total was only 6,588. The reduction is due almost entirely to the collapse of the refinance market that began last fall. Property sales remain constant. Despite a nearly 50% reduction in overall recordings from February 2003 to February 2004, the number of deeds recorded remained almost the same with 406 in 2003 and 385 in 2004.

Late this afternoon we added February sales to the website. We've received such a good reaction to this new feature that we plan to add sales data for all of 2003 to the website in the near future. At least one user has reported trouble connecting with the "search records" page and we have found that the Window's Explorer back arrow does not work to escape from the "search records" screen. We have some theories on what's going on and will try to correct it next week. If you're having similar difficulties, please let us know.

Now that the new website is online, our next project is to begin updating the Massachusetts Deed Indexing Standards. Enacted on January 1, 2000 by the Massachusetts Registers of Deeds Association, the Indexing Standards have played a very important role in bringing predictability to indexing practices from registry to registry (at least at the registries that follow them). In the three years since their implementation, however, we have discovered a number of ambiguities and situations not covered by the existing standards. For example, the standards state that no punctuation shall be used in the index. But now, we have names such as E*Trade and 1-800-East-West-Mortgage in which punctuation marks are an integral part of the name. We hope to have supplemental standards ready for publication early in the summer. This is an area where reader comments would be especially welcome. So, if you have any pet peeves about indexing, please let us know.

Late this afternoon we activated the new webpage for the registry. Please send me any comments you have. I'd especially welcome suggestions for other links that might be useful to you. There are a few minor problems for us to correct. For instance, when you get done with the "search records" page, the "back arrow" on your browser (assuming that you are using Microsoft Explorer) does not return you to the previous page. I'm not sure why not; it just doesn't. On the menu bar on the top of "search records" screen you can select "county home" to get back to the lowelldeeds front page. There are also a couple of "local links" that we have to fix in the morning. But please let me know what you think - click HERE to send me an email.

We spent most of today constructing the new website. We've added many more links than the existing site, so that's been taking some time. Our plans to put sales data on the website have had mixed results. Right now, we've succeeded in creating a report that includes the street address, sales price, date of sale and book and page number of all deeds recorded for each town for the month of January. This is intended for casual users who would like to keep track of sales prices within their town. For users who desire more information, specifically the names of the parties involved, we're still experimenting with a variety of formats. Right now, we'll probably present all the data in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. That way, people can view the data as is or can import the data into their own database program. We should be on the air by close of business tomorrow (Wednesday).

We spent today putting together the new website. There are a few more pieces to put in place in the morning and then we'll load it onto the Internet for you to test. One part that might be delayed is the sales data reports. We are able to extract information about sales from our database, but putting it in a format that will be available over the Internet and that will be useful to those who visit our website is proving to be quite a challenge.

Several years ago, we thought the registry of deeds would move into the GIS field. GIS, stands for Geographic Information System, is a sophisticated mapping system, all done on the computer, that applies all types of data in the form of electronic map overlays. One of the essential elements of a registry of deeds related GIS system is to have all land records available on the Internet. We have made great strides in doing this (all records from 1950 to the present are currently on the Internet), but we still have more to do. Much work is being done by other agencies, particularly "Mass GIS" the official state agency that oversees GIS efforts. Click HERE to see a sample of what's now available.

A new law gives registries of deeds the power to refuse any document that should - but that does not - contain a tax stamp. This statute was a reaction to a few instances where large transfers (shopping malls, baseball parks) occurred without any transfer tax being paid. Since there are many valid reasons why tax stamps might not be required, many lawyers are concerned that registries will wield this new power unwisely, refusing to record deeds that should be recorded, thereby plunging the effected real estate deals into chaos. I can only speak for the registry in Lowell, but it's highly unlikely that we'll refuse documents because tax stamps are not affixed. In questionable cases, we will do what we've always done: accept the stated explanation of why no stamp is required, but then forward a copy of the deed with an explanation of our reasons questioning whether a tax stamp is required to the Department of Revenue and let the DOR do what they're supposed to do - assess and collect taxes owed the Commonwealth.

We've started working on a new design for the registry website. The "search records" section will continue as is. The changes we're contemplating are to the rest of the site. We think the new design will provide you with more information in a format that is easier to use. One new feature will be deed reports that will make information on home sales available to everyone at no charge. We'd like to hear your suggestions on things we should do differently or that should be added to our website.

We had a meeting with our computer company (ACS) to review the events that resulted in the two week long disruption of our Internet records search capability. If this were the investigation of an airplane crash, the cause would be human error not mechanical failure. The design of the system is actually very good and there is much redundancy to guard against foreseeable and unforeseeable problems that could disrupt service. But the best system in the world will fail if the human beings responsible for it don't follow the correct procedures and that's pretty much what happened here. Enough said about that. From the registry's perspective, this was a valuable learning experience that will help us avoid the type of complacency that tends to creep up on you when everything's going well. Thank you all for your patience and understanding.

The website seems to be working just fine. Tomorrow night we should have some details about what happened to cause our recent outage. In the meantime, a tip for users of the website. Often we have people tell us they can't find something on the Internet that is on the registry's computer. Usually, the sought-for-record is there all along. When searching the website, you should start with the broadest possible search. For example, enter the person's first and last name, omitting the middle initial and see how many records are returned. You can always limit the search to reduce the number of records returned. Here's where refining a search too much can be a big problem: Let's say you're searching the name "Susan Smith." You know she lives in Lowell, so you limit the search to records just from Lowell. Here's the problem. An attachment is against all of the person's property, so we put "None" in the town code field. When you only search for entries with "Lowell" in the town code field, you won't find the attachment. And no one wants to miss an attachment - so leave the town code field blank and get all possible records.

Happy Presidents Day. We actually worked yesterday (Sunday) for a while, adding some new features to the computers at the registry. Use the above link to send us an email and we'll tell you what those features are. But, enough of work. Today I saw the new Disney movie, Miracle, the story of the 1980 gold medal winning U.S. Olympic hockey team. Overall, it's a very good movie although some parts of it seemed to drag - it's hard to sustain two hours of edge-of-the-seat excitement when you already know how the story ends. There was no lack of excitement in the hockey scenes, however, as most of the actors are also hockey players. The PG rating must have been earned by the heavy body checks since there wasn't much swearing. It's certainly a movie you can take your kids to see. And for anyone born after 1980, it's a great history lesson about what life was like back at that time, with Ford Pinto's and Dodge Darts waiting in line to buy 5 gallons of gas, max, not to mention the Soviets seemingly on a path towards world domination. I guess we know how that ended, too.

The registry of deeds website wasn't the only computer operation that experienced problems last week. Amazon.com, the enormous online bookseller, embarrassed many people when a computer glitch replaced the anonymous names used by those who wrote book reviews (such as "a reader from Concord") with their real names. Turns out a number of authors had written glowing reviews of their own books, urging readers to buy immediately. Many negative reviews, it seems, are the work of rival authors seeking to trash the competition. This story is a good reminder that the apparent intimacy of email as a means of communication - it's just you and your computer - is disarmingly deceptive. Far from being intimate, email always retains the potential to be infinite, as in the number of people who may end up reading it.

Yesterday's Boston Herald ran a story about missing mortgage discharges. It detailed how major lenders routinely mail discharges to customers without a clear explanation of why the document must be recorded at the registry of deeds. Inevitably, the discharge is lost and a future sale or refinancing is delayed. Even if the lender mails the discharge directly to the registry, that's no guarantee it will be recorded. Close to thirty percent of all discharges received by mail in Lowell cannot be recorded because they belong at a different registry or they are not accompanied by the correct recording fee. We hope that big national lenders, who are the biggest offenders when it comes to getting discharges recorded, will embrace electronic recording once it is implemented. This method of recording is perfect for the high volume, multi-state business model now followed by so many lenders.

Even though it's Friday the 13th, we received good news today. The search records portion of the website seems to be functioning very well with search results and document images popping up quickly. We still don't know exactly what happened. There's supposed to be a formal debriefing on Wednesday, so the blog entry for that day will certainly provide whatever info we have at that time. At the registry, we've already started a comprehensive review of our own disaster recovery plan and computer backup procedures. When the system sails along month after month and year after year without serious difficulty, it's easy to be lulled into a false sense of security. The problem with the Internet over the past two weeks was all the reminder we needed to get more serious about this stuff.

The website is still under repair. A few weeks ago we embarked on a new mission: to make electronic recording a reality in Massachusetts. We've made some significant progress with our planning. To resolve many of the practical questions that arose when we first met with the potential users, we've decided to set up a test system within the registry. This will include a mock law office that we can use to record documents electronically using a test data base which will allow us to test the system and our procedures, all under the observation of potential users who visit the registry. Unfortunately, our enthusiasm for electronic recording has been tempered by the current problems with the website. The two must go hand-in-hand, so until we repair the website, fully investigate what happened, and put better preventive measures in place, we'll be moving slowly with electronic recording.

We'll take a break from whining about the website today. When Governor Romney filed his FY2005 Budget last month, he also filed two pieces of "companion legislation." One, called An Act to Clarify Certain Tax Provisions and Improve Various Activities of the Department of Revenue, would cause some dramatic changes at the registry of deeds. To read the full text of the bill, click HERE. The sections effecting the registry are 22, 23, 51 and 67. Under this bill, state tax liens and child support liens would no longer be recorded at the registry of deeds but would be entered in a central registry maintained by the Department of Revenue. Researching a property would require you to check the records at the registry of deeds and this DOR lien registry. This bill also specifies that any lien would attach to after acquired property. Please take a moment to read this legislation. So far, it seems to have slid under everyone's radar. We're anxious to hear your comments about it.

The piecemeal approach to restoring the website just isn't working. More help is on the way, but it's not likely to make a difference until this weekend. Until then, the site's performance will be slow and erratic. Most searches can be performed, but sometimes -for no reason I can see - some searches are interminable and eventually cause the system to time out. My advice is to be patient and keep trying.

The website is back in operation although it seems heavily sedated. It's working so slowly that a number of users have reported that it takes so long to retrieve data or images that they are forced to exit the program and start again. We are aware of this problem and have told the people who are working to recover the website that they're not finished yet. Please share your experience (good or bad) with us by email (Click HERE).

The website seems to be working OK although we haven't confirmed that records created since February 3 are available. We will continue to monitor the site's operation through the weekend. Monday morning, we'll extensively test the system to ensure everything is available. As for what caused this problem in the first place, it seems that it was a series of problems which, if taken separately, would not have had a major impact. When taken together, however, they caused a major disruption to the system. Well, we can only apologize so much. Our users are undoubtedly more interested in hearing what we've done to ensure that this (or some similar failure) does not happen again.

The "search records" feature of the website was back in operation at 8:30 this morning. The last document that appears is Instrument Number 7636 which was recorded on Tuesday, February 3. More recently recorded documents will be added to the site over this coming weekend and all should be restored to normal operation by Monday morning.

Despite promises that our website would be back in operation by 4 p.m. today - 6 p.m. at the very latest - here it is 10:15 p.m. and still no service. The wait is agonizing. Once this is over, we'll provide a full report about what caused it and also an explanation of the steps we will take to ensure it does not happen again.

Here's the latest information we have on the website: When the state office building suffered an electrical power surge on Monday, it caused the battery backup on the server to kick in. The battery isn't designed to sustain operations. It's purpose is to provide enough power for the server to shut itself down in a controlled manner when there's a power problem. That way, when the power's restored, the server can be restarted. That is what happened. Unfortunately, the disks that store all the data and images are separate from the server. Somehow, when the server was restarted, something caused everything on the disks to be wiped out. Supposedly, the technicians have restored the connection between the disks and the server. Now the data and images must be loaded from the backup tapes. That should be happening right now, but there's no guarantee when the site will be back in operation. Check back with the blog tomorrow for the latest news.

The information I wrote last night about the registry website was wrong - it's still down. The cause was a power failure in Boston during the day yesterday. Although the system is supposed to absorb this type of problem without any lasting damage, something didn't work the way it was supposed to. The technicians are still trying to put things back together. They tell us it might be back online this afternoon. We'll see. In the meantime, we've added extra people to our Customer Service office and are able to provide recording information to you over the telephone. Just call us at 978/322-9000.

More problems with the website. We did resolve the Friday-Saturday problem at the Lowell end by Sunday morning. Everything was working just fine today up until about 11:30 a.m. when the recording terminals in the Middlesex South satellite office all locked up and displayed error messages. It turns out there was some kind of power surge or region-wide telephone outage in Boston that effected the state office building at One Ashburton Place (just across from the back of the State House). Everything seemed to bounce back very quickly, everything that is, except for the registry of deeds Internet server. The good news is that as I write this (8:00 p.m.), the website seems to be back in operation. We will try to figure out what happened and will let you know as soon as possible.

Sorry about the lowelldeeds.com website being down Friday night and Saturday. This time the problem was in Lowell. A computer component went bad on us and it took most of Saturday morning to track it down and bypass it - our maintenance contractor will have to replace it on Monday. But for now, the site seems to be functioning. For future reference, if the Lowell website is down, you still might be able to search our records by going to masslandrecords.com which gives you access to the databases of several registries. Again, we're sorry about the inconvenience, but pleased it's now working so we can all focus on more important things like the Super Bowl.

Registry employees held their Super Bowl party today. There was plenty of foods, cakes decorated as football fields, and a wide variety of Patriot's clothing and decorations. Be sure to check out the photos on our website. Almost all of the experts say New England should win; that the Patriots are a better team; that Carolina is lucky to be there. I do agree with all that, but I also have this strange sense that two years ago, a lot of people in St. Louis were saying the exact same things, only then, it was the Rams that were the superior team (and the Patriots were indeed lucky to make it to the Super Bowl in 2001-02). Back in October 2001, I traveled to several different cities to view various registry of deeds computer systems to help select a replacement for our decrepit Wang. Plans called for a Monday visit to the Mecklenburg, North Carolina Registry of Deeds, so Sunday became a travel day with flights from Boston to Atlanta and Atlanta to Charlotte. I arrived at the hotel in downtown Charlotte to discover Eriksson Stadium just a block away with a game between the Carolina Panthers and the New York Jets already under way. I wandered over, someone gave me a ticket, and I caught the entire second half from the upper deck of one end zone. The Panthers stunk. The final score was something like 34 - 3; another loss on their way to a 1 and 15 season. That was only two years ago, so today, I have a hard time seeing how a team that was so bad can win the Super Bowl in just 24 months.

Representative Kevin Murphy (D-Lowell) is filing legislation that, if enacted, will supersede the recently released Executive Order regarding Notary Publics. This Order, thought by many to impose undue burdens on Notaries, does not go into effect until April 19. Rep Murphy's bill (there are a number of co-sponsors) would direct Secretary of State William Galvin to promulgate regulations regarding the conduct of Notaries. The bill would also limit the use of certain translations of the term "Notary Public" that, in other languages, might imply that the Notary is an attorney or a specialist in immigration law. While there is certainly a need for the Commonwealth to provide guidelines for Notaries, the governor's effort over does it.

Several years ago, the Secretary of State's Office organized the Address Confidentiality Program which was designed to protect individuals who were the objects of stalkers. A person enrolled in the program would be assigned a post office box at the Secretary of State's office and all references to the person's address - on a driver's license, phone and utility bills, school registration, etc - would list that post office box. The group that designed the program considered whether Registry of Deeds records should be included but decided that they should not. Our system of land ownership depends on the accuracy of the records at the registry. If some are "blacked out" or kept separately, an element of doubt would be injected into an otherwise reliable system. The only way to own real estate without having your name appear in the very public records at the registry would be to create a trust, name someone else as the trustee (with you as the beneficiary - the names of the beneficiaries are not recorded), and then have the real estate you are buying conveyed into the trust. It's complicated, but it would keep your name out of our records.

A big question people had about electronic recording was the speed with which documents submitted electronically would "go on record." This is how it's supposed to work: When an electronic document arrives, a registry employee will open the image of the document alongside the data related to that document. We will compare them and ensure that all the regular requirements of recording are met. This should only take a few minutes. Then, the registry clerk will "save" the document, just as she would with a paper document with a customer standing across the counter. The document will immediately be assigned instrument, book and page numbers and will officially be "on record." In the coming weeks, we will test the system to determine just how quickly this all will happen. We understand your concerns about the time and order of recording and will keep you informed of developments as the system evolves.

About 30 registry users met at the Doubletree Hotel in Lowell this afternoon with representatives of ACS (Affiliated Computer Systems), the company that will be assisting us in bringing Electronic Recording to Massachusetts. While there is much planning and discussion to be done, everyone seems very enthused. We will use the blog to keep everyone informed of our progress. If you have any questions or would like specific information about electronic recording, just send me an email by clicking here.

Tomorrow (Monday) will be the first meeting of the Electronic Recording Work Group. We've organized a small group of registry users who are willing to help us plan and implement the first fully functional electronic recording process at a registry of deeds in Massachusetts. Although we will not begin electronic recording until March 1, much thought and effort must be devoted to the details of the process we will be using to ensure that we are successful. If you have any thoughts on this topic, please use our newly installed "comment" feature to share your thoughts. Check back with this blog for frequent updates on this process.

This week's Lawyers Weekly carried an article about the governor's recently issued guidelines for notaries ("Stirct New Rule for Notaries Worries Bar"). The two biggest concerns of lawyers seemed to be that confidential client information would be disclosed in the notary journal that is subject to inspection by almost anyone. The other concern was the overall burden of recording all of the information required in the journal. Most notaries I have spoken with are pleased to have some type of formal guidance regarding how they should perform their duties although just prescribing the duties and not requiring such burdensome record keeping would probably have been enough. The governor's legal counsel indicates in the article that this is all designed to combat forgeries and fraud. But if a notary is willing to acknowledge a forged signature, what would stop that same notary for filling his journal with bogus information? It seems that this "solution" to a serious but relatively limited (in frequency) problem will create headaches for everyone. On a positive note, the chief legal counsel made it pretty clear that failure to comply with the precise notary requirements of this order should not effect whether or not the document is recorded. That's the right answer, as far as we're concerned.

This morning's Boston Globe carried an amazing story about a computer hacking scandal in Washington, D.C. Is seems that Republican staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee gained access to the files of the Democratic members of the committee. The Democrats thought all their stuff (which included politically sensitive and confidential plans and strategy) was secure and that only users with the correct password could access the files. Well an IT person (working for the Democrats - or who used to work for them) forgot to flip the switch on the security settings, giving everyone access. The Republicans apparently felt no ethical obligation to either disclose the security flaw or at least avoid reading the Democrats confidential material. They not only read the stuff, but they leaked substantial amounts of it to friendly members of the press. When Democratic memos began appearing verbatim in certian newspaper columns, the Democrats got suspicious and investigated the leak. At the Registry of Deeds, we are always concerned about the security of our computers. When you read a story such as this, with supposedly honorable government officials exploiting gaps in computer security, it reminds you why you should worry about hackers.

Many news outlets today wrote about a survey on attitudes towards technology that was released by MIT. Thirty percent of adults identify the cell phone as the invention they most hate but cannot live without. Other essential, yet despised, inventions include alarm clocks, TVs, electric razors, microwave ovens, coffee pots, computers and vacuum cleaners. This was a yearly survey conducted by the Lemelson-MIT Program, an organization that honors those who have helped improve our lives through invention. The institute's 2002 survey, available on its website, compared attitudes towards technology among teens and adults. Teens ranked wireless communications and computers very high and TVs quite low; adults ranked them in reverse order. What's this got to do with the Registry of Deeds? Technology is allowing radical changes to occur. Electronic books, Internet access and, in March, electronic recording will fundamentally alter the way registries have operated for the past 300 years. Those of us who decide how to implement this new technology have to understand it and its implications. That's why we read (and write about) stuff like this.

Middlesex South recorded more than 1000 documents with the new ACS computer system today. In the satellite office in Lowell, several hundred of these documents were recorded and scanned without any major difficulties. Customers using the public access terminals noticed the great improvement in the retrieval time of images (almost instantaneous) compared to the agonizingly slow pace of the old Wang system. Speaking of Wang, yesterday's decommissioning of the old Cambridge system represents the end of the Wang era in Massachusetts registries of deeds. When first installed in the early 1980s, Wang computers held much promise. But the Lowell-based company made some bad business decisions and, over time, abandoned its customers while it staggered from one unsuccessful business plan to the next. Life at the registry will be better with Wang gone.

The Middlesex South conversion to the ACS system was successful this weekend. We tested the system by recording and scanning a dozen documents from Lowell. Everything seemed to work fine. The public access terminals are connected to the new database so all images are instantly available for viewing and printing. All registry users should really like this new system. Congratulations to the New England Patriots for a great victory yesterday.

This morning I was a guest on "The House Market" a radio program hosted by Dennis and Donna Ready from 9 to 10 a.m. each Sunday on Lowell's WCAP (980 AM). Dennis and Donna talk about specific properties and also items of general interest in the real estate business. On the air, we talked about the registry's website and the changes that electronic recording will bring. We also discussed the new regulations for notaries. Links to the regulations and the new "clarifications" can be found on the first page of the registry's website. We also talked about this blog and blogs in general. One thing I didn't talk about was the ability of readers to post comments to the blog. We had set up a comments feature, but the company we were using (at no charge) has experienced some difficulty (i.e., it disappeared). So we'll try again with another provider as soon as possible - hopefully by tomorrow.

The History Channel (Channel 58 on Lowell cable TV) is showing a new documentary, Martin Luther King Jr Day: The Making of a Dream" on Monday at 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. If you have to work and miss the documentary, check out the History Channel website (follow the link above). There's a tremendous amount of interesting information available online.

Governor Romney gave his State of the State address last night. Mostly he talked about education issues, but he also mentioned closing the $1 billion deficit by eliminating more waste in government but without raising taxes. However they choose to deal with the deficit, this office really can't afford any more cuts. Our budget has been level funded at $1.3 million for the past four years. Since our costs certainly haven't stayed constant or decreased during that time, "level funding" really constitutes a significant cut. It's not like the registry is a financial drain on the state: last year alone Middlesex North collected nearly $27 million in fees, thanks to the refinancing boom and to the big hike in filing fees back in March. Another reason for watching the governor last night was in case he said anything about the weather. Yesterday afternoon, as news spread that hundreds of schools had cancelled classes for today due to the cold, the registry was abuzz with the rumor that the governor would declare a state of emergency. But, since the registry falls under the Secretary of State, it's up to William Galvin to close registries, so a gubernatorially declared state of emergency really wouldn't effect us. We are open today, despite the minus-14 degree temperature and significant wind chill.

The governor's office has issued some clarifications of Executive Order 455 (regarding Notaries Public). The effective date of the order has been pushed back to April 19, 2004. This "clarification" reiterates the requirement that all notaries must have a seal or stamp that contains the notary's name, the words "notary public" and either "Massachusetts" or "Commonwealth of Massachusetts." It must also have the expiration date of the notary's commission and a facsimile of the great seal of Massachusetts. If your current seal has everything but your name and expiration date, you may still use it but only if you get a separate stamp that has those two things on it in which case you'd have to use both your original seal and this new stamp. The requirement that a journal be maintained continues. The journal must be a bound book with sequentially numbered pages although if the entries are sequentially numbered, that will meet this requirement. Finally, while the original order said to be a notary, you must reside in the Commonwealth, the order will be modified to continue to allow people who live outside the state but who conduct business within Massachusetts to serve as notaries.

The Middlesex South Registry in Cambridge will spend this coming weekend converting to the ACS computer system. Customers should see a huge improvement in the operation of the Public Access computers. The days of waiting endlessly for an image to appear on screen will be over. With the ACS system, document images appear almost instantaneously on a split screen, with the indexing data on the left and the image on the right. More good news - Cambridge should also have its images and data on the Internet within the next month. Although the ACS system has worked wonderfully here in Lowell since its installation back in June 2002, the first week or two of the process are very turbulent and stressful for both employees and customers, so it really helps if everyone remembers to relax and stay calm. During our first few days with the new system, we were confronted with a steady procession of highly agitated title examiners convinced that index entries had evaporated during the conversion. In almost all cases, when registry employees performed the same search using the new system's instructions (and not the habitual "this is the way we did in on the Wang" process), the "missing" data reappeared. In the few cases that problems did occur, they were quickly fixed.

It didn't take long for the Uniform Electronic Transfer Act to make its way into a judge's decision. The January 12 issue of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly leads with "E-Mail Did Not Bind Seller To Home Price." The issue in the case was whether email messages between agents for the buyer and seller formed a binding contract on the parties. Land Court Judge Gordon Piper ruled there was no contract on the grounds that there was no offer and acceptance - that the basic elements of a contract never existed. Judge Piper went on to address a claim that email would meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds (i.e., to be enforceable, certain contracts must be in writing, signed by the party to be bound). The judge concluded that the email in this case did not meet such a requirement, noting that these events preceded the enactment of UETA but volunteering his opinion that even UETA might not change the result. Several lawyers with expertise in electronic transactions law who were interviewed for the story disagreed with the judge's doubts about the ability of email to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. It's always risky to comment on a case from afar (as I'm doing here), but it seems that this case should have ended when the judge found there was no contract in the first place. His speculation about the effect of UETA certainly was not an essential part of his findings. Those who practice real estate law tend to be very conservative when it comes to embracing new things, but just as type-written documents replaced those written with a quill pen, so will electronic documents soon supplant those that exist on paper.

Last week's report that the US economy only created 1000 jobs in December (149,000 less than expected) was bad news. I'm no economist, but something about this economic "recovery" just hasn't seemed right. Yesterday's New York Times business section had an article ("The No-Bang, All-Whimper Recovery" by Gretchen Morgenson) that helped put things into context. Many of today's homeowners, who reached adulthood during the hyper-inflationary 1970s, learned that you should spend not just out of your paycheck, but out of your assets as well, including your house. That mentality, as much as low interest rates, drove the recently ended refinancing boom that pumped billions of dollars into the economy. But that's over and now the government is printing money (big deficits are back) to finance the war in Iraq and tax cuts that will let most of us keep a few more dollars come April 15. Hmmm, big deficits, tax cuts, a multi billion dollar bill for Iraq - it sounds like inflation is right around the corner. Hopefully, we'll record more mortgages than foreclosure deeds in 2004 . . .

There was a definite warming trend today: the temperature at 7 a.m. soared to minus-7 degrees. The Patriots had a great victory last night. Having been through this two years ago, football fever will certainly dominate discussion at the registry of deeds during the coming week. When one of the local professional sports teams starts closing in on a championship, a very pleasant aura descends on the region, giving almost everyone a common topic of conversation which is lacking during the rest of the year (unless there's a big storm or a terrible tragedy). But all New Englanders will feel severely disrespected this week, as the national media fawns over Peyton Manning and the explosive offense of the Indianapolis Colts, especially after their big victory against the Kansas City Chiefs today.

It was only minus-10 degrees at 7 this morning, but the cold is not the cause of this weekend's problems with our website. Here's an explanation: the web pages you see when you first go to www.lowelldeeds.com reside on a server that is physically located at the registry of deeds in Lowell. When you "search records" on the website, however, you are shifted to another server that is located at the Secretary of State's office in Boston. This dispersion is a good thing. If there was a fire in Lowell, for example, the data portion of the website (in Boston) would remain in operation. (The data on that Boston computer is also the primary backup for the main computer in Lowell that stores all the active data and images used within the registry). Back to this weekend: the electrical system in the Boston building is being upgraded this weekend, so all its electrical power has been shut down. Hence, no web data. Sorry for the inconvenience. It should be back up sometime on Sunday.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing in Lowell this afternoon on the future of the judiciary. Representatives Kevin Murphy and Colleen Garry were members of the panel. Judge Walker of the Lowell District Court testified about the administrative crisis at the LDC caused by years of cuts in funding and personnel. Since there's been no corresponding decrease in crime, the district court is in a desperate situation. I testified briefly, asking the committee to remember the Registry of Deeds and how convenient it was for lawyers and the public to have the registry located within a courthouse. I also stressed that with our technological advances (Internet access to documents and electronic recording) the space needed by the registry in the near future was only about 75% of the space we currently occupy.

We now have a "Comments" feature on our blog. Like the blog itself, we're taking a low budget approach by using free services that make their money through advertising. For example, we use www.blogspot.com for the text of the blog (if you want to start your own blog, check out blogspot). To view the comments of others or to leave one of your own, just click on the word "comments" located below the applicable blog entry and a popup box will appear. Any prior comments will be at the top of the box; at the bottom of the box will be a form that asks for a name (preferably your own). Your name is required but none of the other fields including your email address are required. Then type your comment. Remember, whatever you write will be visible to anyone reading the blog (if you want to make a private comment, use my email link above). We've tested this feature and it seems to work pretty well although I'm still trying to get rid of the "smiley faces" (remember, it's a free service). If you're reading our blog, please let us know by leaving a comment.

Yesterday's posting regarding the new guidelines for Notaries led to several questions. How will the registry treat documents with acknowledgement clauses that do not comply with the language set out in the guidelines? Will they still be accepted when recording? The short answer is that the guidelines will not change whether a document will be recorded. The guidelines are directed at the notary. If the notary fails to follow them completely but still indicates an intent to acknowledge someone's signature, we will still record the document. Our philosophy is to take pretty much anything that could be construed to be an acknowledgement, and leave the determination of whether it is an effective acknowledgement up to the title examiners that will look at the document in the future.

Standards of Conduct for Notaries Public in Massachusetts recently went into effect. Click HERE to view the Standards. Because this document specifies what a Notary Public can and cannot do, it should provide useful guidance. One requirement is that every Notary maintain a journal in book form in which the Notary records (1) the date and time of each notarial act; (2) the type of notarial act; (3) the type, title or a description of the document; (4) the signature, printed name and address of each person signing; (5) description of the evidence of identity of each person signing; (6) the fee charged if any; and (7) the address where the notarization was performed. While I can't speak for every Notary Public, those I do know believe these additional requirements will make the act of notarizing a document much more burdensome, thereby making it more difficult for the average citizen to find a Notary Public willing to offer his services. Here at the Registry, where we offer Notarial services at no charge at our Customer Service Office, we will continue to do just that and will strive to comply fully with these new requirements.

This morning, Lowell radio station WCAP (980 AM) interviewed author Nicholas Basbanes about his recent book, "A Splendor of Letters" which is about efforts to preserve books. Mr. Basbanes, who's a native of Lowell (i.e., Basbanes Laundry, Atty George Basbanes) has written a number of books about books. At the Registry of Deeds, how we handle our Record Books is a big issue. More than two years ago, we stopped producing them altogether, relying on electronic images and microfilm backup. Now we're contemplating putting the thousands of exisitng books whose images are available on our computers and on the Internet into storage both to help preserve the books (dropping a 20 pound book on top of a copier isn't good for the book or the copier) and to cut back on our space needs. But these are not steps to take lightly, so I'm planning to buy Mr Basbanes' book. To visit his website, click HERE.

With registry records already on the Internet and electronic document recording only two months away, big changes are coming to the registry. But if you look at the effect that technology has had on other businesses, you might conclude that the registry won't change all that much. Today's newspaper had a story about the resurgence of Barnes and Noble. A year ago, many analysts were already eulogizing the big bookseller, viewing it as a victim of online sales by amazon.com and the enormous growth of book sales at discounters such as Walmart and Costco. The analysts were wrong. Barnes and Noble's stock has risen more than 80% over the past year. What happened? Online sales have stabilized at only about 10% of all book sales, and Costco and Walmart only sell a few dozen titles, almost all from the best seller lists. It turns out that nothing will replace browsing around the stacks at the bookstore.

Many homeowners come to the registry in search of their plot plans. They leave disappointed. The plot plan, which shows the footprint of the house and the boundaries of that one lot, is usually required by a lender whenever a mortgage is obtained to show that the building is on the lot and that it complies with the local zoning rules. Although homeowners should get a copy of the plot plan, they either don't or they do but misplace it. Later, when the homeowner applies for a building permit to put up a deck, a garage or a fence, some type of plan is required and the homeowner journeys to the registry for a copy of the plan that he's already paid for. But plot plans don't get recorded, only subdivision plans do. For 2004, the registry will start recommending to lawyers that they attach a copy of the plot plan to deeds and mortgages as an exhibit. That way, there will be no additional charge to the homeowner (who's paying to record the deed or mortgage anyway) and the plot plan will always be available in the registry's records.

Mortgages and mortgage discharges, the two document types most closely connected to home refinancing, account for 60% of all documents recorded at the registry. When refinancing declines, our document totals decline, too. Even though more documents were recorded in 2003 than in any prior year, the collapse of the refinancing market can be traced by the decline in the number of documents recorded per day during the last six months of the year:
July - 700 per day
Aug - 640 per day
Sep - 586 per day
Oct - 534 per day
Nov - 480 per day
Dec - 370 per day

Here are the top ten events at the registry during 2003:
(1) We recorded 146,956 documents, 27% over '02, 51% over '01, and 105% over 2000.
(2) Middlesex South satellite office opened allowing documents for Cambridge to be recorded in Lowell
(3) Recording fees increased in March - a deed went from $45 to $125
(4) The registry website is now instantly updated - as soon as a document is recorded it appears online
(5) Eight new employees were hired to fill vacancies caused by budget cuts
(6) Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (UETA) became law, allowing electronic recording
(7) From March to June, Lowell recorded mail for Cambridge to help eliminate their backlog
(8) Corporate Certificates can now be obtained at the Lowell registry
(9) Tax stamps are now produced by the computer system, not be a stand alone cash register
(10) The refinancing market collapsed, greatly reducing our daily volume by the end of the year