Posted by Charles_CA on 7/29/05 11:05am
Msg #55625

SS's, slow pay, abuses etc.

I am very selective in who I work for and so I don't get burned often. When an SS starts telling me how to dress and that I need to call the borrowers and make the appointment and that I need to call the SS from the borrowers home to make sure that I did my work I get the feeling that I am dealing with bottom-feeders. I had some really strange calls in the last few days of this month. I actually had one ask me do do a fingerprinting at a commune about 20 mile up a dirt road in the hills. I say commune because that is the way they chose to live: communally. I know a lot of the people at this commune but it is one heck of a drive to get to: it takes about 45 minutes each way. The offer ws for me to make the drive, get the prints and notarize a document for $50 but then the caller asked me to rebate $25 as a finders fee to the caller. I had all I could do to keep from laughing into the phone.

This morning I drafted a letter to my State legislaors suggesting that they consider passing a requirement for SSs to be licensed, bonded and insured and that the license, bond and insurance be held by a principal who is also a commissioned notary and has been for at least two years.

Consider this: the SSs are the only ones in the chain of events pertaining to a loan in Califnronia who are completely The Title companies are regulated, the real estate agents and the loan agents are licnesed and in some cases bonded, and always well regulated, the notarys are commissioned, bonded and in many cases insured but what does it take to be an SS. There are no requirements for being and SS and some of them operate unethically and unscrupulously. There is no one else in the chain of events who can, through their unethical actions, affect one of the most expensive transactions most people will ever conduct, with absolute impunity. Think of it ,when these unscrupulous SSs are badgering new notaries to back date, to sign in absentia, to send them copies of their stamps etc, etc. Who gets burned in the transactions? The buyer or borower can get burned and so can the Notary but the SSs just move onto the next disposable notary. I believe that we as notarys working in the area of signing should demand that legislation be passes to ensure that:

1. All SSs have at least a Notary commission with bond and license and at least two years of experience

2. That all SS carry a bond large enough to cover potential liability from the signing as well as for nonpayment of notary contractors

3. That a mechanism be set up to allow Notary contractors to collect from the SS's bond for nonpayment or late payment of SS obligations past a certain number of days

4. That there be a licensing requrement for all SSs operating in California (or your State) so that their operations can be monitored and the activities controlled.

After all, they expect the same from us, its only fair that they should have similar requirements.

Regards,
Charles

Reply by Becca/FL on 7/29/05 11:12am
Msg #55629

interesting points..........n/m

Reply by Lily on 7/29/05 11:14am
Msg #55631

Finder's Fee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the joke of the day!

Reply by JPS_CA on 7/29/05 11:16am
Msg #55633

Re: Finder's Fee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Charles, how about forwarding that letter to your local state representative so he or she can use it as an initiative in the state level.

Reply by Charles_CA on 7/29/05 11:34am
Msg #55640

Re: Finder's Fee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Done, but I hope I am not the only one who believes this way and that others will do the same.

Best regards,
Charles

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/29/05 11:38am
Msg #55645

Really well thought out, Charles. I especially like the idea of the bond for non-payment to notaries, guess that would stop that practice real quick.

However...whenever there's costs involved to be licensed, bonded etc...it can drive the cost up for the end-user, the buyer.

I'd be curious what Sylvia thinks of this.

Reply by Charles_CA on 7/29/05 11:54am
Msg #55664

That is an excellent point. However if you look at the context of median priced homes versus the charges for notary services you see on the settlement statement they are such a small percentage of the overall transaction that it really shouldn't be a problem. I actually bristle at some fo the origination fees and rebates I see some of the borrowers paying. Of course some of them should be considered a penalty for their FICO.

Do you have an idea of what percentage of the notary cost the SSs get. It would be interesting to look at the effort and exposure of the Notary versus the SS and compare that to the percentage of the Notary costs on the Settlement sheet that the SSs get.

I am curious, in your TC does the Title Officer query an individual SS for the price or do they just use a SWAG to set the amount? Also don' t the SSs get paid when the funds are disbursed along with every one else. I've always believed that the the SS stating that having to wait 45 to 60 days for payment from the TC was just bunk.

I am hoping to hear from some SSs regarding this proposal both pro and con.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 7/29/05 12:01pm
Msg #55672

I like your attitude! n/m

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 7/29/05 1:02pm
Msg #55702

The minute you start trying to regulate this industry, then I would suspect all states would take a closer look and you would up with all states being attorney states.

Unfortunately, as we all know, there are some unscrupulous signing services out there.
When I was a child I used to listen to a radio program called "Listen with Mother". One of the recurring stories was about a character called Mrs. Be Done As You Would Be Done By.
Those stories must have stayed with me. I always treat my signing agents as I would want to be treated. I pay a fair fee, and I pay promptly as anyone who has done signings for me can verify.
I believe a signing service should have enough capital to pay their signing agents as soon as the signing is completed. The check should be put in the mail, if not the same day, the same week! If a signing agent goes out to a signing they should get paid whether the loan goes through or not, whether the borrowers sign or not. (If it is a no-sign, I pay the agent the full fee and I only bill the title company what I pay the agent)

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/29/05 1:17pm
Msg #55708

Sylvia...will you come to California?? please?? :)

I promise it's not as humid here as in Florida... I wish all Ss's were like you.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 7/29/05 2:12pm
Msg #55728

Re: Sylvia...will you come to California?? please?? :)

Land of earthquakes? No way!!! I know we have hurricanes, but we do have warnings to get out of Dodge!

I love Florida and cannot imagine living anywhere else

Reply by Dmartz_IN on 7/29/05 1:24pm
Msg #55713

Re: To Sylvia

As an SS owner do you have allot of mistakes done by the notaries that you use,or has the way you prescreen new notaries that you hire kept it to a minimum.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 7/29/05 2:09pm
Msg #55724

Re: To Sylvia

The packages are all highlighted where the notary has to get signatures or initials, so no errors are made with the docs. However, I do have the signing agent fax me back the notarized pages, and I do see errors there - if the notary certificate isn't preprinted correctly (elements missing), then some signing agents are just signing them and not adding the missing information, so I call them to let them know they need to add the information.
(Florida requires the form of ID be added to the certificate plus the notary must print his/her name under the signature.) The signing agent is usually happy to add the information before shipping out the docs. I have only had one signing agent say she cannot do that - she claimed for her to add anything to a notary certificate if it wasn't printed there would be UPL!!! Needless to say I have taken her out of my database.
Once the signing agent does perfect notarizatins they do not have to fax me back the notarized pages. I have a databse of extremely professional signing agents with error free signings - and some of them are brand new notary/signing agents!

Reply by Dmartz_IN on 7/29/05 2:11pm
Msg #55727

Re: To Sylvia

Thank you for a very professional reply.

Reply by Kandi on 7/29/05 1:36pm
Msg #55718

Sylvia, I agree with everything you say, and as you know, our practices are the same as yours, with one exception. I don't and won't pay as soon as the loan signs, for a very good
reason. If there are errors on the docs, we sometimes don't know for as long as a week or two. There is less incentive for the SA to fix the error if they have already been paid. And yes, I know any SA worth their salt would remedy an error graciously and quickly, but sometimes that just doesn't happen. Not going into any SA bashing, just that we have had it happen from very unlikely, so we thought, sources. But we pay when we are paid, usually pretty fast. We will wait the 30 days if we haven't been paid. We do have clients who pay us on a net 30 or monthly schedule, as well as those who pay us per signing.

As well, if it is an e-doc signing, and the docs have been printed and appointment doesn't take place, we pay a printing fee.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/29/05 1:14pm
Msg #55705

Charles,

No, I don't have any idea of the percentage. I've taken up this subject on the board and gotten, IMO, some really questionable information back considering what I know about my own company. I've had SS's respond that 1) they don't get paid after close and 2) other posters say the TC "holds funds" and doesn't disburse until they feel like it.

I flat don't buy it, unless you're working with a really low-life, tiny little title company that can't even underwrite themselves (and even THEN I'd raise an eyebrow).

My particular office doesn't use SS - they have some excellent gals that come in sometimes for several hours at a time, and sign people up in our 'sign-up' cubbys - small rooms that accomodate 3/4 people and a table. Or the E/O's or assistants make extra money doing signups after hours. In order to find out info on signing services, I've asked questions of esperienced escrow officers who have been around the block and used SS in the past, just not here.

I'm told that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES do they hold money after their escrow file is closed, and it's closed the day of recording. Checks go out in 1-3 days. Period. We're regulated, we can't hold money. I don't care what I've been told on this board - that "the TC holds funds and doesn't disburse right away" or, this is a good one, "the TC is keeping the money"... to all that I say - BS I don't know where the notaries get these ideas - California Escrow practice is heavily regulated by the SOS and TC's by the insurance commissioner. What we're usually investigated for is undercutting our competitors - giving the buyers a better deal ultimately! You are correct in your bunk theory. (I call it BS, not bunk) It all depends on the SS. No SS waits 45 to 60 days to be paid by Southern California TC's that do business according to generally accepted practices, and regulations.


Second, the E/O puts the amount that is quoted by the SS in the estimated closing statement, It varies, but can be between $200 and $350. I don't care how much money the SS makes - hey if they can get more than my fee, great; but I better be paid on time.

I DO think that SS's provide a good service, and I like all of them I've worked for. The good ones ARE GREAT! They deserve to make money! It's the bad ones...as in every industry...that are causing problems. I take particular issue with those SS's how don't pay me within an outside date of NO LATER THAN 30 day. There's just no good excuse for it. For those that pay on time, and make money doing it...hey - good for you....please hire me I'll do a great job for you - no mistakes!

I too hope you hear from them, but I promise you'll get some very mixed reviews...

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/29/05 8:19pm
Msg #55799

to TitleGal

If you have a minute... I have a question for you regarding the much debated 'padding' of the signing fee. I respect your statements... and believe for that matter... your statements regarding the 'padding' of the signing fee. So now a few questions are brought to mind.

I have worked directly for reputable Title Companies (no SS involved) and the Signing Fee is listed separately from the other Closing Fees and Title Fees. My name has not been listed there... just Signing Fee or sometimes Notary Fee. I can give you an example of one where the Notary Fee was $350 and I was being paid $175.

In my mind and the limited scope of knowledge I have in the interworkings of a Title Company there are 2 options...

1) The HUD states the max amount that was set aside for that purpose and once I send my invoice, the HUD is adjusted and the borrowers are given the excess.

2) The Title Company has their own 'checks and balances' system and whatever excess exists is 'sucked up' in the cost of someone 'checking and verifying' the documents- or is transferred to be included in other Title Fees.

Which one is a viable scenario? I think we (SA's) all feel that there is an excess, or somebody is lying (not you... but maybe the SS) How many times have we heard... I can't meet your fee because I am only making $125 or $150 when the Signing Fee is listed as $350. We think it because we see it... on paper... in black and white. I just can't help thinking that in the end.. the HUD might be adjusted to reflect the actual check cut to the SA or SS and the excess is switched to be included in other Title Fees. Is this possible ( I am talking about the big TC's here.. not the fly by night ) or am I out to lunch?

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/29/05 10:27pm
Msg #55820

Re: to TitleGal

No, you're not out to lunch and for every escrow officer I've asked (some of whom are personal friends) the correct scenario is #1.

Scene #2 isn't an option because escrow has to balance each closing, just like a checking account is balanced - right down to small things like $2 or $3 in recording charges that I provide as title officer, at closing. They are given demands, including a notary demand, just like lenders have demands on deeds of trust for their payoffs. If there's an error made in balancing...and it happens....guess who takes the hit? Title insurance fees - or, my fee to issue the policy of title insurance. In other words, for an 'in-house' escrow and title transaction, the TC sucks it up if the E/O makes a mistake. This is why I say BS to all these people who post 'the TC is pocketing the extra' - it just isn't so, I deal with this daily, which is why I feel so strongly about it. A good E/O provides a really good estimate of closing costs - any excess or miscalcuated items should be in the very low hundreds, refunded either to borrower or lender.

Not too long ago, a signing service showed up on the board and I asked some hard questions. The answers I got were vague, until one SS from Florida showed up and described a scenario where she as SS had an account with a TC where they paid a flat fee for notary service (this is the one area of this dilemma I can't answer to - and may be where the problems are). She went on to describe a scenario with late LO documents, scheduling nightmares, repeated trips by the notary due to poor LO/SS/TC communication. It did sound believable, and pretty nightmarish. In that scene, I think Charles is dead-right, the SS simply become yet another cog in the wheel of getting the docs signed.

You're very much like me in that I want to know the RULES. It drives me crazy that for the 8 months I've been doing signings for my own profit, I have to deal with a middle man that doesn't pay me when there's NEVER been a problem with my work, escrow closed 45 days ago, and I still don't have a check. I don't get it, and you all know it's been my bugaboo since joining this board.

Praise to Sylvia, she operates on sound business principles. I don't go for the previous statement "I can't pay yet because if I do then I can't hold the payment hostage until the notary fixes the docs if there's a problem" Huh? How about the notary (me) wants your REPEAT business - I certainly can't retire on your single $100 fee!! I want you to like me, I want you to trust me and I want to be sure you're happy with my work. That’s why I'll fix any errors, not because you’re holding my payment hostage.

To me, the bottom line is if the SS is operating on sound business principles, there should not be any reason, whatsoever, notaries are not paid promptly. The TC and the HUD are not the culprits, just proof there's a problem here.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/29/05 11:11pm
Msg #55829

Thank you .....

You are absolutely right about me. I always want to know why... and what... and how. I feel that it helps me do a better job.

Thank you so much for the information. I always feel like I just went back to school after reading your posts.

I too have a problem with the claim that payments should be held hostage for corrections. I feel that it is a lame defense for not operating with the correct amount of capital and riding the backs of completed jobs to cover operating expenses until the next month.

I also have a secret laugh at the SS's who constantly complain about the super high taxes that they pay. The last time I checked... income taxes were all relative to income. Net income... not gross income. So maybe if they paid the notary a little more, they could write it off and pay less income taxes and it all would balance out. And if they are talking about employee taxes and EDD stuff... welcome to the world of business and employees. Maybe if they spent a little more time developing a good base of signers and paid them a decent fee... they would not need so much manpower to run around putting out fires. Whatever the case... lets understand that they are essentially crabbing that they made soooo much money they had to pay soooooo much money in taxes. Yeah whatever. I pay lots of money in taxes too.

I also love the ones that claim that they started to charge less because they got screwed by Joe Notary down the road. Yes I recently had a nice long rant about that one.

So I'll stop now while I'm ahead..... thanks again for the info!

.... A

Reply by Kandi on 7/29/05 1:19pm
Msg #55710

Charles, you are intitled to your opinion, and gave it. Here's mine. I strongly disagree with you. Once again, this is not meant to be confrontational, so please don't interpret it that way.
My biggest fear is the government being involved in anything. Any time the gov't gets involved, it's a mess. Do you really want the same people that run the DMV involved in this process? That's just me and my point of view. I know there are those out there that want the gov't overseeing them and everything that's said and done by everyone breathing, and lots of folks w/ pov's in between. And, that's fine. I was just expressing by basic view.
Your points.

Even though it would be a big boon to existing SS's, including mine, to require them to have a Notary Commission because there would be less start ups, equalling less competition, I am against this proposition. It would stifle free enterprise. I am of the mind that you don't have to be a cow to know what milk is. This is a slippery slope, we're treading here. That could be countered with you must have several years as a notary before you can do loan signings. The marketplace generally takes care of those issues all by itself. If anyone thinks this job is such a piece of cake, and wants a crack at it, I say more power to them. Have at it.

Your second point. SS carry a bond large enough to cover liability for the signing, as well as payments to the SA's. Are you aware that your notary bond only covers the notary portion of a signing? If you accept a signing and mess it up, you are totally exposed to liability unless it was strictly a notary error? The insurance for SA's to cover the SA portion of a signing is rare and very expensive. If SS's have to have insurance, why not SA's. We don't ask you for it, and I don't know of any other SS that asks you to have SA insurance.

Your third point that allow Notary contractors to collect from the SS bond, well see the paragraph above. I think that may open a door that many from both sides of the fence don't want to see opened. There is some, but not much, litigation going on involving "notaries" that have botched signings and the lender has lost it's interest on the loan for who knows how long, and the borrower has lost his/her loan, with who know what consequences, and I can't tell you how many fees we've waived due to SA error. I don't want to see that door opened because of the dire consequences I can see for all of us, not just the signing services. If SS are liable, then many will come back to the notary that actually made the error. I personally don't want to see homes lost and lives destroyed because of a few lousy SS's and a few lousy notaries.

Your fourth point. You want to have a licensing requirement for SS's. How about a licensing requirement for SA's, so that their operations can be monitored and their activities controlled. Do you see what I mean? Once the gov't gets involved, they aren't just going to look at us, they are going to take a good long hard look at you SA's, too. Does anyone really want that.
I don't, not for me, and not for you, either.

I really think that the marketplace weeds out the "bad SS's, just like it eventually does the "bad" notaries. Unfortunately, we're all going to get burned until their weeded out. By then there will be a new batch to take their places. Just the nature of the beast. When you're self employed, there are risks and losses. EVERY business has 'em. I am not offering this as advise, just telling you what I do. I don't try to re-invent the wheel. I don't worry about what the "other guy" is doing, or what he's making. I run my own race, and take care of my own business, and let others take care of theirs.
Sincerely, JMHO

Reply by sue on 7/29/05 1:31pm
Msg #55714

I am not a ss fan but I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one and totally disagree w/Charles. I want no parts of the government stepping into this business any further than they are now.

If regulations appear for signing services, it surely will mean regulating signing agents. Many if not most of the small signing services will be put out of business (or leave CA and open up in unregulated states). Mega signing services owned by big corporations such as First American will take over and those of you who work for signing services will see fees take a dive.

Be careful what you wish for. Do your homework, build a client base, accept a few losses and you will be in a position like I am and not have to accept work from anyone I've never heard about in another state. Not getting paid isn't right but it's a part of being in business. Government regulation isn't the answer.

Reply by Charles_CA on 7/29/05 3:12pm
Msg #55747

Charles, you are intitled to your opinion, and gave it. Here's mine. I strongly disagree with you. Once again, this is not meant to be confrontational, so please don't interpret it that way.
My biggest fear is the government being involved in anything. Any time the gov't gets involved, it's a mess. Do you really want the same people that run the DMV involved in this process? That's just me and my point of view. I know there are those out there that want the gov't overseeing them and everything that's said and done by everyone breathing, and lots of folks w/ pov's in between. And, that's fine. I was just expressing by basic view.

Greetings Kandi. I don’t believe in being confrontational but merely in having an open and frank discussion. I commend you and respect you for using your name instead of hiding behind “anonymous”. First of all what I stated in not an opinion it is a position. DMV is a poor analogy in this case because we are talking aobut a professional service much of which is already government regulated. The reason that much of this business is regulated by the government is because the now regulated businesses could not regulate themselves. In my post I stated that the SSs are the only segment of this business which are not currently regulated and also it appears that they are a problem area.

Even though it would be a big boon to existing SS's, including mine, to require them to have a Notary Commission because there would be less start ups, equalling less competition, I am against this proposition. It would stifle free enterprise. I am of the mind that you don't have to be a cow to know what milk is. This is a slippery slope, we're treading here. That could be countered with you must have several years as a notary before you can do loan signings. The marketplace generally takes care of those issues all by itself. If anyone thinks this job is such a piece of cake, and wants a crack at it, I say more power to them. Have at it.

The argument that this is tantamount to having notaries have several years of experience is not valid. Notaries have to pass an examination that requires a minimum level of understanding of the business. I also am a champion of CERTIFICATION. Certification should be to establish a minimum skill level. Licensing would be to control and track SSs and to have a forum to identify and resolve abuses. I fail to see the analogy.

Your second point. SS carry a bond large enough to cover liability for the signing, as well as payments to the SA's. Are you aware that your notary bond only covers the notary portion of a signing? If you accept a signing and mess it up, you are totally exposed to liability unless it was strictly a notary error? The insurance for SA's to cover the SA portion of a signing is rare and very expensive. If SS's have to have insurance, why not SA's. We don't ask you for it, and I don't know of any other SS that asks you to have SA insurance.

I am quite aware that the notary bond covers the notary portion of the signing. I am also aware that the notary bond is to protect the public only. I find it hard to imagine an SA or anyone serious about their business not having E&O insurance. I carry E&O insurance for both my notary activities and my real estate activities neither of which I consider so terribly expensive. I believe that my business is worth insuring especially in this litigious environment we now operate in. I do not consider someone without insurance as being seriously in business. It is a reckless act to perform a service which has the capability of great financial loss and not insure oneself to protect their clients: we are all human and capable of making a mistake whence ERRORS & OMMISSIONS insurance.

Your third point that allow Notary contractors to collect from the SS bond, well see the paragraph above. I think that may open a door that many from both sides of the fence don't want to see opened. There is some, but not much, litigation going on involving "notaries" that have botched signings and the lender has lost it's interest on the loan for who knows how long, and the borrower has lost his/her loan, with who know what consequences, and I can't tell you how many fees we've waived due to SA error. I don't want to see that door opened because of the dire consequences I can see for all of us, not just the signing services. If SS are liable, then many will come back to the notary that actually made the error. I personally don't want to see homes lost and lives destroyed because of a few lousy SS's and a few lousy notaries.

Again I believe that we should all carry insurance to mitigate just such situations. After all we have mandatory insurance for drivers because of the arguments you state, why not anyone else who is capable of damage?

Your fourth point. You want to have a licensing requirement for SS's. How about a licensing requirement for SA's, so that their operations can be monitored and their activities controlled. Do you see what I mean? Once the gov't gets involved, they aren't just going to look at us, they are going to take a good long hard look at you SA's, too. Does anyone really want that. I don't, not for me, and not for you, either.

I thought that SA’s are already licensed, at least in California they are) notarys receive a commission (a license) to perform an act as agents for the Secretary of State and the County Clerk. As far as I can see the SSs are the only onesin the chain of events for completion of loans who have absolutely no requirements for performance, for fiduciary, for financial responsibility, actually, for not for much of anything.

I really think that the marketplace weeds out the "bad SS's, just like it eventually does the "bad" notaries. Unfortunately, we're all going to get burned until their weeded out. By then there will be a new batch to take their places. Just the nature of the beast. When you're self employed, there are risks and losses. EVERY business has 'em. I am not offering this as advise, just telling you what I do. I don't try to re-invent the wheel. I don't worry about what the "other guy" is doing, or what he's making. I run my own race, and take care of my own business, and let others take care of theirs.
Sincerely, JMHO

Your last point is a very self-serving argument. Do you wait for a dangerous surgeon to get weeded out from the ranks of practicing physicians by the effect of the marketplace? Do you wait for an unethical real estate agent to be weeded out by the effect of the real estate marketplace? I can cite dozens of similar instances. One of the functions of government is to protect consumers. Consumer protection requires assets and coordination that only the government can weild. The whole premise of notaries goes back centuries as the action of government to protect the consumer. To suggest that notaries ane anything but an extension of government consumer protection is to ignore the precedents of centuries. In fact in this situation we have an anomalous precedent where government actions (notaries) are being controlled by non-governmental entities (SSs)

I hear your arguments but I see no suggestions on how to resolve the problem. This may work for the SSs but it does not work for the SA’s. As I see it there are basically two ways to handle this problem one is by government intervention and the other by unification of the SAs. Organization of the SAs is unlikely because of numerous reasons.

I have no desire to be an SS, if I did I would be, I have the resources, and I prefer to work for the TCs directly, I believe that is the way this business should flow; I suspect that is the way the business started. I don’t see that the SSs provide any added value for the end user. SSs appear to be a convenience for the TCs, a clearing house, if you will, one which is probably overpaid and less efficient when compared to other clearing houses in other markets. This last was my opinion.

Best regards,
Charles

Reply by Nicole_NCali on 7/29/05 6:17pm
Msg #55782

You are so on point Charles..

It appears that some SS may have ethics and actually pay, but when a SS makes it a practice to not pay, well, who puts this SS in place. The hud specifically states a notary or signing fee paid to whomever, if this fee is not paid down the pike to the SA, isn't this a break in the RESPA Laws.

I think that the break down occurs from having a bunch of middle men who do serve as clearing house, but actually in some circumstances muck up the process. Everyone is trying to pad their pockets in any business, but the worry about Attorney only states would not be practical. First of all, Attorneys worth their salt can command $250-500 hour. How would this sit with a borrower potentially paying over $1000 in signing fees.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/29/05 7:56pm
Msg #55795

To Charles...

I agree with your position and I loved reading your arguments. Obviously, because I am not an attorney, I don't want this industry to turn into an 'attorneys only' market. I feel that this is the bomb dropped on any person who wants to argue in favor of some sort of regulated system. Your point that that SS is the one piece that requires NO certification, background, licensing... whatever... is staggering. I never thought about it that way. Everybody else is licensed and/or certified for their specific duty. Lots to think about.

I am in favor of a new system for the SS's with some regulation. Whether or not it will ever happen... who knows...

--- A

Reply by s/Calif on 7/29/05 9:53pm
Msg #55816

Re: To Charles...

I have to agree with Charles.... excellent arguments made! I'v always thought there is power in numbers. If all the SA's would unite! I think we could actually get this business headed in the direction it should be. But then,... that's only MHO