Posted by Harry [NR] on 9/27/06 2:26am
Msg #148713

Chartered Signing Agent - Background Check Included!



This is a call for feedback. Notary Rotary is proposing a community-driven Chartered Signing Agent program to include:

a) Independent verification of credentials,
b) Knowledge verification,
c) Criminal background check, and
d) Ethics compliance.

The designation would be available for as little as $59 at notary network meetings and for no more than $129 per commission term. Other memberships, certifications, classes, courses, etc. would not be required.

The program would be managed much like a signing program using Notary Rotary's Signing Central, co-administered by an elected committee of expert signing agents, and credential validation would be performed by an approved network of signing agents. That network would receive most of the membership dollars in the form of signing agent compensation.

To read more about this program, please refer to the following PDF:



To comment on the idea, express your support or interest in becoming a committee member, please respond to this post. We could have this program off the ground in very short order if interest warrants.

Best regards,
Harry
Notary Rotary

Reply by MonicaFL on 9/27/06 3:57am
Msg #148715

Harry - Is this program an alternative to being a "certified" notary? Has this been around for awhile or is it a completely new idea? How much would the renewal be once you become a chartered signing agent? I am very interested in this program and helping in any way I can I would just like to know a little more about where this "status" is coming from. Thank you.

Reply by Renee Kovacs on 9/27/06 4:33am
Msg #148716

YOU DA MAN, HARRY!

EXACTLY what we need - an alternative to having been placed over the barrel, this is AWESOME!! Exceptional. Fantastic. Just ONE question ....

Has this been flown past any of the Title U/W or larger lenders, to see if it will satisfy THEM, meet their standards on the BG check?

We can point them here, but they would need a means of knowing what they were looking at. Is there some kind of industry standard to the BG checks?

I'm thinking you already have these answers ... I'm SO impressed, this is incredible, best thing to happen in the field of signing agents that I've ever seen!

Reply by Ndwa on 9/27/06 6:03am
Msg #148721

Re: FANTASTIMUNDO

But then I'd be worry that you may find yourself up against NNA ninjas for throwing this out. Also, I find the $75 signing agent fee not justifiable where the majority of it should belong in the top row of the compensation table based on work load.

A community and a network sounded like jingles.

Reply by Renee Kovacs on 9/27/06 5:03am
Msg #148717

Also - all the debating over the GLBA is moot ...

What say do we have in this?! We're not driving - the legal depts of the wholesale lenders and title underwriters are, and it rolls downhill from there. The whole debate is pointless. If they determine that we're to be included in the sweep - we have no recourse, there's no collective voice with which to even DEBATE the issue. If they want a BG check, then we'll either allow/obtain it to their standard, or we will NOT work.

So - are we "service providers" or are we exempt from coverage under the GLBA - we can debate until next Tuesday, and what does our opinion matter?

It certainly appears (key word: appears) that the major players in the industry have had their OWN debate and reached their own legal determination in regards to their own compliance, liabilities and required standards. The 'trickle down' will be that the rest of the field will save their breath and their money (skip having their own legal depts comb through the issues) and simply follow the major players.

That's why my only question to Harry is - will this NR program satisfy those major players? If so, then this gives us all the opportunity to CHOOSE who/where to have our BG checks and credentialling done and 'stored'. It DESTROYS the monopoly the NNA was about to enjoy!

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/27/06 8:55am
Msg #148746

Please read this before you climb on board. Renee is right.

Unless & until the 'players' agree to accept 'other than their preferred provider', it's a waste of your money. I have had 3 background checks done (paid by hiring co., not me) and each of these companies WOULD NOT ACCEPT the other co's BGC. Also, FWIW, one of the BGCs done was by one of the Big 6 that started this mess.

Reply by Poppy on 9/27/06 9:21am
Msg #148753

LEE/ I'm curious have you asked the 3 companies who

you to have the background checks in the past if they will be accepting the new NNA's BG check?
NNA is touting this as a plus for notaries so they won't have to go through serveral BG checks, but they have only a few companies listed who have signed on to the NNA's program. Granted they have a few biggies listed but I am curious if the NNA is going to be accepted throughout the industry.

Reply by Poppy on 9/27/06 9:30am
Msg #148757

HARRY, Have you contacted the companies that NNA has listed

as signing on the the NNA BG checking program to see if they will also approve yours? It would be nice to have industry wide standards for the programs and have the programs approved by the title or banking assoc. in advance so we can choose from approved programs and know they will be accepted.

Your program sounds great Harry, but I would like to know in advance if it will be accepted.

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/27/06 11:21am
Msg #148797

Key words are: NNA is touting (follow the money)...

Frankly, I'm hoping this whole thing blows over as fast as much of the past NNA scare tactics have done before. ($100K E&O, for example). I will add that NNA is learning from their past errors and are now touting stuff to the people who hire us so they will see the benefit of 'mandatory' & 'NOTARY PAYS'. (follow the money)
To answer your question, I don't know whether they will accept anything other than their own 'Preferred Provider'--which, in one case...was themselves (sister co.) This is all nothing more than an exercise in "follow the money".
Warning--climbing on soapbox now to state the obvious: A background check produces 'history'. It does not, nor can it, predict the future. In other words, it has a very limited value before the ink is dry and is nothing more than a company being able to eliminate any of THEIR liability for whatever MIGHT go wrong in said future--at your expense. Plus, it's an excellent 'advertising tool' for said company to tout to their customers (Lenders)...so you can help them pay for their advertising, too. (follow the money) In other words: Hello, sucker!

Reply by Poppy on 9/27/06 11:35am
Msg #148802

Too funny Lee... I feel for the 100K E&O ploy, didn't buy

it from NNA but they are the one's who started me thinking I needed it. I'm still kicking myself for it...
Live and Learn.. Hopefully!

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/27/06 12:40pm
Msg #148828

Not funny. Sad, discouraging & downright disgusting. n/m

Reply by Poppy on 9/27/06 12:50pm
Msg #148834

You're right Lee. I was really laughing at myself for

falling for it...
I'd like to think I'm not a sucker, but I did let myself get suckered. In my defense I was new and to my detriment I did not research it as I should have and usually do...
I think that NNA and others take advantage of the newness of those just entering the industry and hit them before they know any better.

Reply by dickb/wi on 9/27/06 12:41pm
Msg #148829

Re: Key words are: NNA is touting (follow the money)...

just to let you know that NNA had a contingency agreement with their last insurance carrier that netted them aprox $1,000,000 a year in fees......i believe they are now their own insurance agency and the commissions could easily be many more times that......so you see that is why they are pushing high e & o limits.......i dare say they would be hard pressed to even have 1 claim a year for Notary e & o.......

Reply by TitleGalCA on 10/27/06 11:14pm
Msg #155685

Re: Also - all the debating over the GLBA is moot ...

***If they determine that we're to be included in the sweep - we have no recourse, there's no collective voice with which to even DEBATE the issue. If they want a BG check, then we'll either allow/obtain it to their standard, or we will NOT work.***

You are correct, Renee. That is why this whole issue is so important. First: The originators of the request (if they exist) must be convinced that the NNA is not the only source.

Second: (and more important) I suggest they are just fine right now...status quo, without BG checks. No reason to move forward and the NNA marketing machine should be shut down as being unecessary...and moot. This isn't an issue for legal depts of wholesale lenders...it's just a twist of the NNA. It it was an issue? I suggest it should have happened over five years ago.

In California we are already investigated by the Dept. of Justice. Does it not get better than that? The NNA can't clear me any more than the DOJ.

Appreciate your post, alot.

And...all my posts here are a result of my personal opinions only and aren't based on any involvement in the industry or fact. Yep.

Reply by PJM/MI on 9/27/06 5:53am
Msg #148719

Count me in! What a fantastic idea.

Reply by Dorothy_MI on 9/27/06 8:33am
Msg #148740

I'm on board too!! n/m

Reply by Jim/MI on 9/27/06 8:34am
Msg #148741

Add me to your list n/m

Reply by BobRogers_FL on 9/27/06 6:02am
Msg #148720

Harry...I could support this effort if it is determined that this is necessary and that the key players in the industry will accept this credentialing.

Reply by JO_PA on 9/27/06 6:11am
Msg #148723

I like what I've read so far, Harry. Your plan is appealing.
It bothers me that the NNA now wants to control background checks when they can't even produce "certified" agents that know what they are doing.
I do like your plan, and will be interested to see where you go with it.

Reply by Laura Upton on 9/27/06 6:26am
Msg #148724

hi Harry, I am very interested in the program as well as your response to the above questions. Please count me in! thanks, laura

Reply by Beth/MD on 9/27/06 6:52am
Msg #148726

I like the word "independent" in your speil. That's how it should be when it comes to verification of credentials/criminal background checks, etc.

Reply by hcampersFL on 9/27/06 7:13am
Msg #148728

Count me in. I would be willing to get involved in Northwest Florida. Let me know how I can help.
Beverly

Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 9/27/06 7:24am
Msg #148729

Brilliant! Ethics compliance is of the utmost importance...

and seems to have been one area sorely ignored in the mass-NSA Certification programs. I love the idea of area networks involvement, too. One question, Harry... how would you go about verifying credentials? Not that it matters, just curious.
All told, an excellent idea and a wonderful alternative to lining the already cash-laden pockets of the NNA. I would much rather pay for Chartered status to an organization I trust. Count me in, Harry.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 9/27/06 7:27am
Msg #148730

Please count me in! It sounds GREAT! n/m

Reply by Stamper_WI on 9/27/06 7:41am
Msg #148733

Re: Please count me in! It sounds GREAT!

Our standing in the process has always been debatable. Most of the time we are personally are not cut a check off the HUD. Whoever hired us is. I have yet to see my name on a HUD.
When we contact the title Co in regard to non payment, we are told the SS was paid and it is out of their hands. Personally I feel that whoever is paid off the HUD is responsible for the handling of any private information and therefore responsible for who they pass it on to in the form of the notary. This by no means excuses the notary for responsible handling of that information. It does not mean the notary should be responsible for paying for background checks to every Tom, Dick and Harry claiming to be a SS or referal.
Harry has proposed a solution to this and from what I have read of it, it is an excellent idea. What better way to weed out the rogues who back date and make horrendous errors they are never called on. Realtors are required to take continuing education as are Mortgage brokers and everyone else involved in the process..... everyone except the SS's. I defineatly think that those ethical and professional SS's would appreciate this kind of resource.

Reply by Jersey_Boy on 9/27/06 8:30am
Msg #148738

Questions....

A few simple questions.

1) What company do you plan to pull the background checks from?

2) If the background checks are to be posted online for prospective clients to see, what will you do to safeguard our sensitive personal information (i.e. Social Security number, DOB, etc). Personally and I'm sure I speak for many on this issue, I don't want my most sensitive information going to anyone with an internet connection.

3) Will there be something visible to prospective clients when searching for a Notary using the "find a notary" tab. (i.e. special logo next to name, name in bold or larger print, etc.) ?

4) What can I do to help?

5) When can I get started as your first Representative for the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Notary Network?

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 9/27/06 9:17am
Msg #148751

What

considerations and actions will be taken for those who live in states that require a background check in order to earn their commisions. Will there be a discount for those who don't need a background check?

Reply by Becca_FL on 9/27/06 9:31am
Msg #148759

Re: Questions....

I think the idea of having ones background check posted for anyone to see is
a HORRIBLE idea. However, I like Harry's ideas and if he could put some sort of
safeguard in place for who actually sees the BG check, then I would be on
board. I would suggest that the BG info. needs to be requested and the
request needs to be forwarded to the SA for approval before any personal
info. is released. I, for one, would not allow my info to be released to companies that I have no intention of working for and the majority of the companies on the NNA list are companies I would not work for.

Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 9/27/06 11:13am
Msg #148793

I agree w/you, Becca, regarding the BG check n/m

Reply by MistarellaFL on 9/27/06 4:15pm
Msg #148896

Re: I agree w/you, Becca, regarding the BG check

I'm on that same page.
I like the idea, but like Becca and Lisa, there are many companies I choose not to work with, and don't want my informatin given out to just any company.
If we could approve WHO gets the information, I'll be on board.
Great idea!

Reply by Linda_in_MI on 9/27/06 9:21am
Msg #148754

Re: ChSA - Background Check Included! YES ! ! ! ! !

I think this is AWESOME ! ! ! As mentioned before, the area of Ethics Compliance hasn't been discussed in depth as part of the total package the NNA is offering - unless there is part of their improved certification that focuses on ethics. I would feel far more comfortable with a policing effort by my notary peers than by someone sitting behind a desk all day and no real day-to-day, world experience with the notary profession.

Reply by James H. Lissemore on 9/27/06 9:28am
Msg #148755

Please pursue this concept.

Reply by John_NorCal on 9/27/06 10:00am
Msg #148771

Sounds like a nice idea. But who will be accepting this program as a national standard for use by all title companies, lenders, etc.? And in truth, is the idea of a background check really called for except by individual companies? Is there a governmental mandate requiring everyone involved in the loan process to have a back ground check? I haven't seen that yet. I believe that California's background check for all commissioned notaries is more comprehensive that what has been proposed. I think in order for a program like this to be viable, it has to have national recognition, much like the designations of Realtor, Chartered Life Underwriter, and all the other designations that we have come to know and respect.

Reply by Poppy on 9/27/06 10:47am
Msg #148787

I couldn't agree more, John... If we have a voice at all we

should be pulling for an approved industrywide standard for these designations. Otherwise we will have aquire multiple designation according to the designations accepted by the companies we work with.

I'd like to have Harry contact the companies that NNA already has on board to see if they would accept his designation instead of the NNA's at least then we will know that it's not NNA or nothing. Then perhaps we can push the title and mortgage associations to develop an industry wide approved designation offered by approved vendors.

Reply by NCLisa on 9/27/06 10:21am
Msg #148777

I won't be paying for Background checks

I've had to have on background check for my job as an NSA. I never had one for any of the TC's that I was employed with, or for any of the attorneys that I was employed with. As an EO & RE Paralegal I was in a far better position to wreak havoc on the personal info of the borrowers and to embezzle funds, which I never did. My duties as an NSA are so watered down that I can not justifiy forking out more money for just another glorified certifiaciton title! If company wants a background check, they can have it on their dime, not mine.

To be honest, after 16 years in this business and knowing what I'm doing, I'm getting really sick of internet databases telling me that if I'm not certified that I'll lose or not get business. That is just not true, my experience far outweighs any "certification or charter" program.

Reply by MaggieMae_CA on 9/27/06 10:24am
Msg #148778

Lisa, you hit the nail on the head n/m

Reply by Becca_FL on 9/27/06 10:30am
Msg #148782

True Dat, Lisa. n/m

Reply by John_NorCal on 9/27/06 10:36am
Msg #148785

You've said it all Lisa, I agree! n/m

Reply by sandi/WA on 9/27/06 12:14pm
Msg #148812

Re: I won't be paying for Background checks

Having dual commissions in both CA. & WA. I of course have a BGC. Like Lisa I do not feel that I should be responsible for suppling it. I too am a believer that experience out weighs any piece of paper. Isn't this true in every profession?
That being said, I am interested in hearing more of this whole concept.

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/27/06 10:55am
Msg #148788

The intent is genuine, but I question the necessity of it. The state of CA runs a background check on each notary applicant and the CA Handbook states ethics. As for knowledge verification - experience and education builds my knowledge, repeat and new business build my credibility. The Independent verification of credentials is a touchy thing. This could not just be done by anyone. I am an authorized identity verification agent trained through Independent Verification Services, Inc. Any identity/credential verification should be done by someone "qualified" to do it - not just "hand picked" or "volunteered". I give seminars on identity theft and am quite familiar with what a big time thing it is. I would not subject my personal information to someone not qualified to receive it.

Reply by Merry_CA on 9/27/06 11:31am
Msg #148798

I agree totally with the CA notaries who have posted.... in CA who have DOJ background checks in order to be commissioned. In addition, I would not agree to anything less than the DOJ check and of course no disclosure if personal information (for ANY reason) to ANYONE.

Reply by MaggieMae_CA on 9/27/06 12:33pm
Msg #148825

Barbara, you're absolutely right! n/m

Reply by Blueink_CA on 9/27/06 12:47pm
Msg #148831

Ditto - on Barbara's post n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/28/06 2:47am
Msg #148991

All good points...

Additionally, I think it would be a good idea to offer the various options mentioned as just that - options, available individually, so each SA could pick and choose what they feel is useful for them. (And pay accordingly.)

I also agree with whoever mentioned that the knowledge portion could be problematical, too. There are so many different ideas of what is "right" in our business. I'm sure most of us with any significant amount of experience can think of multiple situations where we have either seen "certification" test questions that are incorrect (at least for our own state), or conflicting - in fact, exactly opposite - instructions from various companies for similar situations. (I guess that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though...) And I like the idea of involving other notary organizations - on many levels.

One other thing that struck me as I was reading this thread is the instructions on my desk to be sure to get a photocopy of ID from the borrower... How does this practice reconcile with their privacy protection? Especially when their social security number is plastered all over the documents. Just one of my pet peeves, I guess. Particularly collecting digital copies, which I believe many people do. If that family becomes a victim of ID theft thereafter, someone who has taken a digital photo is likely to become an immediate suspect. (I do collect photos when requested, but given a choice, I'd rather fill out a form and hand them back their ID!)

Reply by MINY on 9/27/06 11:33am
Msg #148801

I'm with ya Harry!! Please more info ASAP. n/m

Reply by Alex Yvonnou on 9/27/06 11:58am
Msg #148808

Harry, I'd consider becoming a committee member if needed

I like your idea. But the question is, what do lenders/TCs think? Any input from them?

Reply by Harry [NR] on 9/27/06 12:31pm
Msg #148823

Re: Chartered Signing Agent - Follow-up Comments

This post is a quick follow-up to my original and answers some of the questions thus far.

Remember, the proposal I threw out for discussion represents a three-prong approach to establishing signing agent fitness:

1) Identity and Credential Verification. In my opinion, this is huge. For those of you who have submitted to background checks through the mail at the request of a signing service or title company, how did they establish that you are who you say you are in the first place? In most cases, they didn't. You simply signed an authorization form and they checked what they presumed to be "your" background.

2) Knowledge Verification. This covers the same bases as some of the existing certifications that are currently in play. The signing agent should have a base level of knowledge, whether accumulated through training or years of experience. That is why prescribed EDUCATION is specifically excluded from my proposal.

3) Background Check. This is a very small add-on and it is nearly insignificant compared to the rest. Background checks, when ordered in bulk, can be performed for as little as $6, possibly less. Because they are so inexpensive, why not include them? The people that are still questioning the necessity of the check (either because the state already performs them, as they do in California, or because a specific title company has) in the context of the Chartered Signing Agent designation proposal have missed the point. While you are correct to question a standalone background check that you have been charged over 900% of the underlying cost for, this one is pretty much a value-add. (As a side note, did you know that third-party credit checks, including FICO score calculation, can be ordered for under $1?)

With all of that said, let me address some specific concerns:

Industry Acceptance
========================
First, we would not be opposed to opening this initiative to all notary players: NNA, USNA, ASN, etc. It would not be difficult to form an open consortium whereby any individual organization could grant the Chartered Signing Agent designation subject to the same ground rules. All information could be stored in a secure, central registry and be made available to the title industry on a free or fee-based subscription, including access to the PDF Portfolio of each signing agent (subject to signing agent approval) or as an XML feed. As long as greed is not the true motivation for offering background checks, etc., I wouldn't think any other organization would have a problem coming to terms with a unified approach, especially in light of anti-trust issues.

In the absence of an industry-wide collaboration that would truly serve the needs of the notary signing agent expeditiously and for the lowest cost possible, I would expect the elected committee to approach industry players in order to gain acceptance of the designation. Again, unless the goal is pure profit, I do not think this would be a difficult sell. If industry players are not open to alternatives (and arguably a much better approach), it would beg the question, "What's going on behind-the-scenes that we're not seeing?" In this day and age, that is a very touchy subject, especially in the mortgage industry.

Privacy
========================
I would recommend that the PDF Portfolio (containing the background check, etc.) be kept private and that only an overall status indicator be made public (and, even then, to interested parties only). However, our system would allow the signing agent to pick-and-choose documents from their portfolio in order to build a verification packet for a potential client. That is, if someone wanted to verify a notary commission, bond and E&O, the signing agent could log in and check the following:

------------------------------------------
PDF Portfolio
--------------------
[X] Notary Commission
[X] Notary Bond
[X] E&O Policy
[ ] Background Check
[ ] Driver License Copy

Please select the documents you would like
to build into a mini-portfolio for release
to a potential client.
------------------------------------------

The system would then create a PDF binder containing only the selected documents, which could be selectively released by the notary to inquiring parties. In no case would Social Security Numbers, if collected, EVER be made available to third parties.

Advertising
========================
Yes, our system would display a "bug" in the notary search results representing that a signing agent is a holder of the designation. The bug would link to more information on what the designation actually means (credential and background verification, base knowledge level, commitment to professionalism).


That's it for now. Gotta get back to working on other things...

Best,
Harry
Notary Rotary

Reply by Poppy on 9/27/06 12:40pm
Msg #148827

Well said Harry, if the motive is truly to meet the needs of

notaries and the industry then an open consortium is the best solution. If the motive is greed the door will remain closed as long as they get away with it.

Reply by Linker Mobile Notary Service on 9/27/06 12:48pm
Msg #148832

Harry and others..are you familiar with...

"Its Really Me!" - they were at the 2005 NNA conference in Las Vegas. This is who I am an authorized ID verification agent. CBC's and other information can be shared (or not shared) depending on what you authorize the inquiring party to view. If you're not familiar with them, check out https://www.itsreallyme.net/BusinessAssociatesHome.aspx

Reply by Poppy on 9/27/06 12:55pm
Msg #148837

Thank you, Barbara! n/m

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/27/06 12:56pm
Msg #148838

How did my forum alias change? I didn't change it..and...

it looks like the above hyperlink didn't take - try this:

https://www.itsreallyme.net/BusinessAssociatesHome.aspx

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/27/06 12:57pm
Msg #148840

Oh well, cut and paste the link. n/m

Reply by dickb/wi on 9/27/06 12:56pm
Msg #148839

Re: Chartered Signing Agent - Follow-up Comments

regarding the bond reqd by the state.....i have been a wi notary for 44 years now and have never seen my bond as they are sent directly to the state and we don't rec a copy....the notary certificate is not issued untill they have the bond......so how could you have the bond in the pdf packet, at least for wi?.........

Reply by Genkichan on 9/27/06 12:58pm
Msg #148841

I think that the most important issues about this idea have pretty much been addressed. I stand by the following concerns of the notary community:

1. Acceptance/preference by the major players of the NR CSA concept, vs NNA's recent effort, vs do nothing; and
2. Electing members of the community to participate in the selection process of CSA's, (i.e. having US create the 60 minute test, collect personal information from our peers, etc.)
3. Harry's cost proposal, and chartering which would only last for one year. How much for renewals?

Until those issues have been adequately addressed in Harry's plan, I could not support it in its current form.

I have an additional concern that the folks from CA touched on, but I will elaborate. Although several states in our great country make it easy (often too easy) to enter this profession, there are several states out there that have particular unique requirements of closing agents. The NNA avoids those unique situations like the plague (by, for example, not even offering cerficiation for people in several states). Harry's plan, while seemingly open nationwide, also does not yet appear to address many state-specific things. The fact that some states require a background check just to become a notary is one of those issues. Title producer licensing requirements in MD, VA, IN, etc. is another. In these unique states, it is plenty easy (well, speaking for MD anyway) to get signing agent work from various sources without having them constantly come to us for additional background check requirements, as long as they confirm that we are title licensed and possibly ask for a copy for their records. That is because our TC's already know that the public is protected from any potential unethical or illegal behavior on our (my) part with that whopping $100,000 bond I need in order to secure my TPL (which, by the way, already costs me $525.00 at each renewal).

I think that Harry's program, in its current form, runs the risk of significant lack of participation from several key states' signing agents where a program like this is just not really needed. That may or may not even matter, depending on the program's overall goals.

Finally, aside from the NNA's and Harry's recent efforts to meet what appears to be relatively industry-wide collective need from a title/lender perspective, both of those programs do nothing to reach out and try to meet the real, true and actual needs of the signing agent. Those needs include, but are not limited to, a reasonable industry standard for base fees (which are not $65.00 for certified agents, thank you very much NNA) and a cracking down on unethical behavior in the notary community (i.e. back dating, "advising" borrowers and giving opinions, stealing clients, etc.) --- And no, having "appointed" or "elected" signing agents in the community go out and verify the info of their peers will NOT solve the latter problem.

So, while I commend Harry's efforts to find a compromise and/or comparable program alternative to the NNA's, I'm just not convinced that it will be any more successful than its rival. Right now, the NNA has the greater advantage in terms of its history in working closer (and getting buy-in) from those in the title/lending industry with significant influence. After all, they already LOVE the NNA for their suggested "base rates" and the NNA has a long-standing history of working on behalf of title and lenders, as opposed to the folks they are supposed to actually represent. I'm not sure how Harry intends to convince the industry that his chartering program will be as good, or better, than that of the NNA. No hard feelings...just looking at the facts of life. I look forward to reading any modifications to the program that Harry may make, and re-evaluating my opinions at that time.

Regards,

Vicki/MD

Reply by Jason on 9/27/06 2:55pm
Msg #148865

I'm interested in $6 (or $10) bkgrnd ck only

The rest of the stuff of being "chartered" won't get me any more work.

If the lenders and TCs decide they need bkgrnd cks, then that is all I want. "Chartered" is like being "certified" - worth zip in terms of getting me work.

If NotRot can offer this, the ck should be acceptable to all the co's who accept the NNA ck. I would love to see the NNA get thwarted on this project. I would rather give $ to Harry - he gets me work!

I would REQUIRE CONTROL of who views my bkgrnd ck.

I registered w/ the big 3 credit reporting agencies to only let people view my credit when *I* authorize by applying for a particular loan, etc.

I want the same control w/ my bkgrnd info.

Too many ID crooks out there.

Reply by OnTheDot_CO on 9/27/06 4:28pm
Msg #148898

Harry, this is a great idea. I would be interested in helping the Denver Colorado area.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 9/27/06 5:20pm
Msg #148912

I am assuming

The Tc requesting the background check would be charged for that information. Each inquiry would have to have my permission. How often would you update the background check?

Reply by Melissa Peeke on 9/29/06 11:15am
Msg #149262

Re: My concern is

that if your state doesn't have an official "notary network", you're paying more than double for the designation. In CT, we do network, but are not officially organizing and inviting members at large. If the "network would receive most of the membership dollars..." I would imagine there would be tax consequences for the organization (network) in the form of income. Who would issue/receive the 1099 (assuming more than 10 network members became designated)? Who would be claiming the additional revenue? Just things to consider...

Reply by Michelle/AL on 9/30/06 7:37pm
Msg #149567

I think you're on to something here, Harry.

I think the "certified" designation has lost its status in the industry. However, I don't fully understand how the fees get allocated. I got through the first pie chart and couldn't go any futher. Nonetheless, this is something that I would support and sign-up for.

Reply by Elva Savage on 10/3/06 10:59am
Msg #149955

Harry
I would be interested in this program and would be interested in serving on the committe and serving as an Authorized Signing Agent to collect copies of key documents and administer the oath and execute the jurat.

Please keep me up to date with information and any capacity which I may be of help.

Elva Savage

Reply by OnTheGoInFla on 10/19/06 5:31pm
Msg #153741

Hi Harry,
I am in South Florida and a member of the Southeast Florida Notary Network. I would definatly be interested in more information and in participating on behalf of myself and our group.
I will not be doing my check through the NNA even though I hold their certification because they do not have any policy in place to protect my personal information. Thanks for organizing this and if I can help in any way please let me know.
Regards
Tina

Reply by Stephen/PA on 10/26/06 3:35pm
Msg #155252

I will not be doing your chartered signing agent with background check. I am already an NNA certified signing agent and have paid for a background check though them. Until I see that companies accept the backgound check from NNA, I am not interested in another program.

The only exception I might make, would be if you provided a long list of signing companies that accept your background check.

Reply by Mary Mantz on 10/27/06 9:00pm
Msg #155643

I would really love this IF it included learning opportunities and REAL mentoring opportunities. I know everyone is going to get ticked off at this, but I'm sorry - I have not had the time to devote to learning everything on my own. I KNOW I'm going to get blasted for this, but I don't care. I just want to have an opportunity to learn in an environment that includes a prescribed route from novice (which I've been forever!) to expert. I don't have time to go searching through the entire database, learning little bits at a time, which often don't make sense if you don't have other bits to make sense of the conversation. If this proposed new forum would include real classes that would enable a person to really make sense of the topics presented here, assuming a certain reasonable amount of time devoted each week (some of us work 2 full time jobs to pay the bills until we're able to supplement our income with closings, etc.), then I would definitely participate. Thanks for hearing me out, and I'll try not to take it too personally when everyone yells at me for "not having enough time." Best to all. I'm a big fan of the experts around here.

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/28/06 12:20am
Msg #155690

Harry, I am in. I have not had time to study the entire post, but have a great deal of trust in you.

Give me a day or two to get up to speed.

Reply by A S Johnson on 10/28/06 2:29pm
Msg #155815

I'm with Brenda. Please include me, if "mama" will have me.
PS: See Brenda I do read other boards/chat rooms.

Reply by Jon_PA on 10/28/06 11:06am
Msg #155758

Looks solid...please keep me informed. I would help. n/m

Reply by PA Notary Talk on 10/29/06 7:32pm
Msg #156041

Re: Looks solid...please keep me informed. I would help.

I have read this thread with much interest and other forums discussion on this issue. There have been a range of ideas, thoughts and suggestions on this. But I can only speak for PA law. I am a PA Instructor for notaries. Use common sense and straight through thinking, in PA you can not have a criminal background and be a notary public. Period!
You can obtain your own background check for ten dollars through PA State Police. Which I have and I submit it when a company asks for it. I am a closing agent/ signing agent for 7 years and only one company asked me for mine. I did only one signing for them. That's it!
And lastly does anyone realize this is not a new law? This law has been on the books for awhile now, and the NNA has now made it a money issue with them, just something else to buy.
There are a lot of different opinions on this, but I think I will do fine with the way I do business now. Closing schedulers and title companies have a very dynamic workforce and their lists constantly change for closers. It will hinder rather than help their already harried workforce and add another layer (NNA) to the mix. At our level in the process I believe that it is not going to matter in the long run!!!
The NNA states they will not list you anymore on their website if you do not have the clearance from them. That thought process may hurt them more than help them. We wil see.
They also state that you must get the enotary seal for PA through them. Only later did PA notaries find out they did not need an eseal to be an enotary. So step carefully. And use your common sense. This is just my opinion!

Reply by CHRISTINA COSTELLO on 10/29/06 5:36pm
Msg #156036

Please let me know more information. I would be interested in becoming a part of this commitee.

Christina Costello

Reply by Ted Baynes on 11/1/06 1:53pm
Msg #156664

I'm in favor in principle. Until I learn what the real cost is going to be, I'll consider joining when the plan has been finalized.
I appreciate your taking the initiative.
NNA you must know is bundling a background check with certification.
The deadlines I read about: e.g. 12/1 are unreasonable.
Keep me informed, please.
H. L. "Ted" Baynes
The Baynes Notary Signing Team

Reply by ADS on 12/20/06 10:23am
Msg #166887

Hi Harry,

I am new to Notary Rotary....the more "Certs" the better. Clients feel more comfortable with someone who is constantly continuing with their education. I am interested in your committee idea, I am in California, how can I help/join?

Reply by Ernest__CT on 1/2/07 4:52pm
Msg #168718

Harry: We still want you to do it! n/m

Reply by John Temblador on 1/2/07 7:36pm
Msg #168745

Sounds great! Sign Me Up!!

Reply by LC/FL on 1/18/07 7:51pm
Msg #171599

I like this idea, not only as an additional/independent source for the bgc; but as an additional creditial. To push ourselves above and beyond the 'regular notary or signing agent' would not this additional investigative measure make the companies we do desire to work for see us as a more appealing representative? As a professional I find that one can NEVER have too much education, training or proof of either.

I am sure some would not agree with me but an emblem would be great and I personally, have no issue with the bgc posting as long as it shows only the name and commission number on a list that says pass or fail. There is no reason why all the details would need to be posted. No? A simple list of screened individuals that have passed this additional scrutiny would be an additional endorsement, no?