Posted by Dale Simmons on 9/19/06 9:19am
Msg #146913

Federal Mandate requires screening and Complyance training

As a measure to protect private and sensitive information of consumers, the federal government will soon require that all persons involved in the lending process undergo background screening and compliance training. The requirement will affect every individual with access to borrowers' financial information and includes Notary Signing Agents as well as employees of lenders and title service firms. This mandate is spelled out in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act and applicable Interagency Guidelines.

In the months ahead, all Notaries who handle loan document signings will need to participate in background screenings and compliance training. In fact, many lenders are already placing this requirement on title and signing services in order to comply with the federal mandate. These lenders now require that all Notaries handling their loan signings have background screenings, and the title and signing companies have responded by implementing their own processes. This independent approach has created a downside for Notary Signing Agents: the difficulty of applying for, and submitting to, multiple screening — one for each company — in order to pursue their careers.

So can anyone shed some light on this complyance training? I assume the screening requirements do not affect CA notaries being live scan is required.

Reply by cyndi_ca on 9/19/06 9:45am
Msg #146918

Re: Federal Mandate requires screening and Complyance traini

What is a bit frustrating about this is that we have already gone through a background check in order to obtain our commission. One would think this would be enough. Does this then mean that this would be a cost to the NSA every time we elect to work for a new company? Many things to think on in this matter. HHHMMMM

Reply by Cynthia/CA on 9/19/06 10:01am
Msg #146920

Re: Federal Mandate requires screening and Complyance traini

The National Notary Assoc. is already addressing this issue. At a cost - I'm sure. Here's the link.

http://www.nationalnotary.org/nnNow/index.cfm?story=1027

Reply by Signing_Doc on 9/19/06 10:07am
Msg #146921

Re: Federal Mandate requires screening and Complyance traini

This was previously discussed on the board...this seems to be (in my opinion) a scam by the NNA to get money. I have read the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act and there is NO provision in there (as I read it)...for a Notary Public to undergo a background check such as they are advocating. And, as you correctly state, some states, i.e. CA ALREADY require a background check to become a Notary. I just finished up a LONG missive to the NNA demanding to know that IF a Mandatory background check will be required to re-certify as a NSA through them. If that is so, then I will no longer be "certified".......(just certifiable). But as for now, I wouldn't sweat it. Again, do a search on the board...I believe it was in the last week, that there was a lengthy discussion on this very topic. TTFN (ta ta for now)

"Doc"

Reply by Brad Closing agent directory on 9/19/06 10:23am
Msg #146922

This is not a scam, I do not have all the detailes as of yet. That being said I recieved a memo from Fidelity National Bank Who ownes Chicago title , Ticor Title and Security Union Title ( we underwrite for all of them )stating that they are now requiring there closing services ( regaurdless of SS or Title co ) to verify and insure that there closers have E/O of 100 thousand or more and or require them to be w-2 employed by the closing company so that they would fall under our E/O. This hit my desk a month ago and I have not recieved any more information on it. I have posted the questions back to them on WHY. The only part that I am understanding is the doc sensitivity factor. The large increase in claims on loans this past 12 - 14 months. We have been given until the end of the year to make these changes. There are a great deal of questions pending on this.

Reply by Mia on 9/19/06 10:32am
Msg #146923

Brad

>>>"to verify and insure that there closers have E/O of 100 thousand or more
and or require them to be w-2 employed by the closing company"<<<

We are NSA's, not "CLOSERS". This Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) has been around
for over 5 years now.

Reply by Brad Closing agent directory on 9/19/06 10:48am
Msg #146924

Re: Brad

I do realize that you are NSA ( everyone corrects me when I say that )when I use the term closers I mean anyone going and doing loan sigings on behalf of the title company ( Notary , closing agent , loan signing agent etc.) This was is something completely new. Im not even sure if is from Gramm-leach-bliley. Like I said there are a ton of questions out there. The last CLE course I went to in PA there was talk on the floor about this post. About how they ( underwriters) are going to start requiring backgrounds, E/O , ond so on. Then I recieved this memo from fidelity saying they want us to verify. Im not sure what is or has started this. We have always contracted with closers ( again covering all the above ) and not required certs , e/o , or backgrounds. Now all the underwriters are starting to change the rules on us. This will greatly effect what you do.
P.S. I understand especialy those who have gotten certified are told you are not a loan closer you are a certified notary document specialist... On this side of th industry anyone ( notary signing agent , closing agent , Attorney who closes loans ) everyone is called a closer.

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/19/06 11:09am
Msg #146925

Re: It is my opinion that...

based on what the article says on the NNA site, that this "requirement" is a result of Title Companies approaching the NNA (not the Federal Gov't).
It also states that "Participating title services companies will require all Notaries they use to enroll with the NNA's program by December 1 of this year."

Note the word ... participating.

So, it is my opinion that this is not a mandatory thing.

Reply by DellaCa on 9/19/06 11:13am
Msg #146927

Re: It is my opinion that...

Barbara this is how I was reading it also.I think we would have heard more about it else where ( other than NNA ) if it were true. But we will see.

Reply by MelissaCT on 9/19/06 11:45am
Msg #146937

Re: Funny that NNA

said they were approached, but in an article in Source of Title, it states that the NNA proposed this solution (more likely the case) to these companies.

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/19/06 6:38pm
Msg #147044

SHOUTING: READ MELISSA/CT'S POST! Speaks for itself. n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 9/19/06 8:38pm
Msg #147065

Re: SHOUTING: READ MELISSA/CT'S POST! Speaks for itself.

Yes, it certainly does, Lee.

Reply by Mia on 9/19/06 11:13am
Msg #146928

Re: Brad - Well....

I would like to see --> "This was is something completely new."
Who is stating that this is something New? This is where it is confusing --
don't have documentation at this point justifying the "new" part.
Could this have been misinterpreted?
Maybe if this is something "new", we could go to our State Notary Division
and ask for a certificate (or something) that states we have had a
background check done.

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/19/06 11:25am
Msg #146933

Re: Mia - I emailed SOS and about...

getting copies of our background checks. Below is their response:

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail address] [mailto:[e-mail address]]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:30 PM
To: [e-mail address]
Subject: RE: Question on Background Checks


Dear Ms. Linker,

Our office will not provide a copy of the background check. You may wish to contact the Dept of Justice at 916-227-4716 to inquire about their procedures for possible copies.


Mary Ingham
Notary Public Section

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/19/06 11:20am
Msg #146932

Re: Brad, is advertising a service that Harry has banned

from this site. Take what Brad says with a grain of salt, if that much, it is just self serving!

Reply by Brad Closing agent directory on 9/19/06 12:01pm
Msg #146941

Re: Brad, is advertising a service that Harry has banned

Charles, What have I advertised. I did one post that I used my .com signature on and Have not did it since. I am A title company I have a direct relationship with you guys/gals in the fact that I hire you. I am not nor did I ever Intend on coming here to advertise. I dont advertise to people I hire I advertise to Banks , Brokers and other Title companies to schedual more closings to call more of you more often.
What is it that has everyone putting digs on me.

Reply by Jersey_Boy on 9/19/06 12:10pm
Msg #146944

Brad... Your handle is advertising. Advertising is banned.

Read the Rules:

I. Advertising

Do not advertise your own products or services without prior approval. Most advertisements are not relevant to most users and are therefore wasted space.


Do not advertise competing websites, directly or indirectly, without prior approval. We spend thousands of dollars per month to advertise our service for your benefit. We would rather not be paying to advertise for the benefit of our competitors. This includes sites like 123 and goMobile.


Your handle is 'indirectly' advertising. Advertising is not allowed. Change your handle and then post away, but you'll continue to get comments about avertising as long as your handle is "Brad Closing Agent Directory"

Reply by Ndwa on 9/19/06 12:55pm
Msg #146963

Re: Brad... Your handle is advertising. Advertising is banne

I don't think Brad-CAD is advertising as he had never solicit anyone to sign up with his company. As much as we welcome outsider (SS) with view from the other side, he's no different than Sherry-SLB (or any other SS) who doesn't hide behind the curtain.

The background check is just another hype or pipeline for the NNA to suck more $ from those who don't know any better, IMO. Here's something similar, I recently signed vendor contract with a couple tc clients in regard to handling confidentiality informations. The contract emphasizes on the fact that I (as a vendor) must have a system in place where the informations are securely protected and that I agreed to an audit if requested by the client.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/19/06 1:06pm
Msg #146969

Andy please see message 146802, advertising

This guy was being cute check out that message and look at the last line, its his URL with the www removed. This guy was removed from a post earlier for advertising his noary database. This guy wrote to me several weeks ago requesting my assitsance in getting his information on Not Rot, also his screen name is advertising hi database. He is not a title company like he says he is merely a title insurance producer. He rieminds me of Barry Silver.

Reply by Tracy_ME on 9/19/06 4:32pm
Msg #147012

I attended the IRS forum in Las Vegas last month. We were given instructions in order to comply with GLBA, FTC privacy and safeguards of 2003 GLBA, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 and the CA Senate Bill 1386-2002. Interesting enough you must comply with the CA senate bill 1386-2002 if you do business with CA businesses, you do not necessarily have to do business in CA.

I learned at the forum that my business (as a tax preparer/ea/ero) is condsidered to be a financial institution. ....."You are a financial institution if you are paid to: receive, prepare, process, store or transmit financial and tax information". ... Based on that statement I would assume that my notary business would also fall under the same category being that I am paid to "receive" financial information. We were refered to the FTC (www.ftc.gov).

At no point were we instructed that we had to undergo background checks. Please keep in mind that not everyone who attends the forum has had a background check. As an enrolled agent and an Electronic Returns Originator (ERO) I had to submit to background checks and fingerprinting before being accepted as an EA and/or ERO (2 seperate background checks).

I am expected to check employee references (does not state background check), require employee agreements, limit access and impose disciplinary measures.

The main concern seemed to be securing data physically and electronically. I learned that I must have a privacy policy that I have to give to my clients. I also had to designate a "security administrator" and a "compliance officer". I had to a written security plan.
I have spent quite a bit of time these past couple of weeks writting my privacy policy and security plan.

Many tax businesses offer refund anticipation loans and other "bank products", it is my belief that if a federal mandate that required screening and compliance training were to take effect in the upcoming months - the IRS would have made us aware of it at the forum and would have offered the compliance training as part of the 3 day seminar.

It doesn't make sense that there would be a federal mandate/compliance training. Which govenment agency will oversee the mandate compliance and compliance training? JMO

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/19/06 11:15am
Msg #146929

Dale, I am not sure that this is a true requirement of

any bill or any agency at this time. The NNA kicked off a campaign to "strengthen" their NSA certification because of a potential of this happening. In my opinion there are many options available at different price points. Until someone starts demanding background checks as part of their contracting process I would only consider this an attempt of NNA to fatten their coffers considering a slump in new notary applications. At this time I would consider anything a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that has little probability of happening. It is possible, judging from this thread that enough people react to this situation that it may become an expectation from SS much as the reduced rates are. The best way to keep this from happening is to avoid become certified this way. I certainly will not have the NNA interpret laws fro me since much of their legal help has been exceedingly questionable and they have a pecuniary interest. This whole situation reminds me of chicken little "the sky is falling, the sky is falling"

Reply by DellaCa on 9/19/06 11:18am
Msg #146931

Re: Very well said Charles n/m

Reply by Brad_CA on 9/19/06 11:35am
Msg #146936

Re: Very well said Charles

Ditto!!!!

Reply by Brad Closing agent directory on 9/19/06 11:48am
Msg #146939

Re: Very well said Charles

I do not understand this SELF serving thing. I have not ask anyone to sign up with my closing service ... I have hundreds of closer in our data base ...I hire closers. I am a national title company and closing service .. I'm not a 123 or a mobil I am A Title company I call you for sigings. ( and as I use the term closer to me that is anyone who go's out to sign docs for me NSA's, Attorny's etc. )
The NEW thing I was talking about is Underwriters, the underwriters are contacting us as Title companies and telling us we are going to start needing to verify e/o or the closer ( nsa, attorney or otherwise ) will have to be a w-2 to fall under the blanket of our E/O. Why is anyone thinking I am trying to be self serving... I Hire you guys to close for us in the 50 states, I am the guy you market to to get more loan signings . I am trying to help and give insight and all I keep getting is that I have some alternitive to all this.
AM I that wrong ,, You guys do close mortgage loans ? Right ? I'm sure I have contracted with some of you. What part of trying to help am I missing.
Take what I say as a grain of salt. I don't care But I can show you the Memo Fidelity sent me.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/19/06 12:55pm
Msg #146961

Brad, I have the e-mail you sent me three weeks ago

or thereabouts (I archive everything so I am sure I can come up with it)about asking for help to get on Notary Rotary, you posted blatant self-serving advertising that was removed by the moderator about two weeks ago and you have been advertising your own Notary Signing Database trying to get notaries to sign up with you. Note the URL you tried to slip by in message 146802. You stripped the www the rest was self evident. You have even incorporated your prime personal business in you screen name. You are trying to build credibility by posting prodigiously on this site but much of that is garbage. You remind me of another last year who tried to barge this site: Barry Silver. By the way you say you are a title company but you have no title plant and you say on your site that you are affiliated with a title company and you act like a title insurance producer, a sales man for a title company if you will. All I see from your positioning is someone who is trying to take advantage of notaries liek so many others do. If I'm wrong show me!

Reply by Dale Simmons on 9/19/06 2:54pm
Msg #146985

Re: Dale, I am not sure that this is a true requirement of

Thanks Bill, this thing caught me off guard and was/is confusing and that's why the post.

Reply by Traveling2U on 9/19/06 12:53pm
Msg #146958

I was required to have a Live Rolling Digital Scan

I took the notary test in May/06 when I received my test results they included a pre-filled out (notary) form required to take a rolling scan for fingerprinting. There a few pages I to keep a copy one went to the state and one went to the DOJ

The live rolling scan digtal printing required all fingers then she took a full scan of my entire hand when she was done. My entire hand and fingers were all together on one page.

It cost $52.00 for both submissions included the city hall charged $20.00 for their fee

My notary instructor explained the new laws and requirements in class 5/12/06

If I was a felon it would had been confirmed in minutes it not seconds instead of waiting days. I received my background check "within" 30 days.

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/19/06 1:37pm
Msg #146975

Re: You notary instructor explained in May?

If the "new law" was explained to you in May, why are just hearing about it in September?
Was your notary instructor with the NNA?

Reply by Traveling2U on 9/19/06 1:55pm
Msg #146978

Re: You notary instructor explained in May?

When I first heard about this business (NSA) it was in Feb/06 a few new requirments had already been approved one changing of the ack/jurat among some other things. When I decided to go for it.

I searched for a class online. After reading a few boards about how the class was using out dated materials. When I found a class people were saying their materials were updated I went with them.

I didn't go trhough NNA due to many negative posts. Maybe they found a new market I don't think anything is wrong with that my personal opinion only. I stated this before months ago and got a few posts that didn't believe me.

I can only state the process I had to go through to became a notary I was checked out by the State and DOJ and I had my scan taken at Hathorne City Hall they are not in the notary business.

Actually I plan to add the Live scan to my notary business there's a portable system I can purchase that can be connected to my Toshiba 17" laptop I think that NNA could be marketing for the Live scan fee the rest goes for submission for the required applications

Reply by MistarellaFL on 9/19/06 2:32pm
Msg #146984

Many states (like FL) already require a background check

for your notarial commission.
Some of the companies I already work with also have required an additional one, and I have agreed to. They, however, have done it on THEIR dime, not mine.
I'm going to wait and see before I spend another dollar with the NNA.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 9/19/06 2:58pm
Msg #146986

A solution could be

That we have a background check done on our own, and provide a copy to each entity requiring it.
I would rather do that than fund the NNA (who has ignored any and all emails I have ever sent them).
I am a little irritated and jaded by the NNA's blatent lack of support to me, personally.

Reply by Traveling2U on 9/19/06 3:17pm
Msg #146991

Re: A solution could be

I think the DOJ is the new requirment with the new laws and is where I believe got the existing notaries between the laws.

My instructor stated many of the existing notaries are refusing to take the 6 class even the online classs. He said some of thenotaries he knows will not renew their commission.

I think that's taking it too personal. It's the fraud that is causing all the new changes. Keep the felons out of the loop. I have a friend that is willing to work for a real estate agent that had been charged with a felony in her past.

I told my friend I will never do business with someone I know that is a felon I told her good luck and be very careful. I told my friend do not tell her about my notary service ;-)

I wonder if the DOJ will allow us to obtain a copy of our background check. Yes I've heard about NNA from their posters

Reply by Mia on 9/19/06 3:20pm
Msg #146992

A solution could be +Everyone should re-read 146922

This whole thing appears to be another case where the Spin Miesters
are at it again. Until someone can come up with documentation that
supports these allegations (& it better be written by the Fed's), then
and only then will it hold any credence.

Everyone should re-read message #146922 (which is what Brad wrote).
I've made up my mind, just from his posting.

Reply by Jeannie Miller on 9/19/06 4:36pm
Msg #147017

Re: A solution could be

You're right. I think the person I will contact will be Charles Crist. I would rather it be like CLE Credits and that we could go not just to the NNA to get them. They have turned into a 10 headed monster, just like the oil companies. I went on-line and all it asked for was my $39 for the back ground check. Are they still going to certify anyone who can take an open book test?

Reply by Jeannie Miller on 9/19/06 4:29pm
Msg #147009

NNA Convention

Why didn't I hear anything about it at the NNA convention?

Reply by LkArrowhd/CA on 9/19/06 4:35pm
Msg #147015

Re: Traveling 2U my live scan was the same for Notary

as it was for the school district well over 10 years ago......full scan all fingers and full hand...

Reply by Traveling2U on 9/19/06 6:07pm
Msg #147037

Re: Traveling 2U my live scan was the same for Notary

I hear what you're saying. I hoped to use my new 06 background check to able to become a "certified" digtal fingerprinter ;-) How I would become certified is by reading their manual and have a notary to signoff that I read it ;-) ( my son will do it for free thank goodness I can save $10 bucks ;-)

So I emailed the DOJ since I just had the background work done in May/06 do I have to re-submit another application? A lady called me and she explained to me YES I had to re-submit and redo Live fingerprinting application all over again.

h...um is our GOV is milking me!! I think so!!