Posted by Bob_Chicago on 9/30/06 4:49pm
Msg #149554

NNA and Criminal Background Checks. Follow up

On September 28, I posted a summary of my phonecon with an
Officer at on of the companies listed on the NNA website regarding
CBCs pursuant to the GLB act. (Great way to spend my birthday, huh?)
I tried to be a neutral and factual as possible
in relating the conversation, but I knew that I would get some heat
(I could come out in favor of baseball, motherhood and apple pie and
would still get heat from the Saint of the Holy Arch.)
This tome will relate my opinion on the issue and
attempt to answer a few questions posed to me on
some of the boards (You know what they say
about everybody having and opinion and what they are like, but here goes)
A number of people have pointed out that they have submitted to a CBC
to get a Notary commission in their state, to get real estate license, to
get a security clearance, to sign for another TC,(or even one of these TCs) etc, etc.
A number of people also pointed out that there are many types of CBCs.
They vary by how many years; they go back, what jurisdictions are queried,
What violations are looked for, and what would be the criteria for a pass/fail
There has also been extensive discussion as to if a CBC is, in fact required to comply
With the GLB act.
These are all valid issues and were intelligently discussed adnausem.
The simple fact is, it just doesn’t matter what we think. The Title Companies
involved have determined that THEY believe that a CBC is reqd for their NSAs
In order for them to be in compliance with the Act. That is the only opinion that matters.
They have established criteria as the extent of the search, how far they go back
What they look for what violations would disqualify a NSA from doing signings. for them. etc, etc. I have no idea as to what they will be looking for, not do I care. If
they are happy with the nature of the check then so am I. Because every search will have the same parameters, they can be done at a very reasonable cost per search.
I would not be surprised if all consumers of NSA services follow the 800# gorillas and determine that they need to perform these checks on their NSA in order to be compliant with the Act. Whether they decide to check employees at signing services etc. is not my problem. I believe that they currently check their own employees. My hope is that other consumers of NSA services will get on the bandwagon, so that
If you qualify for one company you are qualified for all. This is much better than having to go through this drill multiple times.
The companies determined to approach the NNA to conduct the searches on their behalf
This determination was based on the large NSA membership of the NNA; the fact that it has most of the infrastructure in place and it has a National reputation as to NP/NSA issues. Those with negative views of the NNA, must still acknowledge the it has
More active NSA as members than any other organization, they have testified to governmental agencies, and have a close working relationship with many state SOSs.
I would not be surprised if one or more of the TC requested that the CBC be tied into a
Certification as an NSA under the theory that it would result in NSAs having a least a
certain level of knowledge of NSA and Notary law. and procedures
I appreciate that many in our profession do not have a favorable view of the NNA
for a variety of reasons, and I respect your opinions. Please grant me the same respect.
The simple fact is the TCs approached the NNA to perform this service. That is the closest thing we have now to a “industry standard” I wish to continue in this business, as
I am still making a whole lot of money. It appears that in order to continue, I will need
to pay a small sum of money to secure a CBC. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
If some of you determine to hire attorneys and petition the federal an state governmental
Agencies to avoid laying out a few bucks that you will recoup in one signing that you would have otherwise not gotten, or because you hate the idea of giving money to
NNA, that is your privilege. , but it does not make a lot of sense to me.
I imagine that periodic re-check is someday be required.
Once the program is up and running, I would imagine that competition to do the CBC and other NSA qualifications would develop
as that is the nature of business. Harry will confirm that I have put him in contact with the
proper parties for him to make his pitch.
Ok, everybody, yell at me

Reply by BrendaTx on 9/30/06 6:06pm
Msg #149556

**If some of you determine to hire attorneys and petition the federal an state governmental
Agencies to avoid laying out a few bucks that you will recoup in one signing that you would have otherwise not gotten, or because you hate the idea of giving money to giving money to
NNA, that is your privilege. , but it does not make a lot of sense to me. **

Because people often do not read posts very well, let me reiterate that I never suggested putting up money to petition a government entity with a letter from an attorney.

I am not sure that Bob is referring to my earlier post on the subject, but just want to be clear on that.

My suggestion was that I'd put up $50 to join others to hire an attorney to write the 800# gorillas to suggest to them that they do not force a membership with the NNA to complete this bg check thing.

I will pay for a background check. I understand why it needs to be done. I will not pay the NNA to do it.

The reasons I will not are not "senseless" to me, Bob.

Everyone should do what has the most value for them.

I find the forced method from the 800# gorillas for creating a need for NNA membership to be reprehensible. All I was saying is that if ten of us hired an attorney to send a one page letter to the 800# gorillas explaining this situation it would get attention. Harry, if you find that you need my $50 to hire the attorney, I will send it immediately.

Sincerely,
Brenda Stone
College Station, Texas

ps - Bob, it has not escaped me that you have been good enough to present these facts. I appreciate that. Thank you for putting the information into Harry's hands.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 10/1/06 9:10am
Msg #149615

This post was NOT directed at Brenda/TX. Actually, if they..

had asked me, I would have suggested that if the NNA was going
to become the central source for NSA Background checks, then
they should provide a means for non-members to secure the CBC
at a reasoanble cost (say,for example, $59 for non-members,
$49 for non-certified members and $39 for certified members).
Unfortunately 800# gorillas rarely check with the chimps for advice.
If they set up as price struture something like that , then I would not be
surprised if Brenda Tx, Charles/Ca , Doc, Bob/FL, Dale , etc ending up sitting around the
campfilre with the NNA staff singing Kumbaya and eating s'mores.
The Saint of the Holy Arch would probably be too busy trying to put a positive
spin on Cong. Mark Foley's resignation to join in.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 10/1/06 11:17am
Msg #149638

A reply typical of an NNA spokesperson. I understand your

need to answer the detractors, we all know that you have a pecuniary relationship with the NNA and consequently have an interest in making sure that they continue gouging notaries. There have been a number of 800# Gorillas who have fallen to smaller concerns, Enron comes to mind as do many other corporations whose carcasses dot the landscape. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am willing to bet that the NNA will not be the sole source of background checks.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 10/1/06 11:48am
Msg #149643

Perhaps pecuniary was not entirely correct, I don't

know if Bob is a paid presenter of not, but still I believe that there is a relationship that might be mutually beneficial and so Bob might not necessarily be entirely objective when characterizing the NNA and its activities.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 10/1/06 3:01pm
Msg #149664

Charles, I refuse to get into board debates, except on.....

such issues as sports teams, but for the record, I have never
received a dime from the NNA. I have spoken , when invited,
solely for the purpose of providing, what I feel to be, helpful
information as to conducting a NSA business.
You would have to ask those who have attended my presentations, as
to the question of if I was successful in doing so.
It is certainly not up to me if there will be other approved sources for
securing a CBC for those companies that deem it necessary to require one,
but for now, it appears that the NNA is the only game in town , at least as
to the named TCs.
If I was married to the NNA on this issue, I certainly would not have put Harry in
contact with one of the subject TCs.
Besides, I heard that you have a lousy singing voice anyhow and don't have a
clue how to build a good campfire. I have, however, heard that Brenda's s'mores
are to die for.
Enjoy the rest of your weedend. Go Bears

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/1/06 11:48am
Msg #149644

Re: This post was NOT directed at Brenda/TX. Actually, if they..

**This post was NOT directed at Brenda/TX.**

Bob, I feel comfortable that you did not direct this at me, but I wanted to make sure no one thought that I was trying to join the notary up with a mandatory bg check via state by hiring an attorney. Sometimes readers (not implying you) take one thing from one post and link it in their brain with another.

What I have said in two separate breaths is:

1-The CHL in Texas is evidence of an extensive background check. Therefore, I should be able to get a background check through my state if it were required...complete with fingerprints, whether or not I have paid my child support (if I had any to pay), and whether or not I had any blush/hint of criminal behavior in me. The vehicle is there...that's all I was saying about that.

2- I mentioned I would pony up $50 for an attorney letter because an attorney letter would speak for a few informed chimps in a professional straightforward manner and get attention on the desk of the 800# gorillas.

As to singing "Kumbaya," I cannot attest to the rest but as it relates to me I never eat smores and sing Kumbaya. In fact, I prefer Sinatra's "You Look Wonderful Tonight" or Tone Loc's "Funky Cold Medina." Never, however, do I sing "Kumbaya" with sticky fingers.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 10/1/06 3:04pm
Msg #149665

Two Shots in One Thread...

...with neither one hitting the mark. Your aim is as poor as your choice of bedfellows...the NNA, the Dems, & the White Sox. And before you rejoice in the Pale Sox's regular season victories over the Cardinals; guess who gets to go to the playoffs?

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 9/30/06 7:36pm
Msg #149566

Bob, thanks for the information. No , I am not going to yell. We need all the info we can get and it's great we can share info the way we do.

Being mostly retired, I have the luxury of being able to sit back and see what develops. Others may not. I hesitate to give the NNA any more money because of the damage they have done in general to the notary's positon and the fact that a good portion of the time, you call the hotline and get wrong information. I for one am going to wait and see what Harry comes up with. ....

Reply by Jason on 10/1/06 5:53am
Msg #149605

Glenn said
"I hesitate to give the NNA any more money because of the damage they have done in general to the notary's positon and the fact that a good portion of the time, you call the hotline and get wrong information."

I agree.

Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 9/30/06 9:07pm
Msg #149572

Bob, thank you for taking the time to write a concise follow up. While our respective opinions of the NNA may differ, I do agree with you that what matters is that the Title Companies and Underwriters have decided we need to have a background check.
However, I concur with Brenda/Tx on one point: I do not wish to pay the NNA for said BGC. I will gladly have my *boring* life scrutinized by the Pope himself, but not the NNA.
My reasons are quite simple, really... while they are a centralized 'clearinghouse' of sorts, and do boast the largest 'membership base', I take exception to their over-the-top marketing tactics that have made my profession quite difficult. I do not believe that in any industry, one private entity should have a monopoly. Choice is a good thing. That being said, if the NNA does become the only viable resource for the BGC, I believe it should be offered at a nominal cost and without the expectation of membership.
Again, I thank you for taking your valuable time to inform and educate.
Lisa Prestegard

Reply by Ernest__CT on 10/1/06 11:36am
Msg #149640

Thank you, Bob_Chicago! n/m