Posted by Bob_Chicago on 9/29/06 12:12am
Msg #149171

Requirement for CBCS From the source.... IMPORTANT

I have recently spoken a member of senior management at one of the title companies listed on the NNA website as being participants in the recently announced CBC program. I have known this person professionally for a number of years in my capacity as a NSA for this company,
For those who do not know me, I have been a full time NSA since 1998 and was one
of the original National Association of Signing Agents members. I joined NNA when
Susan Pense sold NASA to NNA. I am also a member of ASN and TSR I have closed in excess of `10,000 loan transactions. as an NSA
In the interest of full disclosure, I have spoken at two NNA national conventions on NSA proceedures.and have been nominated as a candidate for NNA Notary of the Year for 2007
During my phone conversation with this person, I was advised that the companies listed on the NNA website (First American, Stewart, National Real Estate, LandAmerica and Fiverv have been jointly working on the GLB act compliance issue for about one year.
As some have pointed out here, our debate as to the requirement for criminal
Background checks pursuant to the GLB act is interesting, but of no consequence. These
Companies have determined that CBCs for NSAs are necessary for the companies to be in compliance with the law. Sounds like a group of 800-pound gorillas to me
They have determined that it will be cheaper and more efficient to have all of their NSAs
Checked by one central source and in accordance with their established CBC standards.
They are cognizant that some states currently do background checks for notaries, but believe that it will be an administrative nightmare to monitor each states procedure. They understand, for example, that California only checks CA records, in its CBCs, and would not pick up a criminal conviction in another state for a CA notary.
I was informed the the title companies approached NNA, to perform the CBCs because of the its very large NSA membership and because they feel that it is considered to be the leading national organization for NSA issues.
I was told that these companies will require that all NSA who wish to be in their data base and do singings for them have the requisite CBC before a date to be determined in the near future, probably around Jan 1, 2007
They feel that the cost is reasonable for NNA members, and not excessive for those who need to join to secure the CBC
I informed them of the proposed NOTROT program. My contact suggested that I have NOTROT contact them to discuss using the NOTROT program in addition to the NNA program have passed this info on to Harry.
Bottom line seems to be, you can either get the requisite CBC or not sign for any of these
Companies after a certain date.
Please do not shoot the messenger.

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/29/06 12:25am
Msg #149172

bang-bang!! (only kidding) How are you doing Bob? Congrats on the nomination, and thanks for the "inside info".

"Sounds like a group of 800-pound gorillas to me.They have determined that it will be cheaper and more efficient to have all of their NSAs Checked by one central source and in accordance with their established CBC standards."

Sounds like that to me also...and...the key phrase here is "cheaper and more efficient" - let the NSA's pay from their $100,000/yr income

Reply by DellaCa on 9/29/06 12:36am
Msg #149173

Thanks Bob and very good to "see" you here again.

Reply by Lake/NWI on 9/29/06 2:07am
Msg #149176

Re: Requirement for CBCS .......

So, is this a PROTEST, or what?

Reply by BrendaTx on 9/29/06 6:31am
Msg #149191

Re: Requirement for CBCS - Felise, it's not a PROTEST. n/m

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/29/06 12:23pm
Msg #149278

Brenda, we tried this before, I remember running to the

closet to get out my bell bottom jeans and dust off the old vdub bus. We were going to go protest the NNA, so when do we get going. I've got my guitar, my old protest songs and I am ready to rumble!

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/4/06 7:32pm
Msg #150355

Re: Brenda, we tried this before, Hey Charles...

I missed this post last month...

The visual is pretty good. I just bought a two piece red suit with fringe on the skirt and top. I will stain it up a bit, wear that, stop shaving my legs and put on a pair of leather sandals with tire tread bottoms. I suppose I should also look for my love beads, add a band around head and carry a bong on a leather shoulder strap for effect.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/29/06 2:56am
Msg #149180

As suspected - thanks so much Bob & GODSPEED, Harry! n/m

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/29/06 3:30am
Msg #149182

It occurs to me ...

If there's a chance in he77 that we can get the Big Guys to open the box just enough to allow for NotRot's program, it had better be presented ASAP. I seriously doubt that they've given much if any consideration to the consequences to OUR industry, by handing a monopoly over to the NNA. I would think that it is THAT very fact that should be clearly illustrated to them. I mean, this is way out of my league - but that LAST thing that a bunch of attorneys want to get next to is anything that smells like potential liability. We're about to be slam-dunked into a situation where the Wolf gets to herd the sheep into the pen, collecting tickets at the gate. Lacking any kind of collective voice, we don't stand much chance.

First Am's corporate HQ is in my neck of the woods, and I was thinking how much more impact it could bring if a group of warm bodies showed up to deliver an introduction to your offered option, Harry. And if warm bodies showed up at the HQ's of the others, as well.

Now, I know I can be a bit reactionary, and I'm bearing that in mind ... but am I alone in seeing this as potentially EXTREMELY dangerous to our profession?! My concern is pretty fundamental - if the NNA is allowed to carry this through as a monopoly, the effect will be to have EVERY working NSA forced into continual membership, which in turn SWELLS their numbers (not to mention pockets). This in turn sets them up as THE entity, THE 'voice', THE man behind the curtain. Clearly we've been shown they are not exactly benevolent. You can forget about anything YOU might want - it will be all about what THEY want. Next ... we'll all be sitting in NNA classrooms across the nation, by NNA mandate if not state mandates. You want your CBC so you can work? Jump here, okay now jump here, okay now through THIS hoop ...

Wouldn't this be the time for a little media involvement? Definitely seems important enough for a rallying of our troops. Or am I being overly reactive?

Reply by BrendaTx on 9/29/06 7:07am
Msg #149192

Re: It occurs to me ...

Bob said: **I was informed the the title companies approached NNA, to perform the CBCs because of the its very large NSA membership and because they feel that it is considered to be the leading national organization for NSA issues.**


No, you are not over-reacting Renee'. The perception is what it is, and it is embarrassing to be seen as a group led by the NNA. You are correct that we are about to be slam-dunked.

I don't know that media involvement is necessary as much as it is to have an attorney address the powers that be with one letter that lists what you have said in the terms above.

I say attorney letter because it will get attention drawn to the matter a lot quicker than something from a group representing the "voice" of notaries. It makes it more official.

Harry, if you'll hire an attorney to address this with the heavy hitters, I will send my $50 to pay for a portion of what it will cost to get these title uwriters to recognize they are about to lock us into a situation which will result in a monopoly. IMHO, We need at least three choices from which to get our CBC.

It would only take nine others to put up $50 bucks to stop this train wreck and hire an attorney to bring this to the attention of the powers that be as to the harm that we are about to be the victims of a monopoly.

$500 should be all it takes from a group of ten notary voices to put this in writing from ANY attorney to make the point that "Hey, here are at least 10 notaries across the USA who do not want to be backed into the corner with the NNA."

So...the gal from Texas is in. Anyone else?

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/29/06 7:41am
Msg #149196

Sign me up at LEAST once, Brenda! n/m

Reply by MistarellaFL on 9/29/06 7:42am
Msg #149197

The lady from Florida concurs with Brenda

Consider me in, too, Harry.
Not only do I pledge my undying love to you, Traci and NotaryRotary, but I have $50 to stop the trainwreck.

Reply by hcampersFL on 9/29/06 7:44am
Msg #149198

This sounds a lot like the Ma Bell of the 70's.

I'm in with a $50 donation for an attorney. Just let me know who to send the check to.
This is ridiculous and smells to high heaven. I don't like the idea of NNA being the ONLY company that I can get anything required for my profession.

Reply by Dale Simmons on 9/29/06 7:55am
Msg #149200

Re: It occurs to me ...

Oh hell yah! I'm in!

Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 9/29/06 8:08am
Msg #149202

I concur w/Brenda. Let me know where to send my $50 n/m

Reply by Bonnie_CO on 9/29/06 9:23am
Msg #149234

Count my $50@ I'm in! n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/29/06 11:28am
Msg #149263

OR......

It might have an even greater impact if we had 50 SAs sending in $10 each! That shows a greater concensus about this and could have a bigger impact.

BTW, I have been thinking the same thing since I started reading about this but hadn't formulated my thoughts nearly as well as Rene has done. I'm wondering if the "proposing" companies don't realize the current perception about the NNA among the more experienced SAs in our business or if they just don't care... Regardless of their reasoning, I think it would be unconscionable to be forced into a relationship with a company for which we have so little respect any more. I have to admit, the NNA has been very successful in positioning themselves and perpetuating the myth that they are the ultimate representatives of all things notarial, including the best interests of most notaries (and now SAs).

I also agree that this screams monopoly. And I think a letter writing campaign to various appropriate government authorities is something else to consider. How sad for the office of Notary Public, if we were all coerced into affiliation with an organization such as the NNA that has lost so much respect from it's would-be membership by its increasingly sleasy practices.

Just thought of another thing... I haven't been a member the NNA for a while, so I have no idea if this is still the case, but for quite a while after they created the NSA directory (their "Signing Section", theirs was one of the most poorly managed databases I've ever had the displeaure of working with. (That's the biggest reason I was unhappy about not being able to get the same view as our potential clients. I couldn't really see what I was paying for, like I can here and on the other major directory where I'm listed.) If they manage this new arena the same way, I just shudder to think! And the implications of misuse or just errors and bad management would be much, much greater with their proposed agenda. A for-profit organization like theirs shouldn't have that much power.

And, yes, I think we should have at least three choices and a membership of any kind shouldn't be required. (For the record, I am a Premier member here.) If a "certification" is required, that's like having to have some kind of national licensing, but done by a private entity. Do RE agents or LO's have to do anything like this??? (Aren't RE agents licensed by their states?)

Reply by Dorothy_MI on 9/29/06 8:25am
Msg #149210

No, Renee, you are not being overly reactive

You put into words what I think a lot of us have been thinking about putting that much power in a "FOR PROFIT ONLY' company who has takes no input from the members.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/29/06 4:50am
Msg #149187

Please understand First Am, Stewart & Landam ...

are title ins UNDERWRITERS. Probably the largest 3 in the nation. I just want to make that point, for those who might not know this. We're not talking about "a few title offices", we're talking about ... well, they have to be u/w at least 50% of the agencies? More? Anyone care to guess?

You could then logically surmise that if half the industry is going to implement this, the other half is going to have to follow suit, or run the risk of not performing "due diligence"

Reply by MelissaCT on 9/29/06 8:15am
Msg #149205

Re: What if...

you've already been subjected to the bg check by LSI, FirstAm (had to agree with LSI in order to get paid a while back ... they were withholding $600 worth from me as a result) -- why should I pay to have this done again for the same companies by NNA?? Considering that I didn't pay for the initial checks, why should I pay now?

And, what if something comes up on a notary's bg check? Is there an appeal process for incorrect information? Certification by NNA or anyone else isn't even a requirement for being a NSA, so the title co's are now going to mandate certification by a particular organization? An organization that can't even provide the right information to NSA questions? Seems like SO MUCH needs to be worked out before this is rolled out as mandatory procedure. Someone's putting the cart before the horse in an effort to scare money out of us. Well, I'm not buying.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/29/06 8:34am
Msg #149216

Melissa - about negative impact of BG checks ...

You asked if there would be an appeal process ... I spent a good many hours researching the world of BG checks, and MY understanding is - if it is NOT an employer, you're pretty much left to your own devices.

You can order a BG check on YOURSELF, to see what comes up.

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/29/06 8:12am
Msg #149203

One phase that really bothers me...

is: "They feel that the cost is reasonable for NNA members, and not excessive for those who need to join to secure the CBC."
Does this mean what I think it means? I will be FORCED to join the NNA in order to get the 'approved' BG Ck.? If so, I think the NNA is going to find themselves in a world of anti-monopoly/competitive hurt.

I know you're a NNA supporter...even when they are sooo wrong it's beyond belief. But there are many of us with even more experience than you (12 years here)who are just as professional & flawless in performance who absolutely hate what the NNA has done and continues to do--and is now doing--to this business. The NNA's notary factory is the very reason this has become an issue. Additionally, it seems as tho' whether or not a notary falls under the GLB act is still undetermined. But, if it is determined that we do, then it follows logically that ALL employees of a title co. or signing service would also be subject to a background check as they, too, handle sensitive info. How is the kid in the mailroom going to become a member of the NNA in order to undergo the 'only' approved BG Ck? Hmmmmmm?
Or is that, too, part of the NNA propaganda plot to line their pockets?
I am not 'shooting the messenger'. However, you took it upon yourself to be a mouthpiece for this issue, so I'm directing this question to you for clarification. Go back to your bedfellows for an answer.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/29/06 8:31am
Msg #149214

Lee -

Couple points -

1) Most industry employees ARE run through the background checks AND drug testing, whether they're in the mailroom or the board room

2) Whether or not WE determine that the GLBA applies to us is moot. Given the info we have access to, and the means of which it is provided to us (over the internet, on our computers), it's pretty obvious that we could pose serious risk. Still - we don't GET to decide, so the debate is futile. If the lenders & title U/W say they want blanket BG checks on everyone, where is your choice?

Reply by Dave_CA on 9/29/06 8:34am
Msg #149217

Count me in for $50. n/m

Reply by cassiewi on 9/29/06 8:58am
Msg #149224

Re: Count me in for $50. Me too. n/m

Reply by SueW/Tn on 9/29/06 9:13am
Msg #149227

TY Bob for some much needed clarification

I dunno where I am with this latest wrinkle. I have done NO work from the list of companies cited thus far but as Renee put it, they're a big slice of the pie. I read a string further down that talks about internet closings (seems to me this is a bigger issue). My state has passed legislation that may make both issues moot, January 1st will tell the tale. However, pretending none of these other issues exsist other than the BG check, personally I would go to my States Bureau of Investigation and have a check done only after I knew I would be the only person with access. I would find out how outside sources would have access with my permission only. In this day and age of fly-by-night companies how can one insure themselves against Mom and Pop going out of business and someone with less integrity but more money gaining access to our most personal information? It's obvious NNA is spending members money on huge marketing events and then dictating to those very members what they CAN and more importantly CANNOT do but money talks and the rest just walk. The NNA picks and chooses their battles, this is why they appear to be so successful. They'll not get another penny from me because when I was an active member I got squat from them on extremely important issues to those in my state. You either belong to an Association that backs the membership OR you don't. Right now in my eyes the NNA is one of the worse "unions" I have ever had the displeasure of being affiliated with and frankly I'm overjoyed to be done with them. They're all about smoke and mirrors, that's it...done venting.

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/29/06 9:07am
Msg #149226

Renee....

You make good points, however, I sincerely doubt that every employee at every SS has had a background check. My strongest objection to this is that it HAS NOT YET BEEN determined by ALL companies that this is even necessary, yet the NNA is not only forcing the issue, but determined to make a monopoly out of it for their very questionable organization. I am not a newbie. I have been doing this for 12 years & have had 3 BG cks. performed, paid for by whomever wanted them. Of course, the companies are going to climb aboard the NNA bus because it FORCES you, me, everyone to PAY for the BG Ck. instead of the other way around!

I have no use for the NNA & strongly object to their strongarm tactics on this subject. OT but germaine to the issue: As a 26 yr. veteran Real Estate Broker, I did NOT have to join the National Realtors Association to remain in business. That was a choice. It appears, so far, that in order to have the 'proper' background check (which still may or may not be needed), I MUST join the NNA...an organization that has no authority, legal or otherwise, to even exist as 'the voice of the Notary' (which they certainly are NOT); one who gives out incorrect information; and one whose only interest in 'all things Notary' is lining their pockets.

I am to have no choice but to 'support with my dollars' an organization that totally disgusts me? That is so very, very wrong. The person who 'pays for the service' most certainly should be the person who decides 'which service' they choose to pay. Again...should it be determined that this 'service' (BG Ck.) is, in fact, NECESSARY. Further expounding on this... Why, oh why, aren't we hearing about this from EVERY co.? No...just the ones who just don't want to continue to pay for the BG Ck. and who can now use "all our notaries have been BG Ck'd" as a means of getting more business. We're also paying so they have something to advertise.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/29/06 10:45am
Msg #149258

Lee - I'm in the choir here, total agreement w/ you

I was only pointing out that the vast majority of Powers That Be do require B/G checks of their employees.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/29/06 11:47am
Msg #149268

Re: Renee....

Well, if I'd read your message first, Lee, I wouldn't have bothered posting above! You said it better and I couldn't agree more!

One further thought... I'd venture to guess that the data base of notaries that the NNA has represents (on average) the LEAST experienced and professional NSAs in this business - not the MOST. I also do almost no work for those companies named, but aren't they among the lowest paying? Does something smell here, or is it me?!! (For the record, I DID have my shower today! ;>)

Reply by Nicole_NCali on 9/29/06 1:08pm
Msg #149290

Sign me up

This is the NNA opportunity to make their false advertising feasible. If they become the only company that offers background checks, then their notaries will be the only ones "qualified" for signings by the major companies. That is bull crap!

It always amazes me when corporate entities try reinvent monopolies under flagrant pretenses.