Posted by Susan Fischer on 6/11/08 10:52pm
Msg #250946

FASS Contemplates NNA Background Check "requirement:"

I trust FASS values my professional, regulatory-compliant, and long-term, guaranteed work. Last year, I purchased, applied for. and passed a valid, comprehensive, and verifiable background check, and will not pay the NNA one dime for another one.

Please check my profile on Notary Rotary, as well as my website below, and learn about a perfectly acceptable, and arguably more thorough, Background Check available for application to all notaries.

This appears an attempt to force signing agents to purchase a 'requirement' from a single-provider - the NNA - who has no special standing whatsoever in regulatory compliance, and is a questionable and disturbing notion.

If my verifiable Background Check does not meet your policy requirements, then so be it, because I, for one, will not be threatened with this 'requirement' in order to continue our long and mutually profitable business relationship.

Please be advised that I will share this notice with my colleagues, along with my position, and suspect a similarly chilly reception to this prospect.



Sincerely,

Susan Fischer
Central Oregon Coast Signing Professional


Susie Fischer
541-264-0268
http://orcoastnotary.com

----- Original Message -----
From: [e-mail address]
To: [e-mail address]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:12 PM
Subject: NNA Background Check


Dear First American Signature Services Signing Professional:

We wanted to let you know that we are seeing a current steep increase in the number of our lender customers requiring a signing agent who has submitted too and passed the NNA Background Check. This is not yet a firm requirement for our business or an element to achieve preferential White Glove status. We did though want to make mention of this now as it would appear to be beneficial for you to consider this NNA Background Check accreditation at your earliest opportunity in order to maximize the amount of available business opportunities we can send you. Again, this is not currently a firm requirement for our business. We will let you know if this becomes required to achieve preferential White Glove status and or obtain business from us.

Sincerely,
First American Signature Services
Vendor Relations Team
888-270-3630
[e-mail address]

Reply by Lee/AR on 6/11/08 11:17pm
Msg #250954

I'm with you, Susan. n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 6/12/08 1:14am
Msg #250964

Me, too! n/m

Reply by ZeeCA on 6/11/08 11:53pm
Msg #250960

I thought this was a BTDT and never again thing ...that they

stopped this nonsense... but obv the NNA still has their tactics to convice to only hire those who go thru this......

susie: good response to their strong arm tactics

Reply by jba/fl on 6/12/08 9:42am
Msg #250992

what is BTDT? you use too many anacronyms that are not in Ur

urban dictionary...enlighten me please.

Reply by jba/fl on 6/12/08 9:45am
Msg #250994

never mind - found it. n/m

Reply by PAW on 6/12/08 1:19pm
Msg #251043

Similar to BTDTGTTS

Been There - Did That - Got The T-Shirt. (But I guess Zee didn't get the T-shirt. )

Reply by ZeeCA on 6/12/08 7:49pm
Msg #251111

nope no T-shirt !!! and JULIE... very common acronym! n/m

Reply by jba/fl on 6/13/08 2:22am
Msg #251143

Re: nope no T-shirt !!! and JULIE... very common acronym!

Everyone get out their wet noodles and I will run the gauntlet!

I am not a text-er, prefer to speak English and am a poor old widow woman who isn't quite up on all these new fangled ways of the world...still driving my old Studebaker w/running boards. Give me a break from your frowning ways...you don't have to be so mean to me. boo hoo

Reply by ZeeCA on 6/13/08 4:15am
Msg #251144

Re: nope no T-shirt !!! and JULIE... very common acronym!

I ammm soooo sry ya poor widder woman...

Reply by BrendaTx on 6/13/08 5:18am
Msg #251146

I admit it. I had to look it up. BTDT? Didn't know.

Maybe it is a widder woman thing!?!

Reply by PAW on 6/13/08 10:22am
Msg #251178

Acronym BTDT came from Woodstock in '69 (AFAIK)

Many of the acronyms used in IM, forum posts and text messaging come from the 'good 'ol days'. Back when the forums that were online (GENIE, RIME, etc.), before Windows. Ran in DOS on dial-up modems. Moderators were called SYSOPS back then and ran the networks. Many have gone by the wayside, some changed (CompuServe for example) with the times, but even then, were shoved aside later.

Reply by NCLisa on 6/12/08 6:09am
Msg #250967

I had a different response to the FASS email.

I am not a member of the NNA, nor will I ever be again. The only reason background checks are needed, is because the NNA ran this business into the ground! I was actually an employed as an Escrow Officer by First American Title in the SF Bay Area in the 1990's and did not need a background check to get the job. Nor did Financial Title, Placer Title or Old Republic Title find it necessary for me to have a background check, and I disbursed millions of dollars each day as an Escrow Officer.

If you would like me to get a background check, then you will need to do what LSI did, pay for it. I've been conducting closings as an Escrow Officer, Real Estate Paralegal and NSA for over 20 years. If I were a thief, I'd be living in the lap of luxury and not driving around to peoples homes to do closings for low paying companies like yours.

Reply by PAW on 6/12/08 7:13am
Msg #250976

Re: I had a different response to the FASS email.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that a background check was done by those title companies when they hired you. I know for a fact that First American does check on every employee. The depth of the check is unknown, but they do check. You probably weren't even aware of it, but in your new-hire material it is probably stated somewhere that a background check would be performed.

Reply by NCLisa on 6/12/08 7:42am
Msg #250980

Re: I had a different response to the FASS email.

No background check. I've still got the copies of my new hire packets. To go to PTC all I signed was a W9, as they wanted my entire team and all the realtors we brought with us. Each EO desk had it's own clients, and where the EO went, 99% of the clients went. So if you had major producers, then you pretty much did nothing.

Also, in CA, none of the TC's I worked for ever reported my employment to any of those services. I had a BC done when I moved to NC, and they didn't understand why the CA companies didn't report. They knew I'd worked for the companies as they'd done a reference check, but none of them came up on any of the BC. Even at a huge law firm that I worked for in SF (20 stories of a high rise) didn't do BC's.

Reply by Julie/MI on 6/12/08 9:11am
Msg #250987

Re: I had a different response to the FASS email.

I don't think background checks really went into effect until after 9/11/2001.

If Lisa was employed in the 90's she I agree with her that it wasn't done.

Reply by desktopfull on 6/12/08 9:24am
Msg #250991

Re: I had a different response to the FASS email.

The GLB Act was passed in 1978 and the modification for privacy was passed in 1999.

Reply by desktopfull on 6/12/08 7:39am
Msg #250979

It sounds like the NNA is up to their usual,

claiming they are the notaries best friend, then they undermine the NSA's and either cause an increase of their expenses or cost them business while lining their own coffers. For any newbies reading this thread, this is the main reason NNA isn't liked by many of us on this site. Business is way down and the NNA is still only interested in lining their own pockets and causing us further hardship with added expenses and promoting low-ball recommended fees to TC's. I for one will not be forced to purchase a dual membership in this organization and this is their sole intent, because you can't get the background check through them without joining. They won't get another dime from me.

Reply by Lee/AR on 6/12/08 7:51am
Msg #250981

One really has to wonder...

what the motivation is for these companies who are...well, I guess 'sleeping with the enemy' pretty well covers it.

Reply by desktopfull on 6/12/08 9:17am
Msg #250990

Re: One really has to wonder...

Your right....TC's control the field, why don't they just tell the NNA where to go? Doesn't accepting only NNA approved background checks create a monopoly? Another problem is you have to join both sections to get the background check, you can't just purchase the BG. So they are forcing you to become a dual member of a company that has no regulatory authority. Don't you just love the way the NNA looks out for the notary? NOT!!! JMO

Reply by Lee/AR on 6/12/08 9:50am
Msg #250996

Exactly!

What bugs me even more than the NNA (the self-appointed authority with no legal status as a regulatory body)--who, after all, are really just trying to increase their revenue by whatever means they can dream up--are the entities that just fall in line with the NNA like sheep following a Judas goat.

Reply by desktopfull on 6/12/08 10:06am
Msg #250998

Re: Exactly!

Has anyone ever checked to see if the NNA owns any TC's or has a majority interest? Or, vice versa?

Reply by davidK/CA on 6/12/08 11:47am
Msg #251021

Re: Exactly!

XYZ (we shouldn't say the real initials of this well know FOR PROFIT company without the fear of being sued) has shown for years that their real purpose in life is to make money for themselves, and the financial success of any individual notary is really not their concern. As long as they say that they represent the notary, without actually doing so, or have the legal authority to do so they will remain just a sham enterprise.

I was a member of XYZ for several years. I feel that I got very little from XYZ to further my notary business, or the profession as a whole. The background check requirement is (IMHO) a pure BS operation, designed in collusion with certain large companies to increase their collective profits, not to protect the public. It's a fraud, and probably a violation of the anti-trust rules, but so far they have gotten away with it. Some day some smart Attorney General will come down hard on the phony XYZ.

The above is of course my Constitutionally protected free speech opinion.

Reply by dickb/wi on 6/12/08 12:40pm
Msg #251034

as a wi real estate broker who has watched.......

a barrage of anti trust suits agains the national asscn Realtors and some of the mls systems i am beginning to believe that this is bordering if not out right anti trust.......no competion is allowed......i think that the FTC would love to look at this one......jm .02

Reply by Terri_CA on 6/12/08 8:02pm
Msg #251115

My first response is, why am I being requested to go to a specific provider, who, if I remember correctly, requires that I become a member of not just one area, but two, and, in order to be a member of the second section, I must take their NSA course or pass their Certification test in order to purchase said BG from them?

I should be able to provide a BC check by any company provide the BC gives them the information that they require.

Now, having said that, in California effective January 1, 2008 all notaries (new or renewing) must now submit their fingerprints (new always did, now renewing notaries have to) and pay for not only a DOJ BC, but also one through the FBI. I have just taken my renewal exam, submitted my application, along with my photo (new requirement effective January 1, 2008 as well), my Proof of Completion for taking a 6-hour mandatory education class, I have passed my Exam and will now be going to get my fingerprints done and pay the possibly almost $100 for the fingerprinting. And wait over 15 weeks for my paperwork to come through.

This should be sufficient for the TC/Lender/Escrow or whoever, that in order to be a commissioned notary, look what hoops we now jump through!

I haven't decided if I'm going to respond to FASS 1) because I don't do their signings because their fees are too low and 2) I get calls for signings outside my area (can't remember sign on to change my areas of coverage).

Terri

Reply by Mamie on 6/12/08 9:33pm
Msg #251127

My fingerprint cost was $66.