"Ultimately, without tackling these crucial issues, this bill may endanger the integrity of document authentication and retention practices by prioritizing short-term convenience and embracing the allure of new technology."
So happy to see that someone with some authority at the state level gets what's really going on! Lee/AR makes some great points about the so-called "national notary group". All the parties in favor have some skin in the game and undoubtedly believe they will profit in some way if this movement goes forward. It could be the Achilles heel of this movement.
We can collectively take the high ground, in that we're looking out for the public good. We can also point out that the "national notary group" is a privately held, for-profit operation that we believe has a history of representing their own interests over the interests of their paying membership, who have no input on their business or professional activities.
[If you do write to someone or post publicly about that organization, just please be careful how you word it. Make it clear that you're expressing your own opinion, as we learned in the past that they won't hesitate to threaten legal action against any statement they might interpret as libelous.]
I haven't finished reading yet, so may have more comments to follow. BTW, it appears that Mark Stone, the Chair of the state Judiciary Committee would be another good person to contact with support for his opposition, and to give additional input. One thing that's already come to mind is the so-called "inconvenience" of having to meet with a notary in person. Seems some of these guys don't realize that there are a ton of us out there who are willing to go to the signer - at their convenience - and capable of helping to make the signing of important documents easy for them...
|
