Posted by Stamper_WI on 12/18/07 9:02pm
Msg #226760
Laura V
Thank you for the live Chat. Its to bad it had the distractions it had as I thought it was a good opportunity to enagage in a live exchange of ideas. I hope you are not discouraged from participating in future ones.
|
Reply by ZeeCA on 12/18/07 9:18pm
Msg #226764
yes thx.. and i always feel you always learn something new if you are open to it
thx Thx THX!
|
Reply by Cheryl Anderson on 12/18/07 9:24pm
Msg #226767
I wrote down some very key points of marketing, and already had established some different avenues using your ideas. It has already increased my website hits! Whether any bites or not, that is fine, as long as it increases my website awareness. Goin' to the DMV tomorrow! Thank you Laura!
Cheryl Lee Anderson
|
Reply by OR on 12/18/07 9:35pm
Msg #226771
Same here many thinks to you.
|
Reply by Dennis_IN on 12/18/07 10:29pm
Msg #226779
Ditto: I also got some good ideas out of the discussion. I feel a little responsible for the breakdown of the discussion tonight. I guess I shouldn't have encouraged Becca. I feel everyone should be able to express their opinion. But the live chat was disrupted. If it would have been a live event they probably would have TAZED HER. I would have enjoyed hearing Becca's opinion and marketing non-real estate ideas tonight, I guess it was the wrong moderator. I'll just have to continue to monitor Notary Talk.
|
Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/18/07 10:51pm
Msg #226781
Laura wasn't a moderator in the usual sense. She had no controls to Taze. She did take the upper road and stated first that she was going to talk only what she was there to talk about. Then she stuck to that. She had prepared information for this and was ready to present it.
Laura did not get into a debate with Becca because Becca wanted to talk about something else. When she got no rise out of Laura she left and came back with Korey who joined in breifly with Becca. Several times other people on the chat asked Becca to stop and I will admit I was about to when I got the phone call about my Dad. We all had the ability to block Becca but even if you did it was apparent that not all did and were distracted by her negative statements. Laura picked up on this and called it short.
I agree with you. I was hoping Becca would come in with her own ideas and experiences because I see her contribution to NOT ROT. What we did get was good if for no other reason than it was proactive and positive. I plan to "clean up" the transcripts to strictly business as it should have been and use it. Perhaps then the value of the discussion will be clearer.
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 12/18/07 11:11pm
Msg #226784
Ohh, It was pretty clear to most in attendance... n/m
|
Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/18/07 11:24pm
Msg #226788
Re: Ohh, It was pretty clear to most in attendance...
Obviously it was to the folks above. they participated in the discussion at hand. Whether she is the Jason you object to or not I don't know and quite frankly don't care. Doing a search on Jason brings up a few. None of which I see as warranting that kind of attack over and over.
While i respect your experience and knowledge I disagree with your tactics tonight. I am hoping to chalk it off as a bad night.
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 12/18/07 11:59pm
Msg #226791
Re: Ohh, It was pretty clear to most in attendance...
Not a bad night, Zana. Search again.
It is, what it is...she refuses to even discuss the issue at hand. Taking the 5th, I guess.
Laura, the floor is yours...............where are you?
|
Reply by Dennis_IN on 12/19/07 12:18am
Msg #226794
Re: Ohh, It was pretty clear to most in attendance...
Sorry, all I saw tonight was someone that made an effort to get people thinking of how can they enhance their business. If she has training material available good for her. I don't recall her advertising tonight. You claim that she uses an alias to build up her business. If that is true then she is no better than Hillary. Some people will do whatever it takes to promote themselves, no matter how low they go. That's not ethical. I am not here to judge.
BUT what I experienced this evening was very helpful. I hope we all can get together again and discuss similar topics.
The one thing I do miss from working in an office is the interaction with fellow employees, to discuss an idea, face to face. ...Priceless
|
Reply by Dennis_IN on 12/19/07 12:18am
Msg #226795
Re: Ohh, It was pretty clear to most in attendance...
Sorry, all I saw tonight was someone that made an effort to get people thinking of how can they enhance their business. If she has training material available good for her. I don't recall her advertising tonight. You claim that she uses an alias to build up her business. If that is true then she is no better than Hillary. Some people will do whatever it takes to promote themselves, no matter how low they go. That's not ethical. I am not here to judge.
BUT what I experienced this evening was very helpful. I hope we all can get together again and discuss similar topics.
The one thing I do miss from working in an office is the interaction with fellow employees, to discuss an idea, face to face. ...Priceless
|
Reply by Dennis_IN on 12/19/07 12:19am
Msg #226796
sorry for the double post...fat fingers n/m
|
Reply by Susan Fischer on 12/19/07 12:02am
Msg #226792
Thanks so much to the live chatters tonight - so much
good information and valuable ideas shared.
Loved learning about the importance of monitoring the demographics, the pitfalls/advantanges of some targets; the resources in our communities for notarial work (better for the higher-fee states and the details of internet presence.
What a brilliant use of this professional forum.
Too bad it was infested with an anoying little diva with a couple of like-minded groupies, with some soap opera ax to grind. As the Stamp Inks; a failed episode.
(Now that we're getting the hang of Live Chat, we can simply block the rif-raf,) so, let's have another Marketing Tete-a-Tete. This is a big country, and we are nationwide. What works in some areas may not work in others, so the trick is to glean and share, and be a part of the process of change.
It occurs to me, for instance, that those states that have outdated allowable notarial fees need input from the notary professionals on the need to raise those antiquated fees. What is the process in your state for changing the allowable notary fees?
But this topic was marketing, and under that umbrella, this chat produced many tiny drops of insight sparkling like raindrops in the sun.
|
Reply by jba/fl on 12/19/07 1:02am
Msg #226800
Oh Susan - you are waxing poetic again! lovely n/m
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 12/19/07 1:31am
Msg #226804
Re: Thanks so much to the live chatters tonight - so much
"Now that we're getting the hang of Live Chat, we can simply block the rif-raf,..
Yes, Susan, I think that is a wonderful idea. Let's block the posters that create sock puppets and pose as someone else only to say what they wouldn't say to other members in fear that they may not sell more ebooks.
Susan, I couldn't agree with you more. These newbie predators need to be stopped.
|
Reply by Susan Fischer on 12/19/07 1:35am
Msg #226806
You missed my point. n/m
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 12/19/07 1:37am
Msg #226807
No. You missed mine. n/m
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 12/19/07 1:38am
Msg #226808
Re: You missed my point.
Ignorance is a curable condition, but stupidity is ingrained forever.
|
Reply by Susan Fischer on 12/19/07 1:45am
Msg #226809
As you continue to demonstrate. n/m
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 12/19/07 1:55am
Msg #226810
Have another glass of wine, Susan. Cheers!
What is that about the blind leading the blind?
|
Reply by Susan Fischer on 12/19/07 2:15am
Msg #226812
Get a clue, Becca; Here's hoping, Cheers! And goodnight. n/m
|
Reply by Susan Fischer on 12/19/07 2:01am
Msg #226811
"...in the sun of prosperity" it should read. n/m
|
Reply by WDMD on 12/19/07 5:31am
Msg #226818
Re: Thanks so much to the live chatters tonight - so much
Susan:"It occurs to me, for instance, that those states that have outdated allowable notarial fees need input from the notary professionals on the need to raise those antiquated fees. What is the process in your state for changing the allowable notary fees?"
Not trying to be a smart alec or anything. I believe the thinking here in Maryland is that the nominal fees ($2) for notorial acts is because a notary generally is someone who volunteers to provide a public service. Don't get me wrong, I would like more per act. But I don't think here in Maryland a notary would get much sympathy. I don't think the government here feels it is a position to try and make a living off.
|
Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/19/07 6:44am
Msg #226821
Re: Thanks so much to the live chatters tonight - so much
WI actually has a bill right now to raise it to no more than $10. Its in the senate now then on to the assembly. Here is hoping it passes this time!
|
Reply by PAW on 12/19/07 7:11am
Msg #226824
Florida notary fees based on clerk fees
The fees that a notary can charge in Florida, are the same fees as established by statute for Clerks of the Court in the performance of their duties. Fortunately for Florida, those fees are $10 per notarial act.
I submit that the fees in other states are based similarly. The fees charged by states, counties and other jurisdictions, often include a document requiring notarization, so a "nominal" fee is charged since the notarization is an ancillary function of the clerk. Of course, this effects the free-lance, independent notary and stifles an income potential as a Notary Public.
|
Reply by WDMD on 12/19/07 8:29am
Msg #226830
Re: Florida notary fees based on clerk fees
"The fees that a notary can charge in Florida, are the same fees as established by statute for Clerks of the Court in the performance of their duties. Fortunately for Florida, those fees are $10 per notarial act.
I submit that the fees in other states are based similarly. The fees charged by states, counties and other jurisdictions, often include a document requiring notarization, so a "nominal" fee is charged since the notarization is an ancillary function of the clerk.'
PAW, could you explain this to me please? Does this mean that in FL notarial fees are determined by what clerks of the courts charge? I'm not sure I am understanding this. What does "the fees charged by states,counties, and other jurisdictions, often include a document requiring notarization" mean? What document are you referring to?
|
Reply by WDMD on 12/19/07 10:45am
Msg #226849
Re: Florida notary fees based on clerk fees
"PAW, could you explain this to me please? "
Never mind, I think I get what you are saying. I belive you were saying that in FL because different documents presented to the clerk require notarization that the fees are nominal for notarizations. Correct?
In Maryland notary fees are established by statute in the Annotated Code of Maryland. I read the code concerning notaries and it does not mention anything about clerks of the court. My county clerk of the court here in MD does not even have a notary on staff, so if something required a notarization I guess it would have to be done ahead of time. You state that fees for notarizations in FL are the same as established by statute for clerks of the court, and that fees in other states are based similarily. I guess what I am not getting is the connection between the clerk of the court and notaries in my state. Could you explain the connection? Thanks.
Here is the code section for Maryland:
§18–112.
(a) The Secretary of State shall adopt regulations to establish fees, not to exceed $2 for an original notarial act, and an appropriate lesser amount for the repetition of that original notarial act or to make a copy of the matter addressed by that original notarial act.
(b) A notary public may charge 19 cents per mile, or a higher amount set by regulation of the Secretary of State, and a fee not to exceed $5, as compensation for travel required for the performance of a notarial act.
|
Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 12/19/07 7:47am
Msg #226826
In Missouri...
...our legislators have viewed any proposed raising of the current $2.00 per signature Notary fee as a tax increase to the general public. At least that was their position about 4 years ago & as public servants they didn't want to be viewed in that light. Hopefully that thinking can be changed in the near future.
|
Reply by jba/fl on 12/19/07 9:11am
Msg #226835
Re: In Missouri...
"our legislators ...as public servants they didn't want to be viewed in that light."
I'll bet that somewhere along the line they raised their pay - ironic..
|
Reply by Susan Fischer on 12/19/07 10:12pm
Msg #226932
WDMD - I understand the "nominal" fee thing, I just think
today, a nominal fee is $10.
Another point to consider is that the notary has the option of charging. There are many instances where I waive my "nominal" fee of $5. Somethimes I travel for free too.
My point is that when these laws were drafted, the cost of living was much less, and what was a 'nominal' fee then, is perfectly rediculous today.
Also, availability of notaries public is shrinking for the public. Many banks refuse anymore because of the perceived liability. Many copy places just don't have time. Many people can't travel to a notary. The times have changed, and unless the various legislatures are made aware of the current notarial issues, I'm sure they never give it a thought. We are evolving into businesses, and should consider lobbying efforts to bring state lawmakers up to speed.
|
