Posted by SanDiegoCA on 5/9/07 4:47pm
Msg #189575

re: ServiceLink "bulletin" regarding GLBA background checks

It's now shortly after 3:00 PM here on the west coast.

I just got off the phone with the NNA service line, about an hour after receiving a call from Tracy Paul, the Vice President of Vendor Services at ServiceLink responding to my voice mail.

Apparently, in that hour between calls, the NNA and ServiceLink had been in communication, and settled the GLBA issues mentioned in the bulletin.

Per the NNA call, this "bulletin" will be "recalled" and a new letter will be mailed shortly, as ServiceLink was mistaken about the certificates from the NNA (there never were any issued after background checks, BY DESIGN), and will send us all a big "NEVERMIND" letter on this issue.

There is only an online search at the NNA telling who has completed the GLBA compliance checks that every company needing to check on that can use.

I must admit, it's kinda hard to tell who is confused on this issue, it's been so badly communicated around all the probable companies who need to be interested ....... there is probably plenty of blame to go around ........... so, there you are!

I thought I would share the info, as many have received this letter recently.

Reply by kcg on 5/9/07 5:18pm
Msg #189581

I spoke with the NNA and with ServiceLink who both confirmed that this bulletin was issued in error and should be ignored. ServiceLink will accept the BGC's done by NNA irregardless of the date and will sending out a new bulletin.

Reply by christiSocal on 5/9/07 6:48pm
Msg #189586

It still sounds to me like they are trying to force us to go

through the nna for this. I WILL NOT do this through the nna!!!! If and when I do get a background check, it will be through NotRot. This is the first company that has even said anything to me about the BGC and they are just not worth getting it for.

Reply by cyndi_ca on 5/9/07 6:53pm
Msg #189587

I'd like to know why the NNA appears to be

the only one SL would accept. According the letter I received, there is a form you have to sign stating you will or have had the BC done by the NNA. In the cover letter it states...

"If you have had a BC check performed by a reputable firm, then the BC may be acceptable so long as it is no more than 1 yr old". Could someone tell me who is considered "reputable" other than the NNA. Is NotRot "reputable" enough? I for one do not wish to give, more like throw good after bad $, to the NNA.

Nothing like lighting my fire this afternoon! Geesh!

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/9/07 6:56pm
Msg #189588

Simple answer: Politics! n/m

Reply by NCLisa on 5/9/07 8:38pm
Msg #189603

ServiceLink is owned by LSI (Fidelity)

So why even go with the NNA? LSI has been performing their own BC's for many years free of charge to the notary.

Reply by Keystone/PA on 5/10/07 10:47am
Msg #189673

Re: ServiceLink is owned by LSI (Fidelity)

LSI, FirstAm, NREIS,FISERVE, are all trying to get notaries use the BGK from NNA. NREIS will let run a private bgk, if you refuse to do NNA, or they will accept a copy of a bgk, if you provide it. They also insist on the notary being a Certified Agent. I work for NREIS as a Settlement Agent, have been a notary for over 4 yrs with over 250 closings, been a TX Realtor for 2 yrs and a Loan Officer for the SBA - but can't be added to their database, as I have no bgk or certification.

Reply by SanDiegoCA on 5/10/07 10:58am
Msg #189677

Re: ServiceLink is owned by LSI (Fidelity)

A couple of good points here, like theServiceLink affiliation with LSI.

I know there are several of you who have not been asked for your compliance to GLBA yet, but you may be.

I have had my contacts who call me directly from Commerce, Stewart and Chicago title companies ask about it, as well as 6 of the signing companies who have called over the last three years. The notions conveyed during the call was that they would be restricting signing jobs from their office ONLY to those who comply with GLBA.

Having that search capability for compliance available on the NNA web site has made it easy to add to all advertising for me or to point clients to that resource.

Every month this year, so far, has brought one mew inquiry as to my compliance to the GLBA, this month's being the now forgettable ServiceLink bulletin.

If you have not been asked yet about your compliance, it might be something that comes up in the future.

I'm not sure that I agree the GLBA DEMANDS compliance or certification by notary signing agents, but I also still figure that $65 to have it done once and for all, and posted for all probable clients to see, was cheap, and easy enough to do.

Reply by MelissaCT on 5/10/07 11:44am
Msg #189686

For many, it's not about having a BGC completed

it's the idea of shelling out $$$$$ to NNA for the bgc, certification and membership, because you can't just get the bgc done. They found a niche (even if they created it themselves) and found yet another way of bilking notaries out of $$ just to be able to work. It's not much different than a SS requiring you to pay them in order to receive the potential for work from them.

Reply by PAW on 5/10/07 11:48am
Msg #189687

The Background Check has nothing to do with GLBA Compliance!

To be compliant, certain things must be done in the handling of personal information. There is nothing in the Act that states a background check must be performed on anyone who "touches" that data. It is only the implementation and interpretation by the NNA and some others that require a BGC.

This is not to say that a BGC is not a good thing, but forcing Signing Agents to have it completed through a sole source may actually be illegal, and certainly is lining the coffers of that source.

I submit that the BGC that I had done for my mortgage brokers license is far more comprehensive than what anyone else is offering. I haven't heard of anyone requiring 10-cards to be submitted to the FBI yet, for example. I will gladly produce a copy of my license as proof. And since lenders typically employ (either directly or indirectly) mortgage brokers, I guess my background check and credentials are okay with them.