Posted by Brac Swackhammer on 5/5/09 7:56pm
Msg #287362

Will background check yeild more work??????

I have been doing signings for about 5 years, I did'nt think much of the non-standard screening process I saw when it first started. I was told today that the standard was the NNA check.
Today was the first time I did not get a job because of not having it. (that I know of) Of course I don't know how many jobs don't call because of it.

So any thought would be appreciated, am I missing out on alot of work by not being screened?
Thanks
Brac

Reply by Becca_FL on 5/5/09 8:17pm
Msg #287364

In my opinion, no.

The whole BGC deal was a plan hatched by the XYZ to make the XYZ more money once the NSA wanabe population declined. The XYZ somehow was able to convince a bunch of corporate attys at the BIG National TCs that a BGC was necessary due to the GLB act....a complete snow job, if you ask me. I work directly with TCs and have never been asked for a BGC. The one time I worked for FASS (they actually met my fee) they sent me a sign up pkg stating that I needed to submit a BGC and the ONLY one they accepted was from the XYZ...reminds me of extortion. Who in their right mind would accept this crap from a TC paying $50???

In summary, if you want more $90 edoc signings pay for an XYZ BGC because, in my experience, these are the only companies requiring it.

Reply by cdoty_IL on 5/5/09 9:04pm
Msg #287368

IMO, I do not think the BGC ........

should be required from only once source (XYZ). I could see why some companies would want a BGC, but why only from XYZ? In IL (as with many if not all other states), when you submit your application to become a notary you are BGC'd and not issued a commission if you have a criminal history and so forth. Of course, I guess you could commit a crime after the commission is issued, maybe that is their concern, but then again....you could commit a crime after the BGC too.

My experience, I have a BGC from XYZ, I thought it might matter and I will admit I work for FASS, but they meet my fee everytime (I am located in an area not "flooded" with other NSAs) so that made sense for me to have it. But I have another TC that required I get a BGC but they would NOT accept the XYZ one, so I paid $30 and have not received any work from them so far, but that has only been 2 weeks ago, so we will see........so it could go either way.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/5/09 9:04pm
Msg #287367

Background check: Personally, no.

I think that the bg check requirement met with a quiet (or not so quiet) death. JMHO.

Never have been asked by a single title company or lender if I have been bg checked. However, there was a title company, GAC who asked for it once upon a time. I agreed, as long as they would take the price of it from my next check. They agreed but never charged me for it. I don't know if they did it or not.

To add to Becca's comments, I think there were also companies who had ties to bg check companies...arms of their own companies, and this was just another way to boost income. My own thoughts...don't know that for sure.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/5/09 9:50pm
Msg #287371

In a word--no. Some big VM fish swallowed the NNA's bait (wonder what they used?) and now want all us little fish to do so. And other posters are correct, only a few low pay VMs seem to want this and, if really pressed, will ignore it.

Reply by Jeff Ortler on 5/5/09 10:01pm
Msg #287375

Soon to be mandatory...

As far as what I have heard background checks are going to be mandated by lenders and all of their title affiliates by the end of the year. Keep in mind that what we go through with fingerprinting at the time of being commissioned is only a felony check through the FBI and DOJ and is not a fully compliant GLBA background screening that is much more detailed.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/5/09 10:04pm
Msg #287376

Re: Soon to be mandatory...

The GLB Act never did require/ask for/want/demand a background screening from us. This is all hype from a certain national organization.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/5/09 10:14pm
Msg #287378

Re: Soon to be mandatory...

The GLBA doesn't mandates background checks per se. It mandates that financial institutions have a strict financial protection and privacy policy in place regarding the collection, retention and dissemination of consumer's information. In many cases, companies choose to include a background of it's employees and vendors as part of it's plan in ensuring and safeguarding the personal data of it's consumers.

Background checks have become an unofficial standard in a model GLBA compliant company, but they are not required.

Credit card companies don't have to run a credit check on us either, prior to opening an account... but they all do it, right? If you don't pay the bill...they don't have to report it to the credit agency...but they do.

Reply by TRG_wy on 5/6/09 7:36am
Msg #287403

Re: Soon to be mandatory...

I have to agree with the two previous posts here. The BGC is NOT a mandatory requirement of the 10 year old GLB Act.

The BGC is only a snapshot in time of your status and worthless. As stated earlier, a felon cannot become a notary public in most, if not all states.

A more binding and much better approach would be a signed simple non-disclosure agreement; which fully complies with the intent of the GLB Act.

Reply by PAW on 5/6/09 10:12am
Msg #287434

Ok in FL

>>> As stated earlier, a felon cannot become a notary public in most, if not all states. <<<

The notary application asks if the applicant has been convicted of a felony in the past. The conviction in and of itself is not an automatic denial of commissioning. The Governor's Office and Secretary of State Office investigates (or at least is suppose to) felony convictions of applicants to determine whether or not the applicant should be appointed.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/5/09 10:07pm
Msg #287377

Well...it does in California if you want to renew your commission and become/remain a notary.

But that's about it. I do have a check through the NNA... but somebody else paid for it for me and I likely won't renew it...but I have been asked about it a few times, and I've found that it is more of a marketing tool with my VA clients than anything else. Odd, but true. So, for me I'm in the middle.

Personally? I think all states should be BG checking their notaries like they do in CA. Since CA has implemented the FBI end of the check a year ago, the number of notaries has plummeted. I happen to believe it's because these are people who are not passing (or know they won't pass) the federal criminal check. Prior to that, they only checked at the state level. So a CA notary could have a long record in another state, but set up shop as a trustworthy person in CA? Scary.

If every state implemented the BG check for their notaries, this wouldn't ever be an issue.

Reply by davidK/CA on 5/5/09 10:43pm
Msg #287381

Background check for NSAs

I'll get one after all the signing service employees and owners get theirs.

IMHO, it's another waste of money and is just another profit center for XYZ. As far as I'm concerned the fingerprint check by the CA SOS with the CA Dept of Justice and the FBI should cover all the bases necessary.

Reply by jackpar on 5/5/09 11:26pm
Msg #287390

Background Check should be mandatory

I have been doing signings for 8 years. In this day and age, I believe all title companies/signing services should require one. If you are in this business, you should have one and I don't get paid to endorse the NNA but it is the easiest to get and most understood by most title companies. You may not get much more but you could lose business by not having one. My 2 cents worth.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 5/6/09 1:45am
Msg #287399

I have yet to be asked in 6 years .... n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/6/09 2:34am
Msg #287400

Have you renewed recently?

Seems to me that - at least as far as CA is concerned - the only ones getting a BG check are the notaries. I agree that it would be a good idea for tc & ss employees to be checked out, too. But I had to renew again about a year ago, so I already paid the state for the DOJ and FBI background checks to continue my commission. I don't see why I should have to pay XYZ to get it done again. Especially since they require me to first pay for two memberships and a certification (none of which I consider of any value to me - except maybe their magazine, POSSIBLY of some marginal value) before I can buy their BG check. To me, that feels like blood money, pay-to-play, extortion, or whatever else you want to call it. How about tribute to the neighborhood bully? Or I suppose we could just call it a very expensive BG check!

"...easiest to get and most understood by most title companies."

I'm not sure what you mean by this, unless you mean that they have the strongest marketing efforts. From what I've read, theirs doesn't appear to be as thorough as the one offered here by NotRot, for example. I just don't care for what appears to me to be an attempt to position themselves as the only acceptable option. I guess I have a bit of an independent streak - which is one reason why this business suits me so well, and why I choose to be self-employed!

End of rant...

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 5/6/09 10:15am
Msg #287435

"Most understood by most title companies."

What do you mean by that statement?