Posted by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/10 5:31pm
Msg #334522

New Jersey Notaries -- will this pass? (S180)

I was surfing around and found this bill on your Senate:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/S0500/180_I1.HTM


Looks like they're trying to model the California system -- 6 hours education, exam and they're including FBI and State background checks in this bill, just as CA requires now.

From what I can tell, this would be a HUGE change in your system, am I right?

I don't know about others... but I like this change. I think it's working in California. The number notaries has plummeted since the rules were put in to place.

Reply by Dorothy_MI on 5/1/10 7:03pm
Msg #334532

While I'm not against education

rom what I've seen in CA, it requires a whole new BIG buracracy. There must be some kind of happy medium.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 7:58pm
Msg #334537

I wish we had something like this in Florida

At 440,000 notaries, Florida has more notaries than any other state and also has very lax education standards. I would like to see requirements like those of California put in place in Florida. We have notaries who are either breezing through the free online course (which includes no exam, BTW), or their employer takes it for them. I suspect that this happens a lot with banks and the like.

Just yesterday I sent in a complaint against a notary, who "notarized" a signature by simply affixing her stamp to a pre-printed certificate. She didn't even sign her name, nor did she indicate the type of ID produced. State records indicate she has only been a notary for 2 months. Someone who just took a notary education course should not be making these type of blatant mistakes.

Reply by MW/VA on 5/1/10 8:20pm
Msg #334545

They always say, "be careful what you wish for". CA has

lots of requirements, but still has as many "bad" notaries as anywhere else.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 8:24pm
Msg #334547

CA may have some bad notaries, but at least they have

less of them than we have in Florida.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/10 8:42pm
Msg #334554

Re: They always say, "be careful what you wish for". CA has

Yeah, we have plenty of bad apples for sure. BUT... the number is going down a lot each year. This is especially true sine they implemented the FBI component of the background checks. It's only been 2.5 years, so there are still lots of CA notaries who haven't gone through that yet.

A lot of them are simply not renewing, too, because they realized the promises of $100K a year were not all that accurate.

Reply by Joan Bergstrom on 5/1/10 11:02pm
Msg #334560

The cost to be a CA notary is the highest in the country

Classroom/home study/online/etc $40-$160
Testing fee/application fee $40
$15,000 Surety Bond $40 Fingerprints $75- $80
Passport Photo $5- $10
Fee to notary's county clerk $35-$40 (could be more in some counties)
Journal/fingerprinting device/commission seal/loose Ack & Jurat
$50 (if you shop right)
Low end is $285
High end is $420

I rounded off all the charges.

We have lost 65,000 notaries in CA (2008, 2009) and we will probably lose another 20-25 thousand in 2010 and most of this was caused by the mortgage meltdown and the increase in the notary fees to be a CA notary.

2008 CA required all renewing notaries to have their fingerprints and attach a passport photo to his/her application.

It is taking almost 4 months to receive a CA commission from CA test you passed.

I really recommend you take your notary test at least 6 months before your commission expires.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/2/10 8:29am
Msg #334577

Making it harder to become a notary raises the standard

And the standards need to be raised in ALL states. Notaries are public officials. IMO the system should not allow any old bum off the street to walk in to a courthouse, take an oath of office and become a government official that easily. The more notaries you have, the less important notarization becomes, and before you know it government agencies start removing notarization requirements on many of their forms, and then notaries have even less value and general notary work is even harder to come by.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 5/2/10 9:41am
Msg #334587

Re: Making it harder to become a notary raises the standard

I do believe that the standard will be raised if it becomes more difficult to qualify.
I do not believe that the more notaries there are the less important notarization will become. I think that it is even more important than ever now.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/2/10 9:59am
Msg #334588

Re: Making it harder to become a notary raises the standard

*And the standards need to be raised in ALL states.*

And, again my Independent Texas Streak comes out....

Nothing personal to Robert, but my hackles (whatever hackles are) raise every time someone says that all state's notaries need to have this or do that.

I think what notaries forget sometimes is that while we are an important part of the state law, especially where property laws are concerned, we are only a part of a body of law that has been built upon for going on 200 +/- years now depending on the state. If the notary law for every state is required to do this or do that because it makes it easier on the notary (pick an issue, any issue) to streamline their work or to be in compliance with the law, then it jerks the strings of other law.

I'm all for notaries to get familiar with their own state's laws and stop concerning themselves with projects of the xyz which have created "models" for each state to go by.

If Texas lawmakers decide that notary requirements should be shored up for a reasonable reason, I'll comply. I just don't think that standards need to be raised right this minute because I'll become a more valued commodity. It's more complicated than that.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/3/10 12:44am
Msg #334634

Re: Making it harder to become a notary raises the standard

"I just don't think that standards need to be raised right this minute because I'll become a more valued commodity."

I agree, Brenda. That would be the tail wagging the dog - and the wrong reason for making any changes. If it has a positive impact on us, great. But the laws aren't written for the benefit of notaries, rather for the benefit of those needing notarizations - as it should be, imo.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 5/2/10 11:51am
Msg #334590

Raising standards should not be the first issue addressed

I don't have a problem with imposing uniform standards on notaries public throughout the country. That would not be my first priority, however. Because of the interstate nature of much notary work, I think uniform procedures would be more appropriately addressed first. That would also work to raise the caliber of notary performance.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/2/10 12:53pm
Msg #334601

In the overall plan of things...notaries don't count for...

much, but, mandating a national standard is just one more state right that will be knocked down..without a whimper and with willing cooperation on the part of many affected. Nah, don't go there, people.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/2/10 1:05pm
Msg #334603

I agree... I think it should remain a state responsibility

However, I believe that all states should *individually* raise their standards, not on a federal mandate but out of common sense.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 5/2/10 3:49pm
Msg #334609

Re: In the overall plan of things...notaries don't count for...

Imposing a uniform standard on the processing of documents that move in interstate -- and international -- commerce is a far far different animal than imposing a uniform standard on education or homebuilding requirements. It was precisely that type of matter that the Interstate Commerce Clause was designed to cover. To view it through a prism of states rights, I think, would be really shortsighted.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 5/1/10 11:37pm
Msg #334561

Am I reading this wrong, or does this only apply to the initial appointment? It doesn't mention renewals or re-appointments, and after that initial BGC is done, it falls to the notary to inform the state about criminal convictions (like that might happen). Plus there's no provision for testing at the time of commission renewal (doesn't CA require that?).

This just doesn't seem like a well thought out law... what am I missing here?