Posted by 101livescan on 9/27/12 10:07pm
Msg #436220

Change.org

A couple of months ago, I posted this site. It was founded by the son of a lady I work with at First American Title on the Central Coast. He graduated from Stanford, and he has been named by Time magazine as one of the most influential 100 people in the world this year.

Please visit change.org when you have time.

This may be the perfect platform to air our goal to have one BGC, one size fits all, to perform background checks on all notaries across the nation. Take it out of the hands of individual settlement agencies, signing services, etc. state by state, coast to coast.


In CA we are background checked via live scan fingerprinting that goes to the DOJ and FBI. Other state notary divisions do not have this requirement yet. I'm not sure why. I think they should.

I think we're put to a hardship to have to have multiple background checks, it's expensive and unnecessary.

NNA background checks are for two years, Lexis Nexis and the others, well as we know, we can commit a crime by night and notarie the next morning, who will know!

I'll let you know how this turns out.

I'm all about setting the professional standard for all of us, commanding the level of compensation we so justly deserve to be paid, and not being exploited by these big companies who think they set the standards for notaries.

You notaries out there that think $40 to $90 per signing is fair, well, step aside. You're not professional enough nor do you think enough of yourself or your industry to command $100 plus per package.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 9/27/12 11:06pm
Msg #436225

Great idea, Cheryl!

I participate in change.org a few times per month, when I'm alerted to a subject of interest.
I nominate Hugh Nations.

Reply by BrendaTx on 9/27/12 11:54pm
Msg #436227

I second nomination of Hugh Nations!

Misty...what are we nominating him for? lol!

Writer of petition? Class favorite? Going through the change? Specifics, too!

Reply by MistarellaFL on 9/28/12 12:08am
Msg #436229

ALL OF THE ABOVE!

HE's the perfect candidate for this BGC standardization project!

Reply by Clem/CA on 9/28/12 12:10am
Msg #436231

Re: I second nomination of Hugh Nations!

I think he would be through two more wives before he got around to doing this.......

Reply by MistarellaFL on 9/28/12 12:16am
Msg #436232

Nah, too many warning ads written on ladies room stall walls

in most taverns and restaurants.

Reply by BrendaTx on 9/28/12 6:48am
Msg #436249

Re: I second nomination of Hugh Nations!

Actually, I think that Hugh is the most qualified for creating such petition.

Tales of a Serial Wife, Oade to Mother

Multiple failed marriages are not the worse problems in the world.

I have been married three times. Two divorces and a death. Stopped with widow status. #1 and #2 were not mistakes. Those marriages were integral to my life, and their lives. I would not change the choices to marry, nor the choices to divorce. I have a huge family through the exs families because of our abilities to keep the good, and throw out the bad.

Sometimes a divorce is the only right thing to do, but people are too weak to make the right decision and to get themselves out of a bad or abusive situation.

I guess you could say that it is okay to tease Hugh about being a serial husband because he brings it up to make fun of himself. No one teases me about being a serial wife...and, I do make jokes about it. People know that the serial marriges don't phase me. That is not my weak spot.

My own mother whispers the words 'when you and xxxx divorced' because she thinks it is a huge blight on my life. She was divorced once...never got over that feeling of failure. It was the smartest thing she ever did. I guess that I am saying that surely we can find something new to criticize Hugh over. Because of the way that my mother feels, I hate hearing anyone teased about serial marriages.

The marriage jokes are funny when he makes them, they aren't funny (to me) when others make them. Seem like taking easy cheapshots. Probably doesn't bother him..but, it would bother my mother a lot.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/28/12 12:43pm
Msg #436318

Re: I second nomination of Hugh Nations!

Brenda, thanks for sharing with us your personal experience and outlook and for always setting a great example of how to treat others!

"The marriage jokes are funny when he makes them, they aren't funny (to me) when others make them."

Not funny to me, either, and I believe this applies to a lot more than marriage (or divorce). And this isn't about Hugh, it's about how we treat other people. It reminds me of something I read that said that sarcasm is always destructive, never constructive, And just because someone is laughing doesn't mean they think it's funny, especially when it's directed at them.

Just think how much better this world would be if everyone treated each other with respect! (Pretty hard to even imagine in this political season, isn't it? ) I could get carried away with this, but I'll spare you all at leave it at that.

Reply by BrendaTx on 9/28/12 6:16pm
Msg #436369

Re: I second nomination of Hugh Nations!

I need to work on the sarcasm. In real life more than here. Yep....that bad.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/28/12 2:03am
Msg #436240

WE need talking points! :>)

Good idea, Cheryl. We need to start somewhere. This whole thing is getting ridiculous.

I think that one of the key approaches we need to take is to get a somewhat uniform message out there. When all the different parties pushing these things start hearing the same ideas over and over again, we might begin to get through... 'Cause you can be sure that the proliferation of BGC requests is because some entity out there is lobbying or pushing for them "over and over again".

To start with, I feel we need to quit focusing on the possibility that a person with a squeaky clean background check today might become a felon tomorrow. I don't think that's an argument that works in our favor.... Plus, as I posted yesterday in Msg #436083, I think that the use of a background check is based on the belief that the past is a very good predictor of the future. Lenders use that same assumption with underwriting for potential borrowers and it's the same premise behind a credit score. Someone with a pristine record for 40 years is likely trustworthy. Someone with a history of crime is probably not. And overall, that will likely be as true next month or next year as it is today.

I think the model used here in California makes lots of sense. The first commission application screens out those with a checkered history and provides a benchmark. Then every four years, we know we have to pass a comprehensive background check again to retain our commissions. That's incentive to continue to operate ethically, legally and with integrity if we want to stay in business, although I'd like to think that most of us would do so anyway.

No BGC is going to be perfect and it's just not practical - nor do I think it should be necessary - to have to request a new one every time we work for a new client. At what point do all these multiple requests and extra costs just make it untenable - or at least not worth it - to stay in this business? I think the low-ballers may find they've shot themselves in the foot if they continue the downward pressure on fees while insisting on all these additional expenses for the people they depend on to get the work done. The lower the fee, the lower the threshold for it to become not worth it. And I think something like this would be more visible to the less experienced than some of the other more hidden costs of business that they may not always take into consideration.

What other key issues do you all think we should focus on?

I think we need some crisp, succinct talking points! Maybe one of the wordsmiths on this board would be willing to consolidate the feedback from everyone and provide us with some useful phrases that we can begin to repeat over and over and over and over.... (If the politicians can do it, why not us?)

Reply by 101livescan on 9/28/12 6:35am
Msg #436244

Re: WE need talking points! :>)

Whatever we do, let's act quickly. Time is a wasting. Hopefully we can get this accomplished before the end of the year.

Hugh, where are you this morning? We need some SMITHING?

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/28/12 7:48am
Msg #436254

For openers, we shouldn't have to join an organization

and a special class of that organization in order to have an 'acceptable' bgc done.
We need to push the NR bgc as it meets all the criteria 'they' need and doesn't require additional hoops for us.

I still do not see where the Dodd-Frank act specifically refers to us EXCEPT for the catchall that the entities who 'need' us can make their own rules about how we 'qualify to work for them'.

Jan makes very good points about the 'what/why' of a bgc. I am also in favor of a pass/fail as some
of the bgc's I've had done just have an awful lot of personal info on them that might make theft of my ID a lot easier to accomplish. We have no idea of who is able to access our personal info once we've sent it out to various and assorted requesters.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/28/12 8:55am
Msg #436263

Lee - re: Dodd-Frank, changes coming down the pike

The CFPB issued a bulletin this April outlining their agenda relative to all service providers - this is the information that the new risk management/vetting companies are using as fuel (i.e. Secure Settlements). We've already learned on N/R that some major lenders have begun using Secure Settlements, BUT there ARE other companies offering the same services as well. That's free enterprise, and not a new song - we all know how this one goes. There can't be a single player, although 'standardization' of a sort is within the CFPB's requirements.

Here's the bulletin - http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201204_cfpb_bulletin_service-providers.pdf

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/28/12 9:08am
Msg #436267

I know. That's why we need to be proactive on this. n/m

Reply by 101livescan on 9/28/12 10:24am
Msg #436282

Re: For openers, we shouldn't have to join an organization

Most attorneys use Lexis Nexis for background checking, especially as they get around to appearing in court with their clients. They don't want egg all over their faces if the client has not been UPFRONT about illegal activities they aren't fessing up to.

Reply by MW/VA on 9/28/12 8:34am
Msg #436257

I think it's a great idea. The dilemna, as I see it, is

that any form of "organizing" could be construed as an attempt to form a union, or anti-trust issues. We all know they take advantage of us because we're IC's. At least here at NR we have a voice.

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/28/12 10:10am
Msg #436279

Everyone else lobbies without union issues, why not us? n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/28/12 12:22pm
Msg #436311

Re: I think it's a great idea. The dilemna, as I see it, is

I don't see a need for any kind of formal organization. I think that if some kind of general consensus could be reached, we could start spreading the message and sharing our recommendations to other notaries via any other social media we might use and to clients whenever we have the chance.

From Renee's post, it seems like we need to make sure that whatever recommendation(s) we promote will meet the requirements the CFPB will be asking for. It will make it much harder to ignore or dismiss us if we can offer a reasonable, working alternative. IMO, if that alternative requires establishing a formal organization of any kind, it's probably not the right one.

Reply by 101livescan on 9/28/12 9:56am
Msg #436275

I rang up Hugh this morning, just catching him as he was headed out his door for a weekend trip.

We'll hear from him over the weekend perhaps.

Cheers! At least we've got the MoJo moving in the right direction on this project. Thank you one and all for your input. Always good to have many people's thoughts on a subject that is so integral to all of us in this industry.