Posted by Cali_RicM on 10/29/13 10:01am
Msg #490204

What's wrong with background checks?

I'm trying to figure out what's really wrong about background checks?

What is wrong?

No standardization?
To costly?
Redundant when I already did a Live Scan?
Having to do multiple checks?
May reveal stuff not pertinent to the role of a notary?
Conflict of interest with specific organizations or companies?
Something else?

I think it's a good idea to be sure a notary has a clean background. What's the task cause for concern?

I am asking this seriously, to learn. Thanks

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/29/13 10:05am
Msg #490206

The main question is

how many are you going to do? You do realize with the influx of requests from companies on a daily basis - are you willing to order a BGC every day from a different source? Because, in reality, your BGC is only as good as the moment it's done -

BTW - "redundant when I already did a Live Scan"? Two different animals - live scan has nothing to do with BGC's. And does not guarantee that today or yesterday you're clean but tomorrow you won't fleece someone out of thousands.

JMO

Reply by lowerAL on 10/29/13 10:37am
Msg #490225

Re: The main question is

What is wrong with background checks....One should be sufficient, good for 3-4 years. I have one from lexis-nexis from April 2013. I have been told it's not good enough. I have explained the fact that I have not robbed a bank, committed a felony, or murdered anyone since my last background check. I have been told, it's just not good enough, because it's not through NNA. This is what I have a problem with. I understand there are scams ran everyday. But where does it end?

Reply by Cali_RicM on 10/29/13 12:55pm
Msg #490267

Re: The main question is

Yep - one should suffice for N years. Totally agreed.

Reply by Cali_RicM on 10/29/13 12:54pm
Msg #490266

Re: The main question is

Nothing guarantees against a future event. But Live Scan, at least in CA, is a background check with fingerprints and all.

If I were to hire someone to take care of my child (as an example), I would want a thorough background check, even though it does not prevent any future event. I would want to know about that person.

So what you are saying in that respect does not hold water. Live Scan has everything to do with background checks (but maybe not these that y'all are being coerced to do).

The issue of 'how many are you going to do?', on the other hand...yeah, I agree. There should be one standard. Or at most 2 - one for State and one for Fed. I would buy that.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/29/13 2:37pm
Msg #490282

Okay..maybe it's different in CA..but

Live Scan here is fingerprinting...that's it

It's not a BGC - it's PART of a BGC, but all it is is digital, computerized fingerprinting.

BGC checks into other areas.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/29/13 3:54pm
Msg #490310

Re: Okay..maybe it's different in CA..but

Correct, Linda - at least that's always been my understanding. The live scan is merely the first step in the process of getting a BGC completed and the most exact, widely used form of accurately identifying an individual. The fingerprints are then digitally sent to the correct authorities. In the case of getting a California notary commission, for example, they're sent to the FBI and the DOJ, where they do their thing of comparing the prints against their databases, etc.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/29/13 4:05pm
Msg #490314

Yep...when I got mine done when I got my CNA

the fingerprints were a precursor to the rest of the BGC and were sent online directly to Florida Health Department.

Reply by SharonMN on 10/29/13 4:34pm
Msg #490320

Re: The main question is

I have no problem with someone running a background check on me. The notion that I have to arrange, pay for, and provide one is absurd, particularly because it would be so easy for me to alter the results if there was any derogatory info on there. The hiring agency should work directly with their preferred background check provider.

Reply by CH2inCA on 10/29/13 11:25am
Msg #490242

Yes all the above. Hate pay to play schemes n/m

Reply by MW/VA on 10/29/13 11:28am
Msg #490244

Nothing wrong with bgc's--I'm in favor of them & have always

had one.
What's wrong, IMO, is the recent developments of mandatory bgc's through an organization (that we refer to here as XYZ instead of real name) that I chose not to do business with. It's all about our hard-earned money going into their pockets! ;-(

Reply by garland/CA on 10/29/13 11:42am
Msg #490250

Worse than the BGC is the requirement to sign a release form

of all our personal information.

I don't mind the background check but it is now useless if you don't sign an authorization form allowing "them" (could be client, lender, financial institution...very undefined, so really anyone) to access personal information including SSN, driving records and again, there is no limit as it says information to "include, but are not limited to..."

Reply by jojo_MN on 10/30/13 12:36am
Msg #490381

I don't have an issue with getting "A" background check once a year.

My issues are:
1. Many different companies and signing services wanting you to get background checks with different vendors. I had four this year with different vendors. These were all required by the particular vendors if I wanted to continue to do signings for their title/signing service.

2. I don't like the idea with so many different companies (signing services and title companies) having access to so much of my personal information. Who knows how many people in each of these companies can get hold of this document.

3. It is no one's business how many speeding tickets I have, what my social security number is, my previous addresses, any old names including maiden name etc, what my credit score is, or any other information that tells absolutely nothing about my character.

4. All they need to know is: Have I been arrested for or convicted of any felonies related to the financial field or having access to others' private information or for sexual/physical assult.

5a. Many are requiring us to get the NNA background check. In order to get this check, I had to become a member again to an organization that I have absolutely no respect for because they won't let you get the bgc without becoming a member.

5b. When the NNA started their background check propaganda, they were promoting their services as a "one-stop" place for their clients (title companies and signing services) to just check on a notary members name to see if they had a current background check on file. There would be no need for them to have the background checks in their hands, just verified that it was completed and there were no problems. So much for that!

6. This should be done by the state(s) in which you have your notary commission. Maybe the state should run one (could be at notary's expense) and just keep a list stating that we passed the background check and be done with it. All three states where I am commissioned has a list of all notaries. Maybe they could a notation that they passed the bgc also. This would definitely put an end to all the BS that we have been dealing with. It would make the lenders and title companies compliant with the rules.

Everyone agrees that there should be a check done; however, this has gone completely overboard to the point that we as notaries have absolutely no privacy. How far is this going to go?