|I agree. Great job by Matt, Terrie Gillett, and others who took the time to show up and speak up! Thank you on behalf of everyone!|
Unfortunately, it's looking like this is a pretty uphill battle. The sponsor of this bill started out by talking about how "time-consuming and burdensome" it is to have to meet face-to-face with a notary, as an example, carrying on about his last need for a notary where he had to go to where his wife was getting her hair done, then meet with the notary at a building next door. IMHO, to anyone who understands how we work, it made absolutely no sense whatsoever. [I'm sure I'm not the only one who's often told about how "convenient" it was (or "painless") for me to go to them.]
One of the two speakers in favor of the bill was Bill Anderson of the NNA, in case anyone has any doubts about where they stand... My guess is that they, and the companies that have already started RON businesses in other states, have made some generous donations to Mr. Calderon's campaign coffers, because he seemed far from impartial on this bill.
I found two other comments by Mr. Calderon particularly interesting. 1) He essentially said that RON has been implemented in 16 other states and there haven't been any problems, so that proves it can be done right (as if that's enough time to discover any problems); and 2) he referred to the fact that the notary must perform the notarial act within their jurisdiction. In the context of a Remote Online Notarization, that statement seems to be meaningless to me. Is he saying that if I became a RON notary, I couldn't cross the state line into Arizona and remotely notarize someone from there? Who cares? If someone is notarizing remotely, they wouldn't need to travel anywhere to conduct the notarization.
I'm not convinced that he really understands the issue, but is just repeating what he's been told. If that's not the case, then he's being intentionally misleading. So here we go...