I don't think there should be a link between commission fees & training requirements vs. allowable notarization fees.
The training requirements should be designed to produce competent notaries. But even with training, few people can remain competent without practice. What are the chances that a person could get a commission, not do any notarizations for 23 months, and then correctly carry out a notarization for a paralyzed person who can't write? The assumption should be that a competent notary will be carrying out a substantial number of notarizations, and if the notary charges fees, the total of the fees will dwarf the costs of a bond (see later), commission fee, and training cost.
As for bonds, usually the amount is some pittance like $1000, which isn't going to provide any noticeable help if someone's house title gets screwed up. From what I understand, notary bonds rarely pay out, and almost all the fees go administration cost and profit for the bonding company. It's like a toll bridge where all the money is paid to the toll keepers and nothing is spent on maintaining the bridge.
Some states, like mine, don't see any need to set fees; let competition determine the fees. But if a state thinks its necessary, it should be adjusted every 5 or ten years; if a state is going to leave it the same for a century, they'd be better off just doing away with notaries. The fee should be enough to cover the notary's time and ongoing expenses like insurance. And the time should allow for the fact that it takes at least as much time per notarization to do the marketing and bookkeeping as it does to do the notarization.
A few states limit the cost for mileage, and all the states that do that do it wrong. The notary isn't like a state employee who continues to draw her salary as she drives her private vehicle on state business. The notary is more like a taxi driver, where the fee per mile must reward the notary for the time spent driving as well as cover the expense of owing and operating the vehicle. |
