Notarization Task Force Meeting Minutes June 19, 2019
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Notarization Task Force on Best Practices and Verification Standards To Implement Electronic Notarization Wednesday, June 19, 2019 (10:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.) James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 16-504 Chicago, IL 60601 Meeting Minutes 1. Welcome and roll call Chairman Weisbaum called the meeting to order at 10:45 a.m. and asked Micah Miller to take the roll call. The following members were present: Senator Linda Holmes, 42nd District David Weisbaum, Director, Secretary of State Index Department Tiffany Baum (designee for Mike Standley), Secretary of State Dept of Information Technology Andrew Dougherty, Consumer Fraud Bureau, Office of the Attorney General Meredith Mays Espino, Neal Gerber Eisenberg LLP Dan McLean, Illinois Credit Union League Susan Snyder, Corporate Fiduciaries Association of Illinois Matt Farrell, Chicago Association of Realtors Piero Orsi, Illinois Association of Realtors The following members were unable to attend: Representative Stephanie Kifowit, 84th District Senator John Curran, 41st District Ken Matuszewski, Rabicoff Law LLC Amy DeLaney, National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys Megan Peck (designee for Kraig Lounsberry), Community Bankers of Illinois The following individuals were also in attendance (asterisk indicates participation by phone): Ben Jackson, Illinois Bankers Association Brian Wojcicki, Illinois Land Title Association Roger Bickel, Freeborn and Peters LLP *Patrick Quist, Legislative Chair, Illinois Land Title Association *Vanasa Britton, Index Department, Secretary of State’s Office Micah Miller, Programs and Policies Staff, Secretary of State’s Office Amy Williams, Assistant General Counsel, Secretary of State’s Office Dave Fuchs, Programs and Policies Staff, Secretary of State’s Office Chairman Weisbaum recognized that a quorum was present (9 members or more physically present). 2. Approval of Minutes Chairman Weisbaum instructed members to locate the minutes from April 17, 2019 and asked if there were any other comments or revisions. Hearing none, Chairman Weisbaum asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Dan McLean made the motion and Piero Orsi seconded the motion. Hearing no objections, the minutes were approved. 3. Presentations on trends in electronic notarization: a. Pennsylvania Association of Notaries – Marc Aronson, President Marc Aronson introduced himself and thanked the Task Force for the opportunity to present. He answered the series of questions below, which can be found in the attachment titled “Marc Aronson Notes 6-19-19.” Are the states issuing a standard commission for paper notarization and a separate commission for electronic notaries? Do the states allow for a sole electronic notary commission? Is there an enhanced fee for electronic notary commissions? Is there a higher bond requirement for electronic notary commissions? Are education and testing standards established in other states? If so, does this occur with renewal of credentials? Do any states combine online application with online education and testing? How are electronic notaries’ electronic signatures and seals regulated in states? Do states keep a database of these identifiers? b. American Society of Notaries – Kathleen Butler, Executive Director Kathleen Butler introduced herself and thanked the Task Force for the opportunity to present. She answered the questions below, which can be found in the attachment titled “Kathleen Butler Notes 6-19-19.” Are there specific security standards imposed on eNotaries to protect customer identity information and access to eNotaries’ data? What are current trends in mandating the use and retention of notary journals, the type of journal allowed or specified, and related standards? What assurances can eNotaries provide to customers that their documents and identity information are safeguarded? What requirements are states imposing on eNotaries? Ben Jackson said that nothing is ever 100% secure, whether physical or electronic, and pointed to hackers who have compromised blockchains recently. He asked if vendors have experienced any problems related to “deep fake” techniques where images are superimposed to misrepresent someone. Ms. Butler was not aware of those specific issues, but said that the vendors she has worked with are very conscientious of an array of security concerns. Senator Holmes said that we live in a world with personal information that is easily transmitted and when you have a breach like Equifax, it gives us all pause, but that electronic notary is no more risky than many of the other established activities. Piero Orsi agreed with Senator Holmes, but said from the title company’s perspective the liability is huge when a fraudulent transfer takes place. Dan McLean asked if Ms. Butler thought a remote notarization could be more secure than a traditional paper notarization performed in person. Ms. Butler said that she supports all types of notarizations, but recognizes the enhanced tools that remote notarization may provide to scrutinize a transaction. Mr. Aronson mentioned a point about journaling, than all of the electronic vendors that he is aware of automatically journal the process on the back end. Tiffani Baum asked if the journals belong to the vendor or the notary. Ms. Butler said that sole custody and control of a journal would apply to a physical journal, whereas in the electronic world it could mean password protection or the notary has to authenticate to the system before having access. Bill Anderson said that some of the newer states who are enacting electronic notarization are entering into contracts with the vendor in order to archive the transactions. c. National Notary Association – Bill Anderson, Vice President, Govt. Affairs Bill Anderson introduced himself and thanked the Task Force for the opportunity to present. He answered the questions below, which can be found in the attachment titled “Bill Anderson Notes 6-19-19.” What general benefit do RULONA and UETA provide for states? States have created statutes to authorize eNotarization only to return to their legislature for major statute amendments. Is this prevalent and are there trends identifying why states find it necessary to retrofit their statutes? What can Illinois do to avoid this and reduce delays once enabling statutes are enacted? Susan Snyder asked about a recent bill in Florida, where 5 specific questions had to be asked of by a notary, who wished to perform witnessing services in a remote context related specifically to last wills, trusts, health care directives, powers of attorney and spousal waivers. She asked if that legislation was related to “vulnerable adult” legislation. Mr. Anderson said that it was. Amy Williams asked if Florida was the only state with that requirement. Mr. Anderson said that it was. Overall Discussion of the Presentations Matt Farrell said that it feels like there is a reliance on the technology vendor to provide adequate resources, but the culpability is placed upon the notary. He asked if vendors go out of business, who then is culpable for the journals without being very detailed in the statute. Meredith Mays Espino said that the notary would choose which vendor to work with, similar to how a bank is responsible when choosing a Knowledge Based Question vendor to work with, therefore it makes sense for the notary to have the liability. Mr. Farrell said that while a vague statue will better adapt to changing technology, it would be better to have more details on the requirements of the vendor. Ms. Butler suggested that you could have both a vaguely written statute, to adapt with changing technology, yet have detailed requirements for the vendor written into the administrative rules. Chairman Weisbaum agreed. Senator Holmes agreed and said it is also reasonable to expect that there will be changes and tweaks to the rules along the way. She also asked the presenters, which states they believe have the best handle on electronic notarization. Mr. Anderson said that if you are a state that agrees with the Uniform Law Commission and Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts (RULONA) then you would adopt the 2018 Amendments that go with it. Those states would be North Dakota, Idaho and Washington. He said then there are states that have done their own statutes with administrative rules like Texas, Tennessee and Ohio. He said those states have opted for a separate commission and have a comprehensive approach. He also said Minnesota is a state who accomplished it through statute without any administrative rules. Mr. Aronson said that the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) and the American Land Title Association (ALTA) have been heavily involved with Texas and Nevada. Brian Wojcicki said that he was aware of the statement from the National Association of Secretary’s of State Task Force that shared many of the same points that MBA and ALTA came out with. Mr. Wojcicki also agreed upon a statute for Illinois that offers more details in the administrative rules and said the Illinois Secretary of State would have to approve the technology. Mr. Aronson said that the Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization (MISMO) are coming out with technology standards and are almost done. Mr. Orsi said that it is important for a notary to know who is sitting in front of them. Ms. Butler agreed and said that when performing a remote notarization, one vendor in particular continually reminds people that the “stop” button is always there if they have a bad feeling about a notarial act. She also said that some of the rules she has seen enacted also provide specific guidance to the notary for when they can stop a notarial act. She also said that regarding timeframes, they saw states that jumped out into electronic notarization and left organizations like ALTA, MISMO, and MBA scrambling to put out standards and hash out details. She said in some cases early legislation was amended before even being adopted, but more recent enactments reflect that learning curve. Dan McLean asked if they had any statistics on recent fraud related to electronic notary. Mr. Aronson said it will be awhile before they see any statistics since the technology is so new.