Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/31/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 92: REGULATION OF NOTARIES PUBLIC Number 224 REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 92, explained that the bill would require all notaries to maintain a current journal, which would protect the public by providing valuable documentary evidence of notarization, in the event that memory failed or the original documents were altered or misplaced. He added that a journal could protect a notary against a baseless lawsuit. He stated that HB 92 would also mandate the use of a rubber inking stamp instead of an embossed seal. He commented that many embossed seals used today could not be legibly reproduced when a document was copied or faxed. REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT mentioned that the basic duty of a notary was to serve the public as an impartial witness. Current notary laws did not provide guidelines to notaries on their roles as appointed ministerial officials of the state, he said. House Bill 92 would give notaries specific guidelines on impartiality, disqualifying interests, and unauthorized practices. He said that he had introduced the bill at the request of Lieutenant Governor Jack Coghill. He noted that it was very similar to a bill which had passed the House the year before. Number 272 PATTY TROTT, NOTARY ADMINISTRATOR, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, explained that notaries public were appointed by her office to act as ministerial officials, with specific duties prescribed in law. She stated that requiring notaries to keep journals would be a form of insurance against senseless lawsuits for the notaries. Additionally, she said that journals would assist the Lieutenant Governor's Office in that when questions regarding notarial acts arose, answers could be easily obtained. MS. TROTT mentioned that currently, notaries could use either an embossed seal or a rubber inking stamp. She commented that many times, when documents were faxed or photocopied, embossed impressions did not appear clearly. House Bill 92 would not preclude the use of an embossed seal in addition to a rubber inking stamp, she noted. She mentioned that the rubber inking stamp would also assist the state Recorder's Office in its procedures. MS. TROTT stated that HB 92 offered guidelines on specific issues, including disqualification, impartiality, and the unauthorized practice of law. Currently, she said, Alaska notaries operated under no specific guidelines. She explained that the present notary statutes had not been updated since they were first enacted in 1960, with the exception of a fee increase enacted in 1989. Number 355 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Ms. Trott to comment on changes made in section 11 of HB 92. Number 360 MS. TROTT replied that, in the original version of HB 92, seals and journals would be returned to the Lieutenant Governor's Office upon a notary's death, resignation, or the termination of that notary's commission. But, she said, the House Labor and Commerce Committee had amended the bill so as to require that only a notary's most recent address be sent to the Lieutenant Governor's Office, in any of those instances. Number 371 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS was aware of several incidents on the Kenai Peninsula over the last several years, in which a notary's journal would have prevented problems. She expressed an opinion that some notaries would find it difficult to give up the traditional embossed seals, however. Number 390 MS. TROTT reiterated her comment that a notary could continue to use an embossed seal, as long as it was in addition to the rubber inking stamp. Number 395 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Trott to comment on the possible problem of notaries' inked seals being copied for fraudulent purposes. Number 402 MS. TROTT commented that the year before, when HB 394 was introduced, it was thought that notaries could use blue ink. However, she said that there was a civil court rule which required that all court documents had to be in black ink. She said that in her two and one-half years as a notary administrator, she had never seen an instance of forgery regarding a rubber inking stamp. She noted that if a notary felt that the documents which he or she was notarizing might be used for fraudulent purposes, he or she could use the embossed seal. Number 420 MS. TROTT said that in many cases, her office looked at signatures, by which they could usually tell whether the signature on the document in question was authentic. Number 425 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that a notary could also initial over a rubber inking stamp's seal. Number 428 MS. TROTT stated that specific guidelines on how to prevent forgery could be included in the Notary Handbook. Number 435 CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that HB 92 required notaries, when making journal entries, to also obtain the signature of the person requesting the notarization. Number 440 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked Ms. Trott to tell the committee where last year's notary bill had died. MS. TROTT replied that, after unanimously passing the House, HB 394 had died in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Number 446 CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that a review by committee staff had brought several areas of concern to his attention. He called the committee's attention to language beginning on page 2, line 6 of the work draft dated March 4, 1993, where HB 92 referred to a "crime involving dishonesty." He asked Ms. Trott if she thought that the bill should further define a crime involving dishonesty. He also asked Ms. Trott if she felt that the bill needed a provision that, if a person was convicted of such a crime, his or her notary commission would be revoked. Number 460 MS. TROTT responded that HB 92 was written to comport with the Model Notary Act of 1984. She said that crimes involving dishonesty were not spelled out in that Act, but added that the committee could choose to include a more specific definition. She called the members' attention to page 5, line 7, which addressed the procedures that must be used when revoking a notary's commission. She mentioned that currently, the state did not have specific guidelines for revocation. House Bill 92 would give the lieutenant governor the authority to adopt regulations regarding revocation procedures, she noted, and the Notary Handbook would detail those procedures further. Number 481 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Trott if it was her intent to specify, in regulations, that a person convicted of a crime involving dishonesty would have his or her notary commission revoked. MS. TROTT replied in the affirmative. CHAIRMAN PORTER called the members' attention to language on page 3, line 8 of HB 92, which stated that a notary would be disqualified if he or she was related to the person who was requesting notarization. He had received letters from people who were concerned that this requirement would be a hardship, particularly in small communities. Number 502 MS. TROTT replied that notaries were commissioned to be ministerial officials of the state. As such, she said, they were appointed to be unbiased witnesses of signatures. She commented that, when notarizing a spouse's signature, it would be very hard to be unbiased. Number 507 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS understood that this particular provision had been a standard one for notaries throughout the United States for many years. Number 514 MS. TROTT stated that the National Notary Association and the Intermountain Notary Institute both defined notaries as people acting as unbiased witnesses, and recommended to all notaries that they not notarize documents of relatives. Number 529 CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned language on page 3, line 19 of HB 92, which held that a notary could not endorse or promote a product, service, contest, or other offering if the notary's title or seal was used in the endorsement or promotion statement. He expressed concerns that this provision, as written, might restrict a person's First Amendment rights. He asked Ms. Trott if she concurred with rewriting that provision, so as to say that a notary could not use his or her seal to endorse or promote anything. Number 542 MS. TROTT concurred with rewriting that language, but suggested saying that a notary could not use his or her commission, instead of seal. Number 553 CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned language regarding notary fees, at the top of page 3 of the work draft. He had been told that notaries charged a wide variety of fees, and asked Ms. Trott how she would go about establishing what was a "normal fee," for the purposes of HB 92. Number 572 MS. TROTT replied that the Lieutenant Governor's Office had always viewed notaries as providing a service to the public. In that light, she said, they recommended that notaries charge from $2 to $5 for a notarization. House Bill 92 did not address fees, she said, and a "normal" fee would simply depend on a particular notary's practices. If anyone complained that a notary charged too high of a fee, she said, her office recommended that that person use the services of another notary, including postmasters and foreign service officers. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Trott if she would view a notary, who traditionally charged high fees for her or his services, to violate the bill's provision regarding "normal" fees. Number 598 MS. TROTT replied that if a notary had a history of charging a particular fee, then that fee would be considered that notary's "normal" fee. Number 603 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that if a notary was to charge $10,000 for notarizing a document, she would consider that unequivocal grounds for decertification of a notary. Number 612 GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, called the members' attention to page 3, line 13 of the draft committee substitute to HB 92, which stated that a notary shall perform notarial acts unless there was a reason not to. That provision was a new requirement for notaries, she said. Under current law, she added, a notary could decline to perform a notarial act, merely because he or she was busy. The provision in HB 92, however, would give a notary less ability to refuse to perform a notarial act, she said. Number 633 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Trott if it was the intent of that language to prohibit a notary from declining to notarize a document at any person's request. Number 637 MS. TROTT stated that it had always been the policy of the Lieutenant Governor's Office that notaries should notarize documents brought to him or her in a lawful and reasonable manner. If, however, a notary felt that a document might be fraudulent or the person might be using fraudulent identification, then the notary could refuse to perform the notarial act. House Bill 92, she noted, adopted the policy which had been recommended to notaries for years. Number 651 CHAIRMAN PORTER understood the intent of the language. However, from a practical standpoint, he expressed concern that a notary working out of his or her home might be called upon at any hour of the day or night to perform a notarial act. In that situation, he said, a notary should be able to refuse to perform a notarization. Number 668 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS cited a situation in which a small business in a small town performed notarizations. It might not be convenient for a worker in that office to perform a notarization at the drop of a hat, she said, and the law should protect notaries. Number 673 MS. TROTT stated that subsection (a) of proposed AS 44.50.072 embodied the "meat" of the impartiality clause. She did not object to deleting subsection (b) from HB 92. Number 681 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that a proposed committee substitute for HB 92 would be drafted, incorporating elements which the committee had discussed. He said that the bill would be back before the committee when the committee substitute was ready. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 81 next.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|