Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

By His Excellency

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » Massachusetts Donate to DU
 
thoughtanarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:00 AM
Original message
By His Excellency
While the executive order does lay out some good standards of conduct for notaries public, it also puts appointments and removals at his discretion.

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/preidx.htm
center column scroll down for the link.
_________________________________

By His Excellency

MITT ROMNEY
GOVERNOR


REVISED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 455 (04-04)


STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR NOTARIES PUBLIC


WHEREAS, notaries public promote, serve, and protect the public interest by acting as independent witnesses in a variety of situations;

WHEREAS, notaries public currently lack specific guidance as to the nature and scope of their duties;

WHEREAS, it is important to foster ethical conduct among notaries public;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mitt Romney, Governor of the Commonwealth, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Supreme Executive Magistrate, Part 2, c. 2, I, Art. I, do hereby order as follows:

Section 1: Applicability.

(a) This executive order shall apply to all notaries public, including notaries public who received their commission before the effective date of this executive order. These standards will be considered by the Governor in the selection, appointment, reappointment and removal of notaries public from their commissions.


<snip>

"Official misconduct" shall mean:

(a) a notarys performance of any act prohibited, or failure to perform any act mandated, by this executive order, or by any other law, in connection with a notarial act; or

(b) a notarys performance of an official act in a manner found to be grossly negligent or against the public interest.

<snip>
Section 3: Qualifications of Applicants.

(a) A person qualified for a notary public commission shall:
(1) be at least 18 years of age; and
(2) reside legally or conduct business on a regular basis within in Massachusetts.
(b) In the Governor's discretion, an application may be denied based on:
(1) submission of an official application containing a material misstatement or omission of fact;
(2) the applicant's felony conviction or misdemeanor conviction that resulted in a prison sentence;

(3) the applicant's conviction of a misdemeanor with probation or a fine, or conviction for drunk driving;

(4) the applicant's admission of facts sufficient to warrant a finding of guilt of any crime;

(5) a finding or admission of liability against the applicant in a civil lawsuit based on the applicants deceit;
(6) revocation, suspension, restriction, or denial of a notarial commission or professional license by this or any other state; or
(7) any other reasons that, within the Governor's discretion, would make the applicant unsuitable to hold the commission as a notary public.

<snip>
Section 15: Revocation of Commission.

A notary public's commission may be revoked for official misconduct as defined by this Executive Order, or for other good cause, as determined by the Governor with the consent of the Governor's Council as set forth in Article XXXVII of the Articles of Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. Who the FUCK does he think he is??????
Why couldn't this be LEGISLATED??? Because Mitt the Shit is such as ASSHOLE that he is completely unable to communicate with the legislature. And it's also his way to hand out perks to his pals.

That man is a boil on the ass of the beloved Bay State. He should be packed back to Utah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtanarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I'm glad we have these state forums.
to help each other keep an eye out and holler when they play dirty pool.

:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yep, DU does it right! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. there is no "dirty pool" here . . . Romeny had full authority to do


there is no "dirty pool" here . . . Romeny had full authority to do as he did u/ MA constitution. see post #6.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. b4 you burst a main artery, try my post #6 . . .


b4 you burst a main artery, try my post #6 . . . ummmmm, Romney may be as you state; however, here, he, as governor, has full authority to do as he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
njdemocrat106 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'm countin' on you guys up there in Mass to vote ol' Mittens out
That guy rubbed me the wrong way when I watched the Salt Lake City Olympics. Send his ass back to Utah where it belongs (though I'm sure there are some Utah folks here who don't want him either).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. Be It Resolved ....
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 12:08 AM by welshTerrier2
that the party of the first part shall hereinafter be known in this agreement as the party of the first part ...

that the party of the second part shall hereinafter be known in the agreement as the party of the second part ...

the party of the first part is the duly elected Governor of Massachusetts ... the party of the second part is comprised of all Notaries Public receiving their commissions in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ...

be it resolved that a vote of two or more from the group referred to herein as the party of the second part can remove from office the party of the first part for any reason at any time but especially because he is such an arrogant ass ...

hear ye !! hear ye !! be it resolved ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. Let's give comments within the law . . .
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 01:28 AM by TaleWgnDg
Let's try to make statements/posts that are within the law instead of assuming stuff in DU postings that are not within the law. . .

1.) the Massachusetts constitution grants authority to the governor to nominate and appoint with the advice and consent of the governor's council . . . all notaries public;

2.) the governor signed an executive order under the authority granted to him in the MA constitution outlining certain policies and conduct for said notaries public;

3.) the MA constitution grants authority to the governor to remove notaries public with the consent of the governor's council; and

4.) despite what you and others in this DU thread have stated, the legislative branch is not involved in notaries public nominations, appointments or means of removal. The legislature lacks constitutional authority in this regard.

First, I've added (below) excerpts of Romney's EO #455, and then I've included the MA constitution, in pertinent part, which grants Romney authority on all of this (some Articles are amended where noted, so please add in the Amendment where indicated):

Governor Mitt Romney's Executive Order,
"REVISED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 455 (04-04)
"STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR NOTARIES PUBLIC
"Section 15: Revocation of Commission
"A notary public's commission may be revoked for official misconduct as defined by this Executive Order, or for other good cause, as determined by the Governor with the consent of the Governor's Council as set forth in Article XXXVII of the Articles of Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution."
"comply with this Executive Order by May 15, 2004"
(italicized emphasis added by TaleWgnDg)
http://www.mass.gov/legal/docs/EO455finalrevised.doc

Massachusetts constitution, "Article IV. Notaries public shall be appointed by the governor in the same manner as judicial officers are appointed, and shall hold their offices during seven years, unless sooner removed by the governor with the consent of the council, upon the address of both houses of the legislature. (See Amendments, Articles XXXVII, LXII, and LXIX, section 2)."
http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart004.htm

Massachusetts constitution, "Article IX. All judicial officers . . . shall be nominated and appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the council; and every such nomination shall be made by the governor, and made at least seven days prior to such appointment. . . . (For provision as to the appointment of notaries public, see Amendments, Arts. IV, LVII and LXIX, sec. 2.)"

Massachusetts constitution, "Article XXXVII. The governor, with the consent of the council, may remove justices of the peace and notaries public."
http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart037.htm

Massachusetts constitution, "Article LXIX.
"Section 1. No person shall be deemed to be ineligible to hold state, county or municipal office by reason of sex.
Section 2. Article IV of the articles of amendment of the constitution of the commonwealth, as amended by Article LVII of said amendments, is hereby further amended by striking out the words "Change of name shall render the commission void, but shall not prevent reappointment under the new name", and inserting in place thereof the following words: -- Upon the change of name of any woman, she shall re-register under her new name and shall pay such fee therefor as shall be established by the general court."
http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart069.htm


edited to add: the legislature was cut out of the process by Amendment Article XXXVII.


.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtanarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I never said this was against the law...
What's your interpretation of EO 455? What restrictions would you say are applied here that were not already in place?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Romney's EO 455 is an attempt to spell-out in plain
Romney's EO 455 is an attempt to spell-out in plain language who cannot be an official witness for the state of Massachusetts (that's what a notary is, an official witness of good and reputable character to the signings of legal documents who may testify to same in courts of law). As well as it's an attempt to spell-out in plain language how-to behave while holding the notary public commission. It also gives the public a legal notice of wrongdoings that may revoke the notary commission.

Prior to EO 455 it was left unsaid other than in broad terms, overall, who qualifies and how to behave while a notary. The language was legal in context and dependent upon Massachusetts case law; whereas, now, the language may be understood by the general public. However, much of the language remains case law determinative.

One last comment. There's a U.S. Supreme Court case that held non-U.S.-citizens may be notaries public in America. (See, Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=... .) And, if you are interested in the "whys" and the "whatnots" about notaries public, read this case, it's instructive.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtanarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. good post tale,
OK I'll take my corrections

:spank:

and I'll phrase this carefully because I don't like to use that spank icon:

look at section 3. Note the qualifications.

Will you verify that this says that the qualifications to be an NP in Mass are more stringent than those of the office of president?

(I'm refering to GWB DWI arrest in '76)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. LOL . . . yeah. There's hardly any qualifications to be
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 10:36 PM by TaleWgnDg
our U.S. president other than the constitutional age requirement, the place of birth requirement, and no (royal) titles. As opposed to our Massachusetts notary public requirements as stated in the Massachusetts constitution and as the constitution grants our governor to authorize. No doubt about it.

I believe there are more required qualifications to be an electrician in any of our States than it does to be president. But there's a reason for that. Our founding fathers left it open for the American public to decide who was to be president and the overall "qualifications" thereof.

So shall we blame the folks who voted for a president who admitted to driving while drunk in a court of law, and then lied about it later u/oath on a jury questionnaire when he omitted that he had such a record? Or that he lied about his military service too?

Hey, and put down that pan! That hurts!

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-05 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. My problem is not with the appointments
...it's with his setting the standards. Hell, he could require that they all be Republicans, with his overarching executive authority!

Governors can appoint who they chose, but the way this is playing, he could revoke for no other reason (like misconduct) than his say-so, and appoint based on political affiliation. There needs to be a defining standard that doesn't include obvious and outright graft....

I really think the legislature ought to craft that standard. After all, we are a commonwealth, not a dictatorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I hear what you are saying; however, as I stated above
I hear what you are saying; however, as I stated above, Governor Romney (or any governor) is within his legal authority to do as Romney did. Why is that so? Because our Massachusetts constitution says he can, period. I've posted the MA con, in pertinents parts, above. Did you read it?

Only an amendment to our Massachusetts constitution may change this. And it takes two sessions of both Massachusetts legislative houses in two consecutive years to pass a potential amendment plus the following year of such potential amendment placed on the Massachusetts ballot for a public vote, up or down. Until that time, the authority remains within the governor.

As for my own opinion, Romney did well in what he did. As I stated earlier, Romney spelled-out what "good and reputable character" and what "moral character" may mean for those who qualify and remain as notaries public. It makes it easier not harder. And there's no underlying agenda as you suggest.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Ok, fine, I understand the legal background
And I still think the legislature could craft a document, a resolution, a list of suggestions or recommendations, a working group report, ANYTHING, and send it to the Governor. It doesn't have to have the force of law. Normal Governors consult with their legislatures (you know, those guys who represent WE THE PEOPLE) all the time--not this one.

And I ask you this one simple question: WHY? We've had notaries in the Commonwealth for centuries, if it is the perogative of the Governor to appoint them with the imprimatur of the Gov's Council, ole Mitt should just get off his ass and do it, like every other governor has done. What the fuck is the Executive Order for? So people will think he is working? A fancy paper with a big gold seal for hairspray boy to sign? If he knows who he wants, he should say "Hey YOUSE! I anoint thee!" and the Council should say YES or NO. It seems to have worked just fine that way up to now, why the sudden change?

What's the point of the Order? Because he tacitly disapproves of the way OTHER governors have made appointments, and wants to pee on the ole Bay State tree, leaving his Utah mark for others to follow? So he can cull the list? What's the POINT?

This smells to me like a clearing out process. There are probably a few old, surely Democrats all, pols who have gotten their slightly shady pals a notary stamp, and Mitt wants them off the rolls. That makes room for HIS pals, and he can fuck with the old timers just to let them know he's in that corner office, since he sure can't work with the legislature in any reasonable manner.

There's no reason I can fathom for the order, except the hubris of the signer. He knows what he wants, and he wants everyone else to know what he wants, so he issues an edict. How very unneccessary...how very Republican!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
11. oops ... deleted by author ...
Edited on Sun Jan-09-05 12:20 PM by welshTerrier2
oops ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 16th 2014, 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Massachusetts Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC