By His Excellency

[thoughtanarchist]

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 notary’s 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 notary’s 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 applicant’s 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.

[MADem]

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!

[thoughtanarchist]

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:

[MADem]

3. Yep, DU does it right! n/t

[TaleWgnDg]

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.

[TaleWgnDg]

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.

[njdemocrat106]

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).

[welshTerrier2]

5. Be It Resolved ....

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 ...

[TaleWgnDg]

6. Let's give comments within the law . . .

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.


.

[thoughtanarchist]

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?

[TaleWgnDg]

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=US&vol=467&invol=216 .) And, if you are interested in the "whys" and the "whatnots" about notaries public, read this case, it's instructive.

.

[thoughtanarchist]

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

[TaleWgnDg]

12. LOL . . . yeah. There's hardly any qualifications to be

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!

.

[MADem]

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.

[TaleWgnDg]

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.

.

[MADem]

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!

[welshTerrier2]

11. oops ... deleted by author ...

oops ...