Using Excel as a notary journal?

The National Notary Association recently posted an article, "May I Use A Spreadsheet Program To Record Notary Journal Entries? in their online Notary Bulletin. The article was in the form of a question from J. G., a Pennsylvania notary, and the NNA's answer. The answer noted that Pennsylvania allows electronic journals, but the electronic journal must be tamper-evident and meet the other Pennsylvania requirements. But can an Excel journal be tamper evident?

Lets consider the tamper-evident features of a traditional paper journal. The pages are bound together, not just loose leaf or stapled. The pages are numbered by the manufacturer. The journal entries are signed by the signers the notarial acts are performed for.

Leaving aside the signer's signatures, it would be evident if blank spaces were being left between entries, or if a new entry were squeezed between existing entries. This makes it evident if a falsely dated (or entirely fabricated) entry is made by a busy notary who makes entries nearly every day. To insert a false entry that appears to have been made several days in the past, the notary would have to obtain a new journal, re-write all the entries from the beginning of the journal up to the date and time of the false entry, put in the false entry, and then copy in all the real entries after the false one. This would be a lot of work and would serve as a deterrent. In addition, the signers would not be available to resign all those entries, so the signatures would have to be forged.

In the case of an electronic journal, the notary could read all the necessary old entries electronically, put them in a new spreadsheet, insert the false entry, then continue to copy the new true entries that occurred after the false entry. If the signer merely created an image of a signature using a mouse or electronic pen, that could be copied exactly. If the signer singed the journal using an independent secure digital signature, it would be very difficult to forge it, but current enotarization systems do not provide for this, and certainly a signer seeking a notarization of a paper document will not be prepared to perform a secure digital signature. Indeed, so far, statutes for remote enotarization don't require the signer to sign the journal at all.

To counteract this, each entry could be esigned by the notary using an independent time-stamping service, and each entry could contain a pointer to the previous entry.  It would be evident that a journal had been tampered with, because the independent timestamps would continue along at the notary's usual pace, but then there would be several entries with notarization dates that are several days earlier than their associated timestamps.

However, I have never seen any system that integrates this sort of function into Excel.


Last-minute amendment to allow webcam notarization in Vermont

Proponents of webcam notarization are trying to sneak it in at the last minute, as an amendment to H.526, which would adopt the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts. The legislature is trying to finish its business and adjourn on Friday, May 11, so everything is moving fast.

The bill may be found by going to https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2018/H.526 and looking at the line that contains "House proposal of amendment to Senate proposal of amendment". Click on "P. 4144" and in the PDF that downloads, search on "4144" to get to that page. (The Journal of the Senate page numbers start at the beginning of the term in 2016; the PDF is only 126 pages long.)

I hope even proponents of webcam notarization (which I am not),  would oppose badly written laws. This amendment is very badly written indeed.

  1. Webcam notarization is controversial and technically complex. I oppose any legislation on this subject that is introduced at the last minute without the opportunity for consideration and the hearing of testimony by appropriate committees.
  2. In-person electronic notarization is legal today under V.S.A. Title 9 Chapter 20, Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. This amendment would suddenly outlaw these notarizations until the Secretary of State creates rules for them. The amendment fails to clearly state the date the prohibition would go into effect.
  3. Although I oppose webcam notarizations, if it is to be done at all, it should be done right. This amendment fails to specify many aspects that go beyond executive branch rule making. One example: if the notary is in Vermont, but the person executing the record is in another state, is it lawful? If so, is the place of notarization considered to be Vermont or the other state?