I have to agree with Robert here.  The ideas he posted at the beginning of this thread were great.  I don't really see how anyone can truly disagree with any of it.  So licencing may vary from state to state.  It is still better than no licencing at all.  I will gladly pay a small fee to the state verifiying that I know what I'm doing.  The realtors in Ohio have a similar requirement that has weeded out the folks that were doing one or two sales a year for family members.

I don't agree with everything that NALTEA has done in the short time they have been around, but I have no problem sending in my $200 a year.  This is the first and only organization that has the concerns of the title examiner in mind.  ALTA and the state organizations have too many other factions of the industry involved, and they can't concentrate on our little corner.

I just find it disingenious to say that NALTEA is not perfect, so it is best not to join.  If anyone has a better idea, I have yet to hear it.   For heavens sake, just join and have your vote, change the organinzation.  But to carp about what they are doing without putting your money on the table seems silly to me.

For those complaining about NALTEA and some of its members, are you also voicing your opinions to your state title organization and ALTA?  Do you see either of them having a greater concern for the issues we face as independent examiners?

I really don't know if NALTEA will grow to be what we envisioned.  It could be that the independent examiners will stay too divided for it to grow as much as we hoped.  But I am sure of one thing, if we don't get more volunteers on board to help with getting the message out that we are under siege now, that what we do is important to the consumer, we will be part of a dying industry.  Title Insurance will become more of a risk management product, and less the affimitive coverage that the public has been used to.