Vermont released IPEN and RON rules (which affect traditional notaries too) which go into effect Wednesday February 26, 2025. They may be downloaded from
Notaries who want to do IPEN, RON, or RIN must obtain a special endorsement; in the electronic application system one would add a specialty.
Continuing education about IPEN, RIN and RON are only required for renewal; no education seems to be required for the first special endorsement.
The only kind of copy certification allowed is certifying a tangible copy of an electronic record. According to 5-1 b, âWith regard to certifying a copy, Vermont-Commissioned notaries public may certify only that a tangible copy of an electronic record is an accurate copy of the electronic record. Vermont-Commissioned notaries public may not certify any other forms of records.â
With the exception of very simple files such as text files and computer program listings, I would not be willing to certify that a tangible copy is a copy of an electronic record, because electronic records like PDFs usually have metadata that doesnât get printed.
Another problem area is 7-4 a which states âA notary public authorized to perform notarial acts on electronic records shall use the same electronic signature and electronic official stamp, if using, for all electronic notarial acts.â But what does âelectronic signatureâ mean in this rule, and what does âsameâ mean?
The definition (1-9) says ââElectronic signatureâ means an electronic symbol, sound, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by an individual with the intent to sign the record.â That could mean the PROCESS Adobe Acrobat uses to affix an electronic signature. It could mean a picture of the notaryâs handwritten signature. It could mean a signature made with an electronic stylus. If a notary has digital certificates from two different certification authorities, are they considered THE SAME for this rule?
How on earth can Vermont equate an electronic signature with an electronic sound?
I agree with @Arichter â yet another state making electronic notarization rules with no practical knowledge. Does Vermont seek input from their notaries before implementing changes?
Q. How on earth can Vermont equate an electronic signature with an electronic sound?
A. The phrasing is also found in the version of the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts recommended by the Uniform Law Commission, and adopted by Vermont.
It goes back to the federal ESIGN law enacted in 2000 which says
(5) Electronic signature
The term âelectronic signatureâ means an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.
It seems kind of crazy to use a recorded sound as a signature for a notarized document, but itâs not quite so strange if you think of saying âyesâ to agree to something in a recorded agreement.
Q. Does Vermont seek input from their notaries before implementing changes?
A. They had two public hearings on Microsoft Teams, and I attended one of them and had a lot to say. They listened to some of what I had to say, but didnât fix the majority of the things I complained about.
They fixed rule 4.7 to clarify a commission ends at the end of the day of the last day of the commission period; the draft wasnât clear if it was midnight at the beginning of the day or end of the day.
There was a requirement in the draft that the notarial certificate be on the same page as the signers signature. This was softened in 5-3 f to âevery effort should be made for the certificate to be on the same page as the name and signature of the individual;â
There was a requirement that the pages of a multi-page record be âstapledâ. I indicated it should just say âsecurely attachedâ since there were other methods that are better than staples, and showed an example.
I was going to give them credit for fixing 5-2 f v but in paragraph C they said âandâ when they should have written âorâ, rendering almost every notarial certificate in the state invalid.
I suggested they should require that âNotary Publicâ appear in official stamps; they did that.
