OK so I'm finished venting on a new, thoughtful question by Sara Pichelmann about SunTrust. (Not at Sara, but at SunTrust)

You know how the ire continues to bounce around for a minute or two (or longer). . . and then I had a what-if moment.  Laugh if you want, but . . .

I like many of you have transaction management software (I use eBrokerHouse - pretty cool stuff).  I transcribe the bank calls real-time into the system which automatically date-stamps them.  All very useful in staying organized and able to push facts back in the face of call-center dweebes, managers and supervisors, when necessary.  But if they don’t like what documen ted things you have to say, they tell you that their records “don’t show any of that discussion or action items as having been documented (didn't happen).”  Been there, done that, have you??

Then thinks me, they always start the call to announce that "X Bank is a debt collector and this call may be recorded for quality and training purposes."  How many times a day do you hear that? (OK it's a rhetorical question. - don't answer!)  We go yeah, yeah, yeah - What's the status of Loan No. XXXXXXX, it's been three months since Sally said it went management for approval.  What's going on?

What if we as a group, or individually, started investigating "legally disclosed" audio taping  and cataloging our calls to the banks?

How about:  "XYZ Realty and Clay Kime [you] are attempting to negotiate a debt, this call may be monitored for accuracy, quality and training purposes."  A legal beagle would have to  approve the proper FCC and Supreme Court disclosure nouns and verbs.

Why?  The Banks always provide "verbal" instruction to us and require us to provide written actions back to them.  In this scenario, who has the accountability, us or the banks? (another rhetorical question, it's the Banks)  This is deliberate, by the banks to totally avoid accountability for what they say and direct us to do, while holding us directly accountable to their smoke-and-mirrors policies by how we respond with written documents.

If we had a means of "LEGALLY" recording and cataloging these systematic calls, we just might have some ammo to get the liars at the banks held to accountability and a new standard of mutual truthfulness to be established, for the benefit of our clients.

I know I'm a bit (OK alot) wacky, but does that mean this is a bad idea? (What else are windmills for?)

Clay