THE FIRST STATE BANK OF BURLINGAMEFrom: Steve DeWitt
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:44 PM
To: Comments
Subject: Alternative Forms of Privacy Notices
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on possible revisions to the
privacy notices required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
It seems interesting that the agencies want to spend more time on
this issue. Our bank and probably most other rural community banks
have already spent a great deal of time and money on the development of
the privacy notices currently used. Spending more time and money seems
unnecessary.
More importantly, we feel the need to send our customers a new notice
annually is an expense with little benefit to our customer. Privacy
notices now come to customers from many sources and as a result, very
few if any are now looked at. We would like to suggest that a notice
continue to be given to the customer up front but thereafter only be
sent if a change is made to a bank's existing notice. This method would
be similar to requirements of other consumer regulations where
redisclosing is only necessary when a change in account terms occurs.
Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue.
Sincerely,
Steven DeWitt
Sr. Vice President and Cashier
The First State Bank of Burlingame
Burlingame, Kansas