Banks are given ratings from "substantial noncompliance" to "outstanding," based on efforts to meet the credit needs of their communities.

Banks would then receive ratings between 1 and 4, 1 being outstanding; 2, satisfactory; 3, needs to improve record, and 4, substantial noncompliance.

We lowered that threshold somewhat in Beckstrom v. Volusia County Canvassing Board, but we continued to require a substantial noncompliance with election laws.

Because of the drastic nature of those remedies, the court said, a defective ballot must be "in substantial noncompliance" with election laws.

As of April 16, 2008, St. Elizabeths is in "substantial noncompliance" with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Now, we've lowered that threshold somewhat in Beckstrom by saying that we would get involved, courts would get involved, if there was substantial noncompliance with election laws.

Only 8 percent were judged "need to improve" and 1 percent deemed in "substantial noncompliance."

But only about 11 percent of banks and savings associations have received "needs improvement" ratings, and less than 1 percent have received the worst "substantial noncompliance" rating.

Only proof of fraud, substantial noncompliance with election procedures, or an act of God could justify missing the legal deadline, she said.

Less than 1 percent of all banks and thrift institutions nationwide received the lowest rating: "substantial noncompliance."