John Hermann mentioned you in his blog post to which he linked (http://era-blog.com/2012/01/20/two-different-models-for-monetary-reform/) from this discussion thread.
There is no universally accepted version of monetary reform. The basic proposal to abolish fractional reserve banking is often described as 'Full Reserve' banking. However this description can refer to a system in which every loan advanced is matched by reserves on a one for one basis, or alternatively to a system in which there are no reserves at all and money is exclusively created by a central monetary authority – with financial institutions disempowered from creating bank credit money (and thus only capable of acting in a truly intermediary capacity). A variant of the latter system has been proposed by Ellen Brown — namely, that only publicly-owned banks should be allowed to practice fractional reserve deposit expansion, but operating in parallel with private sector financial institutions who are disempowered from doing so. Her basis for trusting public banks to behave with due prudence, and for believing them incapable of falling into the mode of reckless lending behaviour displayed by many private banks in recent times, is that they are controlled by civil servants who presumably have no incentives for supporting Ponzi schemes or the casino. However in my opinion such a split system would open up a hornet's nest of tricky operational (not to mention political) problems.
"...only publicly-owned banks should be allowed to practice fractional reserve deposit expansion, but operating in parallel with private sector financial institutions who are disempowered from doing so." Is that your position, Ellen?
Monetary Reform: Series 1: here