November 2006 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

RE: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check
by Bill Edgar 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

Kay, The Red Cross has suffered several breaches of data of the last two years. They've had 3 laptops stolen and one laptop lost. Several of the laptops contained names, social security numbers, dates of birth and medical information of regional blood donors. They've also had a dishonest employee with access to donor information steal a number of identities and used them fraudulently. Incidentally, I have read reports that an incident of theft of identity costs the victim more than $10,000 in expenses, time lost from work, etc, etc... I have seen the credit report on mybackgroundcheck.com. There is not much information available on them. It is my opinion that the Red Cross has bitten off more than they are willing to chew and there probably will be a very quiet announcement that the credit checks and mode of living checks won't be necessary. But I expect this much later down the road. Of the more than 1.2 million Red Cross staff and registered volunteers nationwide, 70,000 have signed up for this background check. That's less than 6%! I suspect that the majority of those who have complied are Red Cross staff members as a condition of employment. The Red Cross mandated these checks for staff and registered volunteers to be completed by October 31, 2006 and they have extended this deadline to December 31, 2006. As a Red Cross disaster instructor, I taught Red Cross disaster courses to over 150 people a year ago in September. This was after the Red Cross "call to arms" for volunteers to go down to the Katrina/Rita affected areas to assist in relief efforts. There were several people in these classes that I felt should not be Red Cross volunteers. I passed the information to our local chapter and I was told that Red Cross National needed warm bodies and essentially they didn't care to know who shouldn't be going. I have spent a number so years as a Red Cross volunteer for my local chapter in various positions, from committee member, to board member to chapter chair. I am currently a board member and disaster chairman for our local chapter. I have been asked to complete this background check and I along with several of our board members have informed that chapter that we will not submit to any background check other than a criminal background check through a law enforcement agency. Quite frankly, I think Joel did the right thing by informing our members about reading the "fine print" on the Red Cross background checks and letting our members decide for themselves whether to sign-up or not. You've got some very talented people on your committee and I look forward to hearing your report. - Bill N3LLR > -----Original Message----- > From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@comcast.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 7:40 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check > > I understand the Red Cross's need to protect their corporate backsides and > protect the clients they serve, and I would agree to a criminal background > check done on me by a law enforcement agency. > > However, Red Cross has claimed that they can't do their checks through a > law > enforcement agency. The only reason I can think of that they couldn't do > it > via law enforcement is that they are leaving open the option of doing > *more* > than a criminal background check. > > They say they don't intend to do credit and lifestyle checks but they need > prior authorization to do such checks in case they change their mind and > decide they do need to do such checks about some individual for reasons > that > they do not specify. If that ain't double talk, it will do until double > talk > comes along. > > There is no mechanism I know of for an individual who is ruled out by this > background check outfit to find out why he or she was deemed unfit to > serve > and to provide any information in his or her defense. What are the > criteria > for deciding who's okay and who is not? Nobody is saying. > > So there's the Big Brother angle and then there's the risk of identity > theft, a whole 'nother ballgame as we said when I was a kid down south. > > The bottom line for me is that I'm hearing way too much double-talk from > the > Red Cross and I do not find some of their assertions and assurances to be > credible. As a private individual, I would refuse to authorize the > background check they require. > > As an Officer of the League, I think that given the present state of the > MOU > and the silence of ARRL policy on this kind of thing, President Harrison's > advice to "look before you leap" was the right tone to take. > > The whole issue of credentialling for ARES disaster communications > volunteers deployed outside their home areas is a very thorny one. The ad > hoc committee that I am chairing will endeavor to shed light on the key > points of the dilemma in our report to you. For now, the 25-cent version > is > that the background check thing is not solely a Red Cross issue and it > isn't > going away. We're going to have to devise a policy and review agreements > with national served agencies. > > 73 - Kay N3KN >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check
by Kay Craigie 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

I understand the Red Cross's need to protect their corporate backsides and protect the clients they serve, and I would agree to a criminal background check done on me by a law enforcement agency. However, Red Cross has claimed that they can't do their checks through a law enforcement agency. The only reason I can think of that they couldn't do it via law enforcement is that they are leaving open the option of doing *more* than a criminal background check. They say they don't intend to do credit and lifestyle checks but they need prior authorization to do such checks in case they change their mind and decide they do need to do such checks about some individual for reasons that they do not specify. If that ain't double talk, it will do until double talk comes along. There is no mechanism I know of for an individual who is ruled out by this background check outfit to find out why he or she was deemed unfit to serve and to provide any information in his or her defense. What are the criteria for deciding who's okay and who is not? Nobody is saying. So there's the Big Brother angle and then there's the risk of identity theft, a whole 'nother ballgame as we said when I was a kid down south. The bottom line for me is that I'm hearing way too much double-talk from the Red Cross and I do not find some of their assertions and assurances to be credible. As a private individual, I would refuse to authorize the background check they require. As an Officer of the League, I think that given the present state of the MOU and the silence of ARRL policy on this kind of thing, President Harrison's advice to "look before you leap" was the right tone to take. The whole issue of credentialling for ARES disaster communications volunteers deployed outside their home areas is a very thorny one. The ad hoc committee that I am chairing will endeavor to shed light on the key points of the dilemma in our report to you. For now, the 25-cent version is that the background check thing is not solely a Red Cross issue and it isn't going away. We're going to have to devise a policy and review agreements with national served agencies. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

Hy W2SEL
by Bob Vallio 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

Sometimes it's nice to be nice. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to participate. 73, Bob -- W6RGG On 11/10/06, Joel Harrison <w5zn(a)arrl.org> wrote: > > You will recall at the July board meeting we all signed a birthday card > for W2SEL. > > > > I received the attached note from him a few weeks ago. > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:14759] Re: Red Cross background check
by Jim Weaver 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

Brian, FYI, I was told by F&ES just about two years ago that the MOU would be renegotiated "very soon." Notice that this was just about two years ago and I've not seen any movement toward the renegotiation so far. I understand that "more pressing" tasks often get in the way of more routine tasks. If this is what happened to the renegotiated MOU, it seems to me that renegotiating the MOU has just recently been moved to the front burner through no action of ARRL's. The background check issue is only one of two especially thorny points I have with National RC officials and their arrogance. I'm still waiting for someone to shoot me down if what I've said is out of line. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:48 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14759] Re: Red Cross background check All -- As someone who's been scrutinized and cleared out of the wazoo as part of my career working with "certain" government communities, I still will not support ARC in this matter. Their intentions may be good, but their methodology is flawed. If they want only a criminal background check, they should require only the minimal information necessary to conduct said check. If that were reality, we'd not be having this discussion, nor would many ARES groups around the country. My local ARES group has a solution, though it was not spawned from this situation with ARC. Sandoval county (NM) ARES has a super-tight relationship with their county government and public service orgs. The county will run an NCIC check on all their volunteers. They want some comfort with who's helping them, so they conduct the criminal check, asking only for the necessary, minimal information, and picking up the expense. A cop only really needs a name and DOB to conduct a check, though some additional non-personal information (address, etc.) might be necessary to filter the correct Jim Smith from all the others. No SSN, credit check, mode of living check, etc. needed. I see no reason why ARC and their notoriety can't also interface with a law enforcement agency to run a quick, non-invasive NCIC check on their volunteers, either at the national level or at their chapter level. Then they'd have their warm and fuzzy feeling, and their volunteers wouldn't be left with a bad taste in their mouth after being asked for tons of personal information with no assurances of how it'll be used, safeguarded, destroyed and kept from being sold...or not. Or, they could request that their contractor, mybackgroundcheck.com, restrict their "investigation" accordingly. In doing so, ARC might reduce the new attrition rate they might be realizing after having required this invasive, undefined, and very open-ended background check, all just to ascertain if Jim Smith has a criminal background or not. ARRL's MOU with Red Cross is to be reviewed periodically if I'm not mistaken. I think some revision is in order unless they come to some resolution on this. My two pesos worth. And someone, please, take away Sandy's ACLU (All Criminals [and terrorists] Love Us) membership card and replace with an NRA membership and concealed carry license. 73, Brian, N5ZGT

1 0

[arrl-odv:14759] Re: Red Cross background check
by Brian Mileshosky 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

All -- As someone who's been scrutinized and cleared out of the wazoo as part of my career working with "certain" government communities, I still will not support ARC in this matter. Their intentions may be good, but their methodology is flawed. If they want only a criminal background check, they should require only the minimal information necessary to conduct said check. If that were reality, we'd not be having this discussion, nor would many ARES groups around the country. My local ARES group has a solution, though it was not spawned from this situation with ARC. Sandoval county (NM) ARES has a super-tight relationship with their county government and public service orgs. The county will run an NCIC check on all their volunteers. They want some comfort with who's helping them, so they conduct the criminal check, asking only for the necessary, minimal information, and picking up the expense. A cop only really needs a name and DOB to conduct a check, though some additional non-personal information (address, etc.) might be necessary to filter the correct Jim Smith from all the others. No SSN, credit check, mode of living check, etc. needed. I see no reason why ARC and their notoriety can't also interface with a law enforcement agency to run a quick, non-invasive NCIC check on their volunteers, either at the national level or at their chapter level. Then they'd have their warm and fuzzy feeling, and their volunteers wouldn't be left with a bad taste in their mouth after being asked for tons of personal information with no assurances of how it'll be used, safeguarded, destroyed and kept from being sold...or not. Or, they could request that their contractor, mybackgroundcheck.com, restrict their "investigation" accordingly. In doing so, ARC might reduce the new attrition rate they might be realizing after having required this invasive, undefined, and very open-ended background check, all just to ascertain if Jim Smith has a criminal background or not. ARRL's MOU with Red Cross is to be reviewed periodically if I'm not mistaken. I think some revision is in order unless they come to some resolution on this. My two pesos worth. And someone, please, take away Sandy's ACLU (All Criminals [and terrorists] Love Us) membership card and replace with an NRA membership and concealed carry license. 73, Brian, N5ZGT

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check
by Jim Weaver 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

Mike, I'm not planning to up the ante on ODV, but I've already discussed the stupidity of the Mybackgroundcheck.com requirement that people "us" volunteers must give approval for Credit and mode of living checks via my monthly (or more often) newsletter to members. I've also drafted a letter to the local Chapter with copies to my friend, the Disaster Chairman in which I give approval for RC to do a criminal check only on me and chastise them for their abysmal business practice regarding the other checks. This attitude (as Joel knows) has not been popular with a couple of Great Lakes Division members, but is supported by most of them who have expressed an opinion. I have no idea how other members of the Board Family feel regarding any possible outright recommendation against giving permission to the checks, but I do not intend to recommend against any GLD member giving approval to the whole enchilada. Conversely, I certainly will not recommend to any of them that they give such OK. I suggest that the caution Joel gave to members is as far as we ought to go under existing circumstances. Having said this, I understand fully that the National office of the ANRC is about as arrogant as any group of people can be. (My familiarity with the Cincinnati Area Chapter is delightfully different.) Nonetheless, I am a little disappointed that our supposed good relations with ANRC don't seem to have provided any benefit (including prior warning and the ability to discuss the pending situation) whatsoever. I realize I am naïve when it comes to many practices monitored and managed by HQ, but I would have hoped we would have had some mechanism for initiating productive discussions before a bomb of this type had been dropped. It would seem to me that our MOU with the RC is essentially worthless if it does not foster mutual discussions on thorny topics. OK, someone, shoot me down. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 -----Original Message----- From: Mike Raisbeck [mailto:k1twf@arrl.net] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 8:57 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check Below is a quote from Red Cross's Laura Howe, as presented in the ARRL letter today. Sure looks fishy to me. It's political BS, and, of course, you all know it ;-) I think some VERY direct answers from the Red Cross are in order. 1 - WHY is it important that the credit check language be included? 2 - Since the credit check is apparently quite rare, WHY must the consent be given ahead of time? Why not request the permission only when there is an intent to run a credit check. At this point, if I am asked by any ham what I would do if I were asked to give the consent requested by the Red Cross, I will respond quite directly that I would not give consent. Lest you think I'm opposed to all checks, let me point out that as chairman and member of a charter school board, I have had to fill out annual financial disclosure forms, and to submit to criminal background checks (called CORI Checks here in Massachusetts.) These make sense in the context of the position held. No one, however, has ever asked me for a credit check in these contexts. It seems to me that the "tread cautiously and read very carefully ..." pablum that we have been dishing out as advice to our members is an order of magnitude too weak. Guess I'll be sitting out the next hurricane :-( Mike K1TWF PS - let's up the ante a little. I ask each of you to state to ODV whether or not you have or will sign up for this check. Please explain your answer, and please indicate whether you are willing to share your answer with your consitiuents. ----------------------- "The Red Cross realizes some volunteers may have concerns about authorizing a credit check. Those concerns are understandable," Howe said. "But please rest assured that credit checks are only run in rare instances and are not a part of the routine minimum basic check the Red Cross performs on employees or volunteers." Howe told the League that the "standard minimum check" verifies the applicant's Social Security number and a search of the National Criminal File for the past seven years. "While the Red Cross will never run a credit check on the vast majority of its employees and volunteers," she asserted, "it is important that this standard language is included in the consent form to protect our clients, volunteers and employees." ----------------------------------- Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message.

1 0

[arrl-odv:14757] Re: Red Cross background check
by Andy Oppel 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

I agree with you and Mike. I used to help the Red Cross with the Bay To Breakers run in San Francisco. They sent me the form letter about background checks, which I ignored. Then they sent me an e-mail reminder. I told them I wouldn't give consent to the background check for several reasons (and spelled those out). I got a response that my note was being handed over to the chapter's volunteer coordinator who could better respond to my concerns. Then nothing. And I guess I won't expect that response now that it's been over 3 weeks. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 04:05 PM 11/10/2006, w4ru(a)bellsouth.net wrote: >Mike-After years of doing public service work for Red Cross and >others I quickly came to the conclusion dealing with the Red Cross >si like pushing on a strand of cooked spaghetti---you push on one >end and nothing happens on the other end. >I agree that if they don't need the information then they don't need >to be asking for it. I for one will not submit to this fishing >expedition. If I got caught submitting to this snooping, they they >wil tear up myy ACLU membership card. >If asked, and i have, then I wil state my opinion. >73 Sandy, W4RU > > > > From: "Mike Raisbeck" <k1twf(a)arrl.net> > > Date: 2006/11/10 Fri PM 08:56:45 EST > > To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> > > Subject: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check > > > > Below is a quote from Red Cross's Laura Howe, as presented in the ARRL > > letter today. Sure looks fishy to me. It's political BS, and, of course, > > you all know it ;-) > > > > I think some VERY direct answers from the Red Cross are in order. > > > > 1 - WHY is it important that the credit check language be included? > > 2 - Since the credit check is apparently quite rare, WHY must the > consent be > > given ahead of time? Why not request the permission only when there is an > > intent to run a credit check. > > > > > > At this point, if I am asked by any ham what I would do if I were asked to > > give the consent requested by the Red Cross, I will respond quite directly > > that I would not give consent. > > > > > > Lest you think I'm opposed to all checks, let me point out that as chairman > > and member of a charter school board, I have had to fill out annual > > financial disclosure forms, and to submit to criminal background checks > > (called CORI Checks here in Massachusetts.) These make sense in > the context > > of the position held. No one, however, has ever asked me for a > credit check > > in these contexts. > > > > > > It seems to me that the "tread cautiously and read very carefully ..." > > pablum that we have been dishing out as advice to our members is > an order of > > magnitude too weak. > > > > > > Guess I'll be sitting out the next hurricane :-( > > > > > > Mike > > K1TWF > > > > > > PS - let's up the ante a little. I ask each of you to state to ODV whether > > or not you have or will sign up for this check. Please explain > your answer, > > and please indicate whether you are willing to share your answer with your > > consitiuents. > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > "The Red Cross realizes some volunteers may have concerns about authorizing > > a credit check. Those concerns are understandable," Howe said. "But please > > rest assured that credit checks are only run in rare instances > and are not a > > part of the routine minimum basic check the Red Cross performs on employees > > or volunteers." Howe told the League that the "standard minimum check" > > verifies the applicant's Social Security number and a search of > the National > > Criminal File for the past seven years. > > > > "While the Red Cross will never run a credit check on the vast majority of > > its employees and volunteers," she asserted, "it is important that this > > standard language is included in the consent form to protect our clients, > > volunteers and employees." > > > > ----------------------------------- > > Michael N. Raisbeck > > > > Phone: (978) 250-1236 > > Fax: (978) 250-0432 > > Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential > > information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have > > received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, > dissemination, > > or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply > > email and delete this message. > > > > > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:14756] Re: Red Cross background check
by w4ru＠bellsouth.net 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

Mike-After years of doing public service work for Red Cross and others I quickly came to the conclusion dealing with the Red Cross si like pushing on a strand of cooked spaghetti---you push on one end and nothing happens on the other end. I agree that if they don't need the information then they don't need to be asking for it. I for one will not submit to this fishing expedition. If I got caught submitting to this snooping, they they wil tear up myy ACLU membership card. If asked, and i have, then I wil state my opinion. 73 Sandy, W4RU > > From: "Mike Raisbeck" <k1twf(a)arrl.net> > Date: 2006/11/10 Fri PM 08:56:45 EST > To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> > Subject: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check > > Below is a quote from Red Cross's Laura Howe, as presented in the ARRL > letter today. Sure looks fishy to me. It's political BS, and, of course, > you all know it ;-) > > I think some VERY direct answers from the Red Cross are in order. > > 1 - WHY is it important that the credit check language be included? > 2 - Since the credit check is apparently quite rare, WHY must the consent be > given ahead of time? Why not request the permission only when there is an > intent to run a credit check. > > > At this point, if I am asked by any ham what I would do if I were asked to > give the consent requested by the Red Cross, I will respond quite directly > that I would not give consent. > > > Lest you think I'm opposed to all checks, let me point out that as chairman > and member of a charter school board, I have had to fill out annual > financial disclosure forms, and to submit to criminal background checks > (called CORI Checks here in Massachusetts.) These make sense in the context > of the position held. No one, however, has ever asked me for a credit check > in these contexts. > > > It seems to me that the "tread cautiously and read very carefully ..." > pablum that we have been dishing out as advice to our members is an order of > magnitude too weak. > > > Guess I'll be sitting out the next hurricane :-( > > > Mike > K1TWF > > > PS - let's up the ante a little. I ask each of you to state to ODV whether > or not you have or will sign up for this check. Please explain your answer, > and please indicate whether you are willing to share your answer with your > consitiuents. > > > ----------------------- > > "The Red Cross realizes some volunteers may have concerns about authorizing > a credit check. Those concerns are understandable," Howe said. "But please > rest assured that credit checks are only run in rare instances and are not a > part of the routine minimum basic check the Red Cross performs on employees > or volunteers." Howe told the League that the "standard minimum check" > verifies the applicant's Social Security number and a search of the National > Criminal File for the past seven years. > > "While the Red Cross will never run a credit check on the vast majority of > its employees and volunteers," she asserted, "it is important that this > standard language is included in the consent form to protect our clients, > volunteers and employees." > > ----------------------------------- > Michael N. Raisbeck > > Phone: (978) 250-1236 > Fax: (978) 250-0432 > Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential > information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have > received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, > or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply > email and delete this message. > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check
by Mike Raisbeck 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

Below is a quote from Red Cross's Laura Howe, as presented in the ARRL letter today. Sure looks fishy to me. It's political BS, and, of course, you all know it ;-) I think some VERY direct answers from the Red Cross are in order. 1 - WHY is it important that the credit check language be included? 2 - Since the credit check is apparently quite rare, WHY must the consent be given ahead of time? Why not request the permission only when there is an intent to run a credit check. At this point, if I am asked by any ham what I would do if I were asked to give the consent requested by the Red Cross, I will respond quite directly that I would not give consent. Lest you think I'm opposed to all checks, let me point out that as chairman and member of a charter school board, I have had to fill out annual financial disclosure forms, and to submit to criminal background checks (called CORI Checks here in Massachusetts.) These make sense in the context of the position held. No one, however, has ever asked me for a credit check in these contexts. It seems to me that the "tread cautiously and read very carefully ..." pablum that we have been dishing out as advice to our members is an order of magnitude too weak. Guess I'll be sitting out the next hurricane :-( Mike K1TWF PS - let's up the ante a little. I ask each of you to state to ODV whether or not you have or will sign up for this check. Please explain your answer, and please indicate whether you are willing to share your answer with your consitiuents. ----------------------- "The Red Cross realizes some volunteers may have concerns about authorizing a credit check. Those concerns are understandable," Howe said. "But please rest assured that credit checks are only run in rare instances and are not a part of the routine minimum basic check the Red Cross performs on employees or volunteers." Howe told the League that the "standard minimum check" verifies the applicant's Social Security number and a search of the National Criminal File for the past seven years. "While the Red Cross will never run a credit check on the vast majority of its employees and volunteers," she asserted, "it is important that this standard language is included in the consent form to protect our clients, volunteers and employees." ----------------------------------- Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message.

1 0

RE: Hy W2SEL
by Jim Weaver 10 Nov '06

10 Nov '06

"Priceless!" Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:54 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Hy W2SEL You will recall at the July board meeting we all signed a birthday card for W2SEL. I received the attached note from him a few weeks ago. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0