Whatever trust I had in Red Cross is evaporating fast due to promises made and not kept, not to mention the obvious disarray in their decision making machinery.  Add to that the fact we can't seen to figure out [now] if there even as entity called mybackgroundcheck.com,.  Even if you assume it is an actual "entity", there's still no reason to trust them at all.  This is one heck of a way to run a railroad, and I for one have a hard time holding my tongue when standing in front of the Membership!  I get asked about this in every forum, so they're looking to us for guidance, and many are _not_ happy with ARC right now.

So my take is this:  ARC's problem, mybackgroundcheck.com's problem, or just plain mis-management - doesn't matter.  Our members are looking to us, because there's no where else to turn, unless you want to give some unknown bunch permission to invade your life - which I for one _WILL NOT DO_.  Right now, the League still commands the high ground.  Let's not compromise that away.

73,
Karl, WA5TMC
----------------------------------------------------
"Of, By, and For..." - Not just words!
Karl Bullock, WA5TMC
ARRL Vice-Director - Delta Division
321 CR 458
Ripley, MS  38663
662 512-8053



Andy Oppel wrote:
Bill et al,
 
We are in agreement that the Red Cross owns at least part of the overall problem.  And I guess I wasn't clear enough in my note, but since the theme of the note to which I responded was basically trust, it was the trust problem that I specifically meant.  Most of us generally trust the Red Cross to handle confidential data appropriately, and yes, maybe that is unwarranted.  But we have no basis whatsoever for trusting mybackgroundcheck.com.  And having read the accounts of identity theft from some of the other companies that provide background checks, my I trust mybackgroundcheck.com about as far as I could move Mt. Shasta.
 
Having said that, I am highly suspicious of the statement (related to us by the Red Cross) that it is too difficult to have two consent forms, one for Red Cross volunteers, and another for their employees (and whomever else mybackgroundcheck.com serves... if anyone).  From an IT perspective, only the very naive would believe that claim.  However, if mybackgroundcheck.com was merely a paper company setup for the sole purpose of fulfilling the Red Cross contract (I've seen a lot of these in my travels with companies that held government contracts for various web-based services), and if they aren't actually doing the checks, but brokering for another company that has all the connections to do the actual checking, **then** it makes sense that they couldn't change the agreement -- if the 3rd party has only one way to do the checks, then you can't (at least legally) have people agree to one thing and do something else.  Having come out of nowhere, I strongly suspect that this is the real situation.
 
--  Andy Oppel, N6AJO

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Bill Edgar <n3llr@earthlink.net> wrote:
Andy,

I believe that part of the problem IS the Red Cross.  They won't take the
'all encompassing permission' being requested of prospective volunteers off
of the permission request and request ONLY access to the data they truly
need.

If this contract with the Red Cross and mybackgroundcheck.com is lucrative,
and I have to believe that it is, then I believe that mybackgroundcheck.com
would modify the wording IF Red Cross requested it.  It is my belief that
the Red Cross Legal Counsel has advised ARC not to change the wording.

A former Red Cross Chapter Executive Director I know had requested his
information being deleted once he quit the Red Cross was told that the
information could not be deleted once mybackgroundcheck.com had received
your permission to access your information.

Interestingly enough, I pulled a background check on mybackground.com.
There is precious little information available on this company.

- Bill N3LLR

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Oppel [mailto:andy.oppel@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 11:51 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:17185] Re: Red Cross Update - Confidential

In my view, the problem isn't the Red Cross.  When you sign that
form, you are giving their vendor permission to run whatever checks
they want to.  If there is a statement restricting what the vendor
can do with the information, I didn't see it.  And the consent form
didn't mention an expiration date, so the permission appears to be in
perpetuity.  In a prior job, my employer provided background check
services for potential employers, and thus I got to know that market
a bit.  And what struck me was that no one ever heard of this outfit
in Anderson, CA (up by Lake Shasta) until the Red Cross awarded them
what is undoubtedly a very lucrative national contract.  It's not the
Red Cross I'm worried about...

--  Andy Oppel, N6AJO

At 08:06 PM 9/8/2008, Richard J. Norton wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Joel Harrison <joelh@centurytel.net>
wrote:
> > The following information is ARRL Board confidential and is not to be
> > distributed to anyone other than ARRL Officers, Directors and Vice
> > Directors.
>...
> > On June 30, 2008, as reported to you on arrl-odv on July 1, I
> wrote a letter
> > to American Red Cross Vice President Armond Mascelli, addressing
additional
> > concerns about the background check requirement for amateur radio
> > volunteers.
>
>When the Red Cross first came out with their new background check
>requirements, the ARRL simply advised amateurs to be aware that they
>were giving the Red Cross the right to investigate aspects of their
>lives that may not be germane to providing communications. Radio
>Amateurs were, and still are free to sign anything. I don't know why
>this wasn't an adequate ARRL response.
>
>An inquiry to the Red Cross brought forth a statement that they really
>didn't actually intend to exercise the controversial aspects of the
>background-check.
>
>At some point, apparently the ARRL decided that we needed to protect
>amateurs from whatever risks they might be incurring by granting broad
>background-check permission.
>
>We now have our president involved, attempting to fine-tune language
>on Red Cross forms that realistically will impact nobody. If I were
>perfecting the world, I suppose that I'd agree that the language would
>be better if it were changed, but I think that the ARRL has already
>done enough.
>
>Although I have no plans to be a Red Cross volunteer myself, I
>personally wouldn't object to signing the form in its present form. In
>fairness, I admit that I spent my life working in an industry where I
>was continually investigated by the government, and even assumed all
>my phone calls were tapped. Somehow I survived.
>
>I hope that all the attention we are giving this topic is somehow worth it.
>
>I'd almost suggest sending the Red Cross a letter that says (in better
>language):
>
>1) We think the Red Cross is composed of good people, dedicated to
>good purposes.
>
>2) The Red Cross has told us that they do not intend to exercise the
>right to conduct financial and lifestyle background checks on Radio
>Amateurs providing communications. We believe that the Red Cross will
>act in a responsible way, particularly toward our volunteers.
>
>3) We propose to move forward on our MOU/SOU based on our common
>objectives and trust.
>
>73,
>
>Dick, N6AA

Andy Oppel
andy.oppel@gmail.com
andy@andyoppel.com





--
-----
Andy Oppel
andy.oppel@gmail.com