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