Joel,
This is good news, indeed. As good as is the news, the admonition
against talking outside the “inner family” is equally appropriate.
I have one question. Background: About two or so years ago, I recall
hearing while at a Board meeting that we were working toward becoming equal
with ANRC at the Homeland Security meeting table. Is anything happening toward this end?
Tnx,
Chairman, ARRL ad hoc Legislative
Action Committee
5065 Bethany Rd., Mason,
OH 45040
Tel.: 513-459-0142;
E-mail: k8je@arrl.org
ARRL:
The reason Amateur Radio Is!
MEMBERS:
The reason ARRL Is!
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Harrison [mailto:joelh@centurytel.net]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008
2:13 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: Red Cross Update -
Confidential
The following information is ARRL
Board confidential and is not to be distributed to anyone other than ARRL
Officers, Directors and Vice Directors. There is absolutely no benefit
whatsoever to taking ARC to task in a public forum over the outstanding issues
we have regarding background checks for amateur radio operators. There have
already been at least two public situations that resulted in friction between
our two organizations while working to resolve our outstanding concerns.
Therefore, this information is not to be released publicly. You can simply
state that we continue to openly and professionally discuss our outstanding
concerns in an effort to reach an agreement on background checks. We absolutely
want to continue to listen to our members concerns and opinions regarding this
matter, but anything on our part that would generate ill will toward ARC is
most definitely not productive and must be avoided.
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.
In reply, Armond requested a
telephone conference between the two of us to try to come to some agreement on
the outstanding matters. We had that phone conversation on August 20. It was
very cordial and lasted approximately 20 minutes. Armond is a very personable
and professional individual on the phone and left me with the impression that
ARC does have a serious desire to resolve our disagreements to the extent
possible.
Armond first assured me that they
are taking this matter seriously, that at some point they hoped to have an
internal organization taking care of background checks and that the process
could move more quickly than it currently does. He agreed that the existing
wording regarding mode of living checks was open ended but that ARC does not
have the ability to go into and view those details. I explained that was not in
itself the major concern, but the fact that the information has to be collected
and then retained by a third party (or any party) is the major concern as there
was no real justification of why such a requirement was needed for amateur
radio volunteers.
Armond acknowledged that while they
are working to try to eliminate some of the concerns we have, a fact of life is
that some of them won’t go away and there will be limits to what they can
do because we are just one small group among the 1.4 million ARC volunteers in
addition to their paid staff. I told Armond we understood that, and realized
there would be some requirement for our volunteers at varying levels of
volunteerism. However, what we actually resolve those to be and agree upon will
more than likely have an impact on the number of individuals that choose to
volunteer for ARC service. They understand that, but are firm in their position
that some form of background check will be required for amateur radio
volunteers.
The question now is how do we proceed
and in what context. Armond has my recent letter and inquired how I prefer to
proceed in their response to it. I suggested, and Armond agreed, that they
review the letter, respond in writing to the extent they can address the
outstanding concerns, and from that point any further discussion should be
in-person with a small group of ARC representatives and ARRL representatives.
It is my position that our representatives will include myself or my
representative, Mr. Sumner or his representative and Mr. Imlay.
We concluded our conversation by
jointly noting and expressing our pleasure of the relationship that has
developed between our Dennis Dura and ARC’s Keith Robertory. This is a
relationship that has already proven to be beneficial in our continuing relationship
with ARC and especially during the recent (and continuing) hurricane threats to
the
Regarding renewal of a Statement of
Understanding with the American Red Cross, Mr. Dura and Mr. Robertory will have
a draft ready for review by the Executive Committee at our October 18 meeting
in Chicago. This is very important to both organizations. Armond expressed
concern over a rumor that ARRL would not renew an SOU with ARC if any type of
background check was required. I assured him it was in the best interests of
both organizations, given our long history of successful volunteerism, that he
SOU be renewed and that the background check issue would not prevent that,
although whatever the outcome of resolution of the background check issues is
may impact the extent to which amateur radio operators volunteer to ARC.
So, while we still have outstanding
issues that we are working to resolve regarding the background check matter I
was quite pleased with our conversation and I am convinced that ARC will work
to resolve our concerns to the extent possible within the overall volunteer
aspect of ARC and I’m very pleased that ARC is still at the table working
to resolve those outstanding concerns.
73 Joel W5ZN