Joel,

Thank you for your write up and your work on this issue.

Could you clarify your second to the last paragraph: ‘…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.’

Are you suggesting that we renew the SOU with ARC even if ARC or their third party investigation company mybackgroundcheck.com does not remove permission to perform or request credit investigations, mode of living investigations, or investigative consumer reports on our members carrying out disaster communications?

Thanks!

Bill N3LLR

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 U.S.

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