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