Mike asks the question what should we, as the governing board of ARRL, to protect those of our members who volunteer their services to ARC local chapters? He suggests we haven't done enough. It seem to me that our obligation is to alert our members that the information requested goes well beyond the information need for a criminal background check and provides inquiry as the members credit and "lifestyle." My understanding is that is precisely what has been done. Much as I would like to tell members that they should tell the ARC to "take a hike" because the other information being requested is simply none of its' business, it seems to me that decision best left to each individual member. There are underlying questions from an organizational standpoint such as, should the MOU with ARC be renewed without substantial revision and; is the ARC seeking to co-opt our member volunteers through this and similar policies? We should keep these questions in mind but I don't think weneed to answer them today. 73, Jay. KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Mike Raisbeck [mailto:k1twf@arrl.net] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 4:36 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14765] More on Red Cross background checks It is heartening to hear that so many of us are concerned about these checks, though knowing you all to some degree, I'm not a bit surprised :-) However, all this chatter serves no one but ourselves. We need to DO something. I suggest the following: 1 - understand what the ANRC is really trying to accomplish In my earlier email I suggested two questions. I repeat them here. a - WHY is it important that the credit check language be included? b - Since the credit check is apparently quite rare, WHY must the consent be given ahead of time? Why not request the permission only when there is an intent to run a credit check. Joel and Dave - can you or someone at HQ make a direct inquiry to the ANRC with these questions? If the response you get is not a clear and direct answer (ie., is more political spin-doctoring ala Ms. Howe), could you tell them so, and insist on bumping the matter up the chain of command to someone who can and will answer directly? Let them know, if they do not honestly and directly address the issue, that the failure to do so will have negative impact on their ability to get Amateur Radio volunteers. 2 - determine if they are concerned that they might lose volunteers As above, this is also a direct question, though its purpose is more to get a read on whether or not the ANRC is seriously reconsidering their position. 3 - strengthen our statements to our members. Joel's October 24 statement is pretty good, if you read the whole thing. However, the presentation in the article that's up on the site today seems weak to me. PLEASE UNDERSTAND that I am not suggesting that we tell people not to consent to the check. What I am suggesting is that we highlight the problem very much more bluntly. Perhaps large, bold letters saying something like: "You should consider very carefully whether you wish to consent to these requests for information. A substantial number of your League officials consider them unnecessary and over reaching." I believe we have an obligation to our members to warn them in no uncertain terms. Telling them to read the fine print is just a cop-out. Come on, guys!! Remember this C&W classic? How about "A Little Less Talk and a Lot More Action" Mike K1TWF ----------------------------------- Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Email: k1twf@arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message.