OM's & YL's of the Board Family, I have no intent at this moment consider voting in favor of accepting a SOU between RC and ARRL without first getting RC to word the background check agreement properly. We voted solidly not to approve a SOU first, background check resolution second path. Why should we even consider at this time making a change. RC hasn't begun to negotiate, yet, so far as I can see. Frankly, (Charlotte) I could care less if we ever ratify an ARRL-RC SOU if it requires us to lose faith with the stand we openly took with our members. What, as a national organization or national activity, have we really gotten in return for the thousands of hours amateurs have devoted to RC over the years? How often does RC even acknowledge hams are on site providing valuable service to RC and the public? So now, they appear to want us to come on our knees, ready to kiss their ring so they will let us have a piece of paper? Lord Chamberlain came back from Munich a few decades ago with a piece of paper and you will remember what it got him and Europe and the US. Dick, I understand your feelings about this issue; however, I do not agree. The reasons I do not agree have been stated quite well by other writers in this string of messages. I believe none of us has disputed the appropriateness of the RC (and RACES, etc.) as we have discussed the background check issue. At the same time, I don't recall any of us who thought it appropriate for RC to demand amateurs automatically give authorize them to run credit checks and manner of living checks simply so we can conduct radio message traffic. I also would like to point out that whether we have an SOU or not has absolutely nothing to do with an individual amateur's freedom of choice regarding agreeing to the current background check statement. I simply do not want to go on record as putting the ARRL seal of approval on this faulty statement. As to RC's assurance they will not actually have credit checks and manner of living checks run on simple communicators (vs. e.g. volunteer treasurers), we all know that an agreement put into writing virtually always supersedes one that is spoken but not documented. If for no other reason than the fact that we all will die someday (even RC upper echelon officials), I believe we must have agreements we reach with them documented and preserved to protect against a new RC National President from changing the playing rules and doing credit and manner of living checks done on everyone simply on a whim or because he/she is unaware of a gentlemen's agreement his predecessor had with us. One reason given that we should believe RC that they will do only criminal checks on hams is cost. It costs considerably more to do full background checks than to do simple (criminal) checks. This is true; however, all that is needed is for the gurus at RC National to decide spending the money is the best thing they can do to protect their derrieres. I fully recognize that in negotiating, one needs to understand the points for which they will go to the mat and the points they will arbitrate to gain more critical positions. There is also a problem with being the only side in a so-called negotiation that is willing to engage in trading off. The result of a true negotiation should be that both sides end up winners. The result of a false negotiation is that the side that is willing to negotiate always lose to the side that will not negotiate. I apologize for rambling so long. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ 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!