Kay, Another incongruity as I see it in Red Cross' position on background checks is that they express no willingness to accept criminal background checks done by law enforcement agencies. For example, at least many (all?) RACES groups require official members of RACES to have been run through NCIC by the local sheriff before issuing a RACES ID card. Similarly, many members of ARES units that work with EMA or police agencies have criminal checks performed on them before they are authorized access to sensitive areas in comm. centers and such. Other than because of the old Not-Invented-Here syndrome, shouldn't we expect a prudent Red Cross to jump at the opportunity to save money (that it spends in buying background checks) by embracing the results of these pre-performed checks? Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 -----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