Joel was careful to say that the Red Cross had addressed “some” of our concerns. Dave From: w3kd@aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:08 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Dura,Dennis, K2DCD Subject: [arrl-odv:16762] Re: Red Cross letter Perhaps I am falling victim to the cynicism that comes to some people with age, or perhaps the Red Cross has created it, but I have some residual concerns here. As of now, these concerns are apparently water under the bridge, but since not misleading members is a fairly high priority with any association and especially with ARRL, it seems to me that we need to be careful not to tell members that all is well necessarily if we aren't sure it is. I for one am not sure it is. I wish the Red Cross had attempted to work with us on the revised consent form. They didn't, however, and it is important for the Board to know that the second paragraph of Mascelli's May 8 letter responding to Joel's November 28, 2007 letter is more than a bit misleading, because it falsely implies that they did. Mascelli claims that after Joel's letter was received, they "started to work" within the ARC to address the concerns in Joel's letter. He says that this effort "included a subsequent meeting between our attorneys to fully explore each issue and implications for both organizations." They say that following this "session" they routinely kept Dennis Dura informed of their progress. In fact, there was no meeting subsequent to Joel's letter that involved my office at all, of course. The "between our attorneys" reference simply means apparently that their in-house counsel at ARC discussed the issues internally among themselves. There were initial conversations between my office and the GC's office at the ARC about the problem more than a year ago, but those stopped long before Joel's letter to Mascelli, as the Ad Hoc Background Check committee told the Board at the last two Board meetings. All that aside, they didn't HAVE to work with us to solve the problems identified in Joel's letter; we didn't ask them to specifically. We just wanted the problem of the background check consent form solved. It would have been nice if they had worked with us on this, though. Here's why: The new consent form (which I hope is complete as-sent and doesn't include other language; the language that I saw that was attached to the Mascelli letter isn't a complete consent form; it appears to be an excerpt from a consent form) is better by a long shot than the old language, which was very misleading, and which should have been fixed a year ago. But it still raises questions. It surely enough itemizes the information that "may be obtained" which includes basic criminal background check information. So far, so good, although nowhere does it say that the information that "may be obtained" is limited to that. And that is a problem, because at the last paragraph, before "steps for ARRL members", the consent form says that the consenter acknowledges that "a background check report is a consumer report which is covered under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")". Indeed, it is. Here is the definition of a "consumer report" under 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (part of the FCRA) dealing with credit reporting agencies: it means "any written, oral or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for [credit or insurance, employment purposes, or any other purpose authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b. So, we are in the position of having first sounded a cautionary signal to our members about the old consent form, and now telling them that all is well. But the background check consent form still says that the background check is a "consumer report which is covered under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act..." I really don't want to prolong this tedious dispute, and I certainly understand why Dave and Joel and Kay decided to make noise about Mascelli's long-awaited letter at Dayton, but unfortunately, I don't have a good comfort level about the consent form revision, and it seems we are in a difficult position if anything goes wrong with one of our members hereafter. I will look forward to possibly fixing this problem in the new SOU being negotiated. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:45 am Subject: [arrl-odv:16761] Red Cross letter On Saturday morning we received the attached copy of a letter that had been sent to President Harrison about a week earlier by Armond T. Mascelli, Vice President, Disaster Services, Response, American Red Cross. With the Dayton Hamvention ARES forum imminent, Joel, Kay Craigie and I reviewed the letter and determined that it was sufficiently responsive to our concerns that we should not miss the opportunity to announce this at the forum, and Dennis Dura did so to applause. So as not to be scooped on our own announcement, staff onsite at ARRL Expo put together the story that was posted on the ARRL Web site. I apologize for not getting the actual letter into your hands a bit sooner. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ ________________________________ Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com <http://www.mapquest.com/?ncid=mpqmap00030000000004> : America's #1 Mapping Site.