Dick, You make a number of assumptions that not all of us will agree with concerning the Red Cross. Specifically: 1) We think the Red Cross is composed of good people, dedicated to good purposes. (That's a real stretch and perhaps naive. I am sure the vast majority of Red Cross folks fit your description but certainly not all. From what we have seen from Chris' dealings with them some appear to be control freaks who want it all their way. Chris may not see it or say it that way but after listening to and seeing his reports that my conclusion. I cannot believe that all Red Cross employees are out for the greater good all of the time. Two former NLI SMs and two former NNJ SMs share my views.) 2) The Red Cross has told us that they do not intend to exercise the right to conduct financial and lifestyle background checks on Radio Amateurs providing communications. We believe that the Red Cross will act in a responsible way, particularly toward our volunteers. (What has been discussed here for the past few years is contract language. They tell us something but then refuse to put it in writing. That is simply not satisfactory. They appear to believe that since 9/11 and the advent of the flawed Patriot Act they can wrap up any security check in the flag of national interest - even when there is no need for that type of detailed security check. Our ARES volunteers are not handling top secret communications system plans or crypto secrets. Yes, in the 1960's I had a Secret Crypto clearance and agreed to let the government check into all aspects of my background. But what the Red Cross wants our volunteers to agree to is NOT necessary and unfortunately our members and perhaps some board members do NOT see the danger of agreeing to grant blanket permission to the Red Cross' agent.) 3) We propose to move forward on our MOU/SOU based on our common objectives and trust. (We haven't voted to do so. I read Joel's message as a proposal and I assume that the entire board will have an opportunity to vote on it in January. At the moment I cannot vote for an MOU with the Red Cross. My suggestion is to leave it up in the air and sign no agreement with them at this point. I guess that's because I don't like bullies. In any event, I do not believe that we should proceed until we have taken a vote of the full board. I see no pressing reason to expedite it through the EC.) I think Joel, Dave and Chris will have to explain the pros and cons of this position to us in July. It is unfortunate that the Red Cross has been so intransigent on this issue. It has hurt their recruitment in New York and New Jersey and I am sure in other parts of the country. I do not have a warm and fuzzy feeling at ARC after seeing their NYC operation during and after 9/11, but I keep my views to myself and division cabinet members and certainly do not share them with members. 73 de Frank....N2FF..... Richard J. Norton wrote:

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Joel Harrison <joelh@centurytel.net> wrote:

...

The following information is ARRL Board confidential and is not to be distributed to anyone other than ARRL Officers, Directors and Vice Directors.

...

...

On June 30, 2008, as reported to you on arrl-odv on July 1, I wrote a letter to American Red Cross Vice President Armond Mascelli, addressing additional concerns about the background check requirement for amateur radio volunteers.

When the Red Cross first came out with their new background check requirements, the ARRL simply advised amateurs to be aware that they were giving the Red Cross the right to investigate aspects of their lives that may not be germane to providing communications. Radio Amateurs were, and still are free to sign anything. I don't know why this wasn't an adequate ARRL response.

An inquiry to the Red Cross brought forth a statement that they really didn't actually intend to exercise the controversial aspects of the background-check.

At some point, apparently the ARRL decided that we needed to protect amateurs from whatever risks they might be incurring by granting broad background-check permission.

We now have our president involved, attempting to fine-tune language on Red Cross forms that realistically will impact nobody. If I were perfecting the world, I suppose that I'd agree that the language would be better if it were changed, but I think that the ARRL has already done enough.

Although I have no plans to be a Red Cross volunteer myself, I personally wouldn't object to signing the form in its present form. In fairness, I admit that I spent my life working in an industry where I was continually investigated by the government, and even assumed all my phone calls were tapped. Somehow I survived.

I hope that all the attention we are giving this topic is somehow worth it.

I'd almost suggest sending the Red Cross a letter that says (in better language):

1) We think the Red Cross is composed of good people, dedicated to good purposes.

2) The Red Cross has told us that they do not intend to exercise the right to conduct financial and lifestyle background checks on Radio Amateurs providing communications. We believe that the Red Cross will act in a responsible way, particularly toward our volunteers.

3) We propose to move forward on our MOU/SOU based on our common objectives and trust.

73,

Dick, N6AA