Today, the attached letter is being sent to ARC in response to their reply of May 8, 2008, to my original letter of November 28, 2007. Do NOT distribute this letter publicly. Since it is just being sent today Red Cross needs, in fairness, an opportunity to receive it first. A follow-up story will be posted on ARRLWeb this week updating our members on our efforts with ARC. As I stated in my last update to you, when we received ARC's response in May while we were all at the Dayton Hamvention we publicized their response and an apparent resolution to our concerns about their background investigation requirement based on good faith that ARC would do what they said given our long, productive relationship with ARC. It is apparent in the few weeks since that all of our concerns have not been addressed and the outstanding issues are described in my attached letter. I want to be very clear about what activities we are currently involved in with ARC because there are two separate matters we are addressing. The first is renewal of the expired SOU. Dennis Dura has been tasked with negotiating on our behalf a draft that will be reviewed by the PSC and approved by the EC or board. I have set October 18, 2008, the date of the next EC meeting, as the deadline by which we want a draft available for review and possible approval. Negotiation and preparation of a draft SOU is in no way connected with the background investigation requirement issue. Refusing to proceed with negotiations to produce a draft SOU until the background issue is resolved is counterproductive for ARRL and amateur radio. Our relationship with ARC has been a very positive one for many, many years and we should work toward a renewed understanding between our organizations in order to continue to provide a public service in times of need. Refusing to negotiate at this stage makes us adversaries, not partners, and that is not ARRL's mission. As I have stated in my letter, ARRL will not sign the SOU until the background matter is addressed. The second item is ARC's background check requirement. If ARC continues to mandate a background check requirement for amateur radio operators, it is our ultimate goal to negotiate a very limited background check requirement acceptable to ARRL on behalf of our members and we are aggressively pursuing such. We must understand, however, that we may never achieve anything better than we currently have. Please remember these are ARC's requirements, not ARRL's, and any ramifications as a result of it will be ARC's, not ARRL's. The result will be that ARC will suffer from a reduced number of volunteers and that will impact their ability to provide the services they are accustom to providing and that the public has come to expect from ARC. Background check requirements aren't new and have been around for some time, especially for organizations that provide services to youth, and we know similar requirements will become reality with nearly every organization we have a relationship with in the future. As each of you know, we have received considerable input from our members as to what they will accept for a background check and we know what our objective is in the negotiation with ARC. This is not a closed matter and the communication channels are still very open with ARC. And yes, we will make absolutely sure ARC does what they say in the future before announcing any resolution to this matter. I must advise you, however, to be very cautions about any comments you publicly make about ARC. One situation has already occurred where an ARRL director published a figure from an "anonymous" source in a division wide email regarding the reduction in ARC volunteers as a result of the background check requirement. One of the ARRL members in that division forwarded a copy to ARC who contacted us and disputed the number and was obviously very upset. As responsible officers of the corporation any comment you make is considered "official" and we cannot promote and facilitate rumors...PERIOD! This does nothing but complicate our position in this negotiation effort where we have the advantage. We won't for very long, though, if we're not smart, cautious and factual about what we publish publicly concerning ARC. I appreciate your cooperation as we move forward to continue a prosperous relationship with ARC. 73 Joel W5ZN