ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?

[K2GW]

>>Amateur radio does fine without engaging in EmComm and it will continue to do so

Part 97 says the first reason that the Amateur Service even exists at all is to provide Emergency Communications.  And if we don't, we'd be hard pressed to explain why the federal government lets us have over $12,300,000,000 worth of radio spectrum just to play with.

And that's just a conservative value of our VHF and UHF allocations (123 MHz x $100 million per MHz) alone if the federal government auctioned them off.  Add in the HF allocations (which is harder to price), and the figure is much higher.

BTW, that means the federal government has invested about $18,000 per licensed ham, so at the typical volunteer value rate of $20 bucks per hour, I hope you've already given back your equivalent 118 days of public service as a ham.

73

Gary, K2GW

[AJ4DW]

Yeah, you're right Gary... I mis-spoke... what I meant to say was that *most* of ham radio does fine without EmComm. You can't threaten me by saying that if I'm not good that I won't be picked to work at a particular agency, because I'll always have plenty to do in an emergency. And if you actually believe that all ham operators joined in order to engage in EmComm then I want some of what you're smoking. I've worked my butt off for the past six months getting an ARES section set up where there was none, and no REMF like you is going to get away with wrapping themselves in the flag to boost their own ego and quoting part 97 to me.

No thanks, I won't be joining ARC here in Columbia because in order to work in the radio room or even become a ham volunteer with the ARC you have to be a member of the State Guard (not the state National Guard)... coincidentally, the commander of the State Guard also runs the ARC here. I have no desire to join a group of toy soldiers, I've done the real stuff, thank you.

[AC2Q]

K2GW writes:
Part 97 says the first reason that the Amateur Service even exists at all is to provide Emergency Communications. And if we don't, we'd be hard pressed to explain why the federal government lets us have over $12,300,000,000 worth of radio spectrum just to play with.

And that's just a conservative value of our VHF and UHF allocations (123 MHz x $100 million per MHz) alone if the federal government auctioned them off. Add in the HF allocations (which is harder to price), and the figure is much higher.

BTW, that means the federal government has invested about $18,000 per licensed ham, so at the typical volunteer value rate of $20 bucks per hour, I hope you've already given back your equivalent 118 days of public service as a ham.
------------------------------------------------------
"lets us have"? " invested about $18,000 per licensed ham"?

Those statements presuppose I am on board with the government auctioning of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to the highest bidder, a concept I do not agree with, and I have good company if you read the debate that went on about this in Congress.

And I have NEVER said I was opposed to providing Emergency Communications, I am an active member of my ARES Group, and have completed the required IS and EmComm courses. The issue is one of an Unnecessary Invasion of Privacy.

[K2GW]

OK.  Now that we're seeing undisciplined obscene personal attacks ("no REMF like you") , the true purpose of this entire thread has been revealed and it can end.

BTW, I served my country for twenty years. Such a lack of self control and self-discipline in the military costs lives and usually results in mission failure.  I don't think we have many lives at stake in Amateur Radio EmComm, but the same type of behavior will result in mission failure there as well.

73

Gary, K2GW

[KG4RUL]

Gary, you expect us to believe that in twenty years in the Military you NEVER used the term REMF disparingly???  

Tha being said, IMHO what this whole thread is about is the ARC going to far in their zeal and the Government not going far enough towards a much needed National ID.

[AJ4DW]

Gary;

You're right... I apologize about the REMF remark. However it reveals nothing about an underlying intent of this discussion any more than the discussion reveals a conspiracy between the ARC and their background check vendors.

This conversation IS generating more heat than light and I'll bow out as well. Here's what I believe:

1) There's no conspiracy between the ARC (or other NGOs) and their vendors to distribute our private information for profit. The requirement for a background check is set by Congress, not the NGO's, and if we have a beef, we should voice it to Congress. We may also choose to not participate, based upon our personal principles, and that's our choice (and should be respected, as the choice to participate should be respected).

I would mention, however, that Lon made a good point about the need for criminal background checks for anyone operating within the shelters, and that would certainly be called for even if it wasn't required by Congress. At this point I believe that the need for a criminal background check of anyone representing any authority or organization (which implies authority) in the shelters is completely defensible as it protects the refugees (I apologize if "refugees" is not the correct term, please don't flame on it, just forget it).

2) The ARC (and possibly the SA as well, but we didn't discuss that) background check is a (benign) criminal check and I'd have no heartburn about participating in it. I won't do so in my particular area for reasons I've mentioned previously, which have nothing to do with the background check itself. I would participate with other ARC chapters.

I would have to hear more justification for "lifestyles" or financial background check applying to volunteer ham operators.

3) It is obvious as a result of this whole broughaha (outside of eHam as well as in) that some parts of the ARC are taking its volunteers for granted, which is self-defeating in a volunteer-based organization.



73 de Carl AJ4DW

[KC0SHZ]

>>So are we going to object to the similar Salvation Army background check policy when that SOU/MOU comes up for renewal? We'll be increasingly marginalizing Amateur Radio in the disaster relief community if we do. <<

I am on the committee for the Western Division SATERN group here in Omaha.  The "Background Check" was one of the first issues we had to get clarification on due to the flare up over the ARC's policy.

The Salvation Army has a background check policy and they will use the County EMA clearance if available.  If not, they will do it.  They have assured me (and the other committee members) that they will not sell or otherwise mis-use data acquired in the background check.  They do not authorize their vendor to retain the information gathered.

This was reassuring to us as we were not willing to let the ARC do background checks on us due to the vendor being able to sell or otherwise use my data without my consent.  

I think that the SATERN system will be a much more workable system for Hams that don't object to a background check per se, but who objected to the lack of restriction on the use of the data once collected.

[W2KYM]

Would anyone want a child molester, or a rapist working in a shelter(either with ARC or Sal Army)? I have no issue whatsoever with the criminal background check. And as of this writing, the ARC has removed the wording about mode of living and financial checks.

So case closed!

[KG4RUL]

"Would anyone want a child molester, or a rapist working in a shelter(either with ARC or Sal Army)?"

And would you want any of the shelterees to be a a child molester, or a rapist?  NO! But, there is no check on them to get in the door.

[K1CJS]

"The vendor is not merely a vending machine that only does what people who put a dime in tell it to do, it's an organization which makes money by collecting and selling information. Here we're giving it permission to collect our personal information beyond what's required. ARC may never request or see that information, but the vendor can and does. I suppose that my last objection would vanish if the vendor is forbidden from using selling or otherwise revealing the information collected."

Notice the quoted part that we're giving permission beyond the requirement.  That is the sticking point of this whole thing--with that permission the vendor can go ahead and get ALL the info--and then sell it to a third party to pay the bill.  With ID theft what it is today, you would be foolish to give blanket permission to ANYONE who doesn't need it.

ANYWAY THIS WHOLE THING IS NOW ACADEMIC--THE RED CROSS HAS FINALLY SEEN REASON AND HAS PUBLISHED AND IS USING A DIFFERENT FORM FOR THE PERMISSION TO CHECK.  NOW, ABOUT 90 PER CENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO WOULDN'T SIGN THE FORM WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.  This is what a group steadfastly refusing to bow down can get done if it doesn't agree with the big boys.  

[K1CJS]

Ah, yes, the MOU--it is being hammered out right now and should be renewed shortly.