Background Check requirements will not go away.

[KG4RUL]

Actually Lon, our local ARC chapter has decided to take a rational attitude on this whole issue.  They are willing to accept the criminal background checks run by our Sheriff office, along with vetting by our EC (a Lt. in the Sheriff office), as adequate to prove our worthiness to operate from their shelters.  

Additionally, our State emergency preparedness department has issued a statewide ID that provides us access to any EOC in the state to volunteer in an emergency. The IDs are tamperproof and have our State issued driver's license number on them to allow it to be used for picture ID.

My continued participation in this discourse is to reinforce my continuing opposition to agencies like the ARC that push intrusive investigations that are not, in my mind and those of all the members of our ARES group, at all justifiable.

Dennis KG4RUL

[W3LK]

Dennis:

i think they made an excellent decision. Good for them!

73,

Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland

[AC2Q]

W3LK writes:
You guys don't really pay attention to what's written, do you?

Contrary to what some of you folks may think, you don't dictate policy to the served agencies - the agencies state their established policy and you either accept it or not.

-----------------------------------------------------

Actually, we are paying very close attention, otherwise it might have escaped my attention that you made no effort to address my question of 20 May regarding the Numbers of Deployable People in your Organization?

And No One here is alluding to "Dictating Policy", I for one am merely encouraging mass non-compliance as a tool to INFLUENCE Policy.

If you think this is an ineffective technique, then WHY the backpeddling by ARC in the face of Cautionary Statements by the ARRL??

KF8ZN

[AC2Q]

A Little Levity, my aplogoes to Arlo Guthrie Jr.

Tune of Alice's Restaurant:

 I will help any way I can, with your EmComm cause
 I will help any way I can, except for that Privacy Clause
 I'll complete the Training, what the Heck
 But I will not allow a Background Check
 I will help any way I can, with your EmComm cause

  la da da da dee, at Alice's Restaurant............

KF8ZN

[W3LK]

<< And No One here is alluding to "Dictating Policy", I for one am merely encouraging mass non-compliance as a tool to INFLUENCE Policy. >>

Sorry, but non-compliane with my agency's policy has little, if any influence, on the corporate and legal policies of my agency.

If you want to work with us, fine; if you don't, that's fine also. During Katrina we had over 85,000 people to volunteer that have never worked with us before. We actually qualified about 20 percent of that number.

Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland

[AC2Q]

So, that sounds like an 80% failure rate, or did I miss something?

I looks like it's just you and I left here, so I will stand by....................

KF8ZN

[W3LK]

I apologize for missing the question.

Nationally we have approximately 7,000 full time professional staff and employees that can be deployed to a major disaster area, such as the Gulf Coast during Katrina. We have an additional 35-40 thousand qualified volunteers that can do the same.

During the first three months of Katrina we deployed about 3,500 of our professional staff and employees and another 15,000 of the volunteers. Almost two years later there are still several hundred actively supporting the recovery and rebuilding effort.

Additionally, we have about 700 disaster response vehicles, including command units, mobile feeding units and several mobile kitchens capable of 12-14 thousand meals a day. All the big kitchens, command units and approximately 150 of the mobile feeding units were deployed and probably 25, plus two of the kitchens are still in service as of last month.

Locally, I sent 74 staff and employees from Maryland and West Virginia and 10 response vehicles to the Gulf. During their six-week deployment our local folks racked up over 85,000 hours of service. The last of my vehicles came home this past Easter.

I trust this answers your curiosity.

Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland

[AC2Q]

W3LK writes:

I apologize for missing the question.

Nationally we have approximately 7,000 full time professional staff and employees that can be deployed to a major disaster area, such as the Gulf Coast during Katrina. We have an additional 35-40 thousand qualified volunteers that can do the same.
----------------------------------------------------

WOW, since I asked about your local ARES group, I am quite impressed, that is the biggest damn ARES Group I have ever heard of!!!! Baltimore must be the Amateur Radio Capital of the USA!!!

OK Sir, step back, take a deep breath, and try again.......

KF8ZN

[W3LK]

<< So, that sounds like an 80% failure rate, or did I miss something? >>

Yea, an 80 percent failure rate is one way of looking at it.

Many volunteered, thinking we would give them a plane ticket and send them to the Gulf for a week or two on the beach, with a few hours a day actually doing something constructive. When they found out the reality, they were no longer interested.

Others were willing to go, but could only give a couple of days one month and a couple of more the next. As you are well aware, this is far from cost effective and a logistical nightmare.

And then there were some, that when the were told there would be a criminal background check decided to to go any further.

And then some simply had no skills of any kind - just well-meaning warm bodies that wanted to help.

The same situation, and percentages, by the way, occures with just about any major disaster response acency.

Lon - W3LK

Baltimore, Maryland

[K2GW]

Just an FYI.  At Dayton (always fun) we had an update directly from the Red Cross and also a bunch of SEC's got together.  Here are some basic facts I learned there directly from the folks in charge of the American Red Cross Technology Response program, which is the area of their organization that includes their use of Amateur Radio in disaster response:

1.  The Red Cross had problems with a few volunteers at Katrina, which has prompted their background check policy.  The wording of the background check release will not be changing any further as they use the same release for all volunteers and staff to avoid problems if a person later moves into a role handling funds or issuing funds to victims.

2.  As a practical matter, the local Red Cross chapter now pays for the background check (about $7) out of their own funds.  It is highly unlikely that they would want to pay a lot more for the full financial check for those who don't require it (i.e. ham radio operators).  It is also highly unlikely that their contractor would provide one without the Red Cross paying them for it!

3.  No financial information or mode of living info is provided by the communicator applicant to the Red Cross or their vendor.  None is provided back to the Red Cross for the communicator.  As a practical matter, the vendor already has this info on everyone anyway; all the Red Cross is doing is paying them to get a pass/fail report derived from it.  Many defense contractors use similar contractor services!!!

4.  If a volunteer without a background check has not previously worked with the Red Cross, they can be used as a spontaneous volunteer for six days.  Spontaneous volunteers have to be under continual supervision by someone who has passed the background check.

5.  A partner organization who has its own NATIONAL background check procedure similar to the Red Cross can work with the Red Cross to get it accepted as part of the MOU.  ARRL does not have such a system in place and is hoping for a national DHS or FCC one.  Local written backround check procedures and rosters might be acceptable to a local chapter but won't work elsewhere, i.e. major disasters.

6.  Other served agency organizations (Salvation Army, NWS, OEM's) now require similar background checks.  They are not going away and will become more prevalent.

7. The Red Cross representative will look into the disclaimer wording that allows their contractor to sell the information to others.  As all we actually provide is a name and address (and that's already online for all of us in www.QRZ.com) (and a SSAN to verify the name and address aren't an alias) I'm personally not sure that this is really a major issue.

Summary - Folks interested in EmComm but unwilling to commit to background checks are going to have a lot less opportunities to participate in the future, no matter what agency they intend to support.

As others have said "Amateur Radio is a hobby, but Emergency Communications is a commitment".

73

Gary, K2GW
SNJ SEC

[W3LK]

<< WOW, since I asked about your local ARES group, I am quite impressed, that is the biggest damn ARES Group I have ever heard of!!!! Baltimore must be the Amateur Radio Capital of the USA!!! >>

Sorry about that! <gg>

Since I am not currently active in the local ARES organization, I have no idea what their local capabilities are or who they sent down to the Gulf, if anyone. I do know folks that went down, but that was with their parent/business organization, not as a ham deployed by ARES.

I was referring, obviously, to my specific agency, which is the second largest and the oldest disaster response agency in the country. Internationally we are the oldest and at least the second largest NGO involved in disaster, if not the largest.

Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland

[AC2Q]

OK, Once again, and I will type S  l  o  w  l  y.

This forum is about Background Checks as they relate to E M E R G E N C Y   C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
and Served Agencies, while your ability to quote numbers relating to the ARC general population is perhaps impressive, such numbers are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

KF8ZN

[AC2Q]

K2GW writes:
Summary - Folks interested in EmComm but unwilling to commit to background checks are going to have a lot less opportunities to participate in the future, no matter what agency they intend to support.

-----------------------------------------------------

OMG, you sound Soo pompous and full of yourself!!

VOLUNTEERS serve at thier disgression, and the more hurdles you put in place that are unrelated to the task at hand, the fewer you will have.

Somebody PLEASE PLEASE further the discussion here, and releive me from the task of stating the same facts OVER and OVER for some who evidently miss the finer points of the argument!!!

Once again: If you require a background check for me to VOLUNTEER, then I will not, and I will continually discourage others from doing so as well.

I don't care if your policy is going to change or not, I do not need to be needed so badly that I will submit.

KF8ZN

[W3LK]

And I will type this equally slowly ...

It doesn't matter to my specific agency WHAT function you are going to fill; communicator, social services caseworker, food handler, fork lift driver, Incident Commander or whatever. If you walk in my agency's door and volunteer to work with us on a disaster site or vehicle, you will be required to submit to a criminal background check. There is nothing in our policy that excempts amateur radio operator. I have 43 years with my agency, the last 10 specifically in disaster response, and when the criminal background check was instituted several years ago, I had to go through it, as did every other professional staff person in my agency.

My son is well known within my agency and holds several top-level clearences with Naval Intelligence. If he had gone to the Gulf coast as a volunteer, he would have had to pass the same pass-fail criminal check as anyone else.

If you come to us through a contract with ARES, or any other organization, that organization must certify to us that you have been vetted and cleared. If they don't or cannot, then we will not use you.

With all due respect, that IS the reality of disaster service today and all your wishing and hoping and dreaming will not make it go away.

Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland

[W3LK]

<< Somebody PLEASE PLEASE further the discussion here, and releive me from the task of stating the same facts OVER and OVER for some who evidently miss the finer points of the argument!!!

Once again: If you require a background check for me to VOLUNTEER, then I will not, and I will continually discourage others from doing so as well.

I don't care if your policy is going to change or not, I do not need to be needed so badly that I will submit. >>

Since you are not interested in reality but your own pedantic dream world, Then don't! Stay home!

This is the end of my participation in this thread.

Goodbye all.

Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland