Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Background Check requirements will not go away.  (Read 9137 times)
AC2Q
Member

Posts: 348




Ignore
« Reply #90 on: May 22, 2007, 01:37:06 PM »

What am I wishing and hoping and dreaming about pray tell?

I have consistently stated that I do not care if you utilize me. I know there are many who derive thier sense of self by being able to brag of thier association with this or that group, but I am not one of them.

Additionally,my goal is to discourage others from succumbing to an arbitrary requirement.

If I have not been on-topic, I apologise for confusing you.

I continue to repond so that those who oppose such policies will know that they are not alone, and to encourage them to not "follow the herd"

KF8ZN
Logged
AC2Q
Member

Posts: 348




Ignore
« Reply #91 on: May 22, 2007, 01:42:24 PM »

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

So......Is it a pedantic dream world to have an opinion that differs, and to stick by it regardless of the slings and arrows flung by others?
(He asked rhetorically, since W3LK had left the building, along with Elvis )

KF8ZN
Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 2708


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #92 on: May 22, 2007, 03:04:23 PM »

From one of Lon's last posts:

"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. "

Exactly what everyone has been saying - If my agency clears me, WHY is that not good enough for the ARC?  I think the answer is that during Katrina they had some problems with THEIR personnel and their knee-jerk reaction is to assume that ALL other agencies people will also be a problem.

Sorry ARC! I come to your shelter to man the radios, which by the way were acquired and installed by volunteer Amateur Radio effort, and not to steal your goodies.  In fact, I don't want to have ANY responsibility for ARC property at all.

Dennis KG4RUL
Logged
AC2Q
Member

Posts: 348




Ignore
« Reply #93 on: May 22, 2007, 03:18:48 PM »

OK, let's be Gentleman and quit refering to posts from folks who have left. Next Victim, please?

KF8ZN
Logged
K2GW
Member

Posts: 535


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #94 on: May 23, 2007, 06:00:47 AM »

KF8ZN writes:

>>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.

---

I'm not sure how my simply relaying what I learned from the Red Cross at Dayton is pompous, but those are the facts that were presented in the Red Cross forum there.  Any ham could have sat in and done the same.

You're absolutely correct that volunteers serve at their own discretion, but the agencies we serve also have the right to select which volunteers that they'll accept.  Those tend to be the ones who will follow their policies.

I would suggest everyone go back to the EmComm I course (or the ARRL Emergency Communications Handbook) and reread the the introductory section on meeting the needs of the served agency.  If we aren't  meeting them, then all we're doing is playing with our radios and feeling good about ourselves because we were able to pass a multiple choice test to get our license.

Now that's really being "pompus".

73

Gary, K2GW

Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 2708


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #95 on: May 23, 2007, 08:51:44 AM »

"I would suggest everyone go back to the EmComm I course (or the ARRL Emergency Communications Handbook) and reread the the introductory section on meeting the needs of the served agency. If we aren't meeting them, then all we're doing is playing with our radios and feeling good about ourselves because we were able to pass a multiple choice test to get our license. "

OK, so what are the ARC needs from Amateur Radio:

Communicators

What does a credit check have to do with performing that task?  That is the whole thrust of those who object to the wording of the persmission document for the ARC background check.  If they remove that wording, I, and I think other cooperating agency personnel would have NO reservations about the process.

The ARC has stated that they will not have a different permission form for outside agency personnel.  That could turn out to be a foolish position on their part.

Dennis KG4RUL
Logged
AC2Q
Member

Posts: 348




Ignore
« Reply #96 on: May 23, 2007, 09:21:02 AM »

K2GW writes:

I would suggest everyone go back to the EmComm I course (or the ARRL Emergency Communications Handbook) and reread the the introductory section on meeting the needs of the served agency. If we aren't meeting them, then all we're doing is playing with our radios and feeling good about ourselves because we were able to pass a multiple choice test to get our license.

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

Needs, YES....Arbitrary Requirements NO

How Much is TOO much? When something reaches my "Too Much" Threshold, I say NO.

I encourage others to as well.

KF8ZN

Logged
NA4IT
Member

Posts: 873


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #97 on: May 23, 2007, 11:47:24 AM »

"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."

And the flip side...

Agencies willing to do background checks that include financial information they don't need will have less participants to support them...

It's about the financial background check, most don't have a problem with the criminal check. My word, I can understand the criminal part, because a friend of mine who worked with amateur radio and Red Cross had to deal with a nut case there (NOT A VOLUNTEER, a citizen).

But my financial records are no buisness of anyone except my self and who I choose to disclose that information. There is enough indenity theft regarding financial info going around. I'm surprized the Red Cross would want to make themselves liable for even asking.

NA4IT
Logged
K2GW
Member

Posts: 535


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #98 on: May 24, 2007, 05:59:11 AM »

Two final reply comments.

>>Needs, YES....Arbitrary Requirements NO

The background checks are definitely a need imposed on them to meet the increased Congresional scrutiny (whom they report to) in the wake of felons volunteering and working in shelters and walkin volunteers embezzling money from service centers during Katrina.
 
>>It's about the financial background check, most don't have a problem with the criminal check. My word, I can understand the criminal part, because a friend of mine who worked with amateur radio and Red Cross had to deal with a nut case there (NOT A VOLUNTEER, a citizen).

As I've said a dozen times in this forum already, for communicators, no financial information is provided by them nor are financial background checks conducted or paid for.  I know, I went through the process myself. Actually as aresult of the check, the Red Cross has less information on me than is posted for any of us on www.qrz.com!

But Red Cross reserves the right to pay for a   financial check in the event that a volunteer's role changes in the future to one involving money.  In the overall scheme of things, Amateur Radio operators are a miniscule portion of their volunteers and we're not going to get a special exemption, even though the chances of such a role change for most of us is miniscule.

I'll stand by my original statement.  No matter what we say or do, background checks are not going away and even will become more prevalent with all agencies.  Hams who don't participate are going to find fewer opportunities to engage in public service activities.

73

Gary, K2GW
SNJ SEC
Logged
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5644




Ignore
« Reply #99 on: May 24, 2007, 07:41:47 AM »

Give it up, Gary.

What these guys are doing with their boycotts and such is giving served agencies yet another reason to stop using amateurs, simply because many are too much of a PITB to work with.

Many public service events are bailing out of using hams and just renting LMR equipment for the day - no licensed operators needed, no egos to soothe, no explanations at the last minute as to why there are only four operators instead of the 12 that were promised and expected.

If hams cease to be used at public service events and by served agencies, it will be totally OUR fault for our stubbornness and pigheaded attitudes.

Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland  
       
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 2708


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #100 on: May 24, 2007, 09:09:20 AM »

Lon, VOLUNTEERS!
Logged
AC2Q
Member

Posts: 348




Ignore
« Reply #101 on: May 24, 2007, 09:24:14 AM »

W3LK writes:

What these guys are doing with their boycotts and such is giving served agencies yet another reason to stop using amateurs, simply because many are too much of a PITB to work with.

Many public service events are bailing out of using hams and just renting LMR equipment for the day -
------------------------------------------------------

Ok, If the Served Agency has the luxury of "yet another reason to stop using amateurs" or  " bailing out of using hams and just renting LMR equipment for the day"

 Then they DO NOT NEED US, repeat DO NOT NEED US.

If Amateur Radio Operators are NOT NEEDED, then ARES is obsolete, and all the Training has been a collosal waste of time.

On a parallel note, I thought Standing Up for What You Beleive in was Something called "The American Way" ??
Logged
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5644




Ignore
« Reply #102 on: May 24, 2007, 09:35:59 AM »

Dennis, et al:

I'll say it one last time:

It doesn't matter whether you are a paid employee or a volunteer to the served agencies. Either you conform to the policies and procedures of whatever agency you want to serve with or you will not be hired or utilized in any manner. It's really that simply.

You may not like it; you may not agree with it; but that IS the way it is!

<< Ok, If the Served Agency has the luxury of "yet another reason to stop using amateurs" or  " bailing out of using hams and just renting LMR equipment for the day"

 Then they DO NOT NEED US, repeat DO NOT NEED US.

If Amateur Radio Operators are NOT NEEDED, then ARES is obsolete, and all the Training has been a collosal waste of time.>>

Needing hams is one thing. Having to put up with stubborn, egotistic people that think they deserve special treatment and that they should be exempt from the policies and procedures every other person in the agency has to adhere to is another matter.

<< On a parallel note, I thought Standing Up for What You Beleive in was Something called "The American Way" ??>>

You are welcome to stand up for whatever you believe. You also have to face whatever consequences result from that stand. In this case, the consequence is the NEED is irrelevant; no one will WANT your assistance. I surely don't!

73,

Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
AC2Q
Member

Posts: 348




Ignore
« Reply #103 on: May 24, 2007, 10:03:11 AM »

If I were "egotistical" I would jump through every fiery hoop in a desperate "Need to Be Needed"

If Hams can be easily supplanted by "LMR Equipment" (whatever that is =0), then WE ARE NOT NEEDED.




KF8ZN
Logged
AC2Q
Member

Posts: 348




Ignore
« Reply #104 on: May 24, 2007, 10:06:22 AM »

Needing hams is one thing. Having to put up with stubborn, egotistic people that think they deserve special treatment and that they should be exempt from the policies and procedures every other person in the agency has to adhere to is another matter.
-------------------------------------------------------
NONE OF YOU "had to adhere" to anything. you CHOSE to adhere.

Now, to save you some typing, you are going to reply that your agency will CHOSE not to use those who don't adhere.

OK, as I said before, I am fine with that.

KF8ZN
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!