Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?  (Read 18957 times)

AJ4DW

  • Member
  • Posts: 148
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2008, 01:22:54 PM »

Thanks Gary, for the information. If that's true it should put everyone's fears to rest. A few questions still remain:

1) How do you know? Has the ARC come out with a statement? If so, where can I view a copy?

2) Why do we need to give consent for a check that will not be performed (we are not even allowed to cross out those lines from our written consents)? To save a little prospective paperwork is a weak reason for me to sign away my right to privacy. One thing that raised a lot of hackles was when the ARC claimed that they were not asking for the lifestyle and financial checks, but steadfastly refused to change the consent form.

3) Why is the ARRL (including our president as well as most members) concerned about this if it is so benign? Why is ARC so adamant about not changing the consent form once it sees what a stink it's raising?

73 de Carl  AJ4DW
Richland County, SC EC
Logged

AC2Q

  • Member
  • Posts: 394
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2008, 09:47:02 AM »

 K2GW writes:
No it doesn't.

SNIP>>>>>
I stand by the term "benign." There is more information about you available on www.qrz.com than submitted or gathered for the background check run on Hams assigned to the Red Cross.

SNIP>>>>>

I freely give the ARC permission to view my entry on QRZ.....Good Enough Gary???

 
Logged

AC2Q

  • Member
  • Posts: 394
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2008, 10:02:59 AM »

KE4SKY provided the following Info.

Red Cross cut @ 1/3 of their HQ workforce (1,000) people, including many in their Federal Response
and Disaster Services offices last week.

FEMA to take over mass care role formerly held by Red
Cross

SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I see this as meaning things will get progressively WORSE, if for no other reason than FEMA will NEVER receive sufficent funding to PAY for the Woman/Manhours, that ARC was able to provide through thier Volunteer Network, and it is painfully obvious that many many skilled and willing volunteers, myself included, simply won't put up with the BS required to be a "Volunteer", as in Background Checks, Loyalty Oaths, etc.

Those in the Heirarchy can go on and on and on about the necessity of same, and it won't change the fact that a growing group find it too bothersome and Big Brother-like.

The REASON FEMA will NEVER get the funding required to put together the talent pool that ARC and Amateur Radio provide? Thier needs are only High Profile AFTER a major disaster, and are soon forgotten in Washington in favor of more "squeeky wheel" issues.

So, stock up on some food/water, 5 days worth at least, so that if and when the overworked tired FEMA folk come to your door asking if you need help, you can tell them "No, Thanks" and offer them a hot cup of coffee =0)

 
Logged

K2GW

  • Member
  • Posts: 538
    • homeURL
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2008, 05:19:10 PM »

1) How do you know? Has the ARC come out with a statement? If so, where can I view a copy?

It was so explained by the head of the Red Cross Disater Comm/IT group at the Red Cross Forum at last year's Dayton Hamvention.  I don't know if the Hamvention sells transcripts, but you can ask them.  I was there as was Dennis Dura, K2DCD, the ARRL EM Manager, who was sitting next to me.  

As for the checks run by a chapter, ask your local one how much they're paying for them.  I recall reading a Red Cross guidance sheet that came out a year ago that explained how much each type of check would cost and which ones were needed for which role.  No chapter is going to run or pay for more than the minimum for the role. If you know a Red Cross member with access to Crossnet, they could retrieve the document for you that explains it all.

2) Why do we need to give consent for a check that will not be performed (we are not even allowed to cross out those lines from our written consents)? To save a little prospective paperwork is a weak reason for me to sign away my right to privacy. One thing that raised a lot of hackles was when the ARC claimed that they were not asking for the lifestyle and financial checks, but steadfastly refused to change the consent form.

It was explained at the same time and place.  All folks in their entire system sign one and only one consent form.  It's their legal counsel's opinion that it's necessary to be able to quickly run complete background checks on a complete roster of all the names of folks working with money or children on a big disaster (even those who it was previously run on) without trying to research which ones withheld permission for what at various places around the country and thus prevent the financial/mass care roster checks to be run.  

3) Why is the ARRL (including our president as well as most members) concerned about this if it is so benign?

First of all, there's no evidence that most members are concerned.  Quite frankly IMO, it was too quick a decision and announcement in the summer of 2006 without investigating or even asking those of us who had already gone through the check what was involved.  

Some folks are paranoid about change.  Some think that Amateur Radio is the major partner in disater relief and the Red Cross is the junior one.  To any outsider, it's clearly the other way around.  That's why they are the "served agency" and unless we're serving their needs, they'll do without us.  Avoiding a repeat of the congressional criticism about risky people handling funds and providing mass care is their need and we need to understand that.

>Why is ARC so adamant about not changing the consent form once it sees what a stink it's raising?

See above and because the concern of a few Amateurs is lot less important to them than to have to go back to Congress and explain why they aren't addressing Congress's concerns.

And unfortunately, because of some folks overwrought concern about this, they are now simply recruiting more and more hams who have no problem with it to be on their own internal dedicated comm teams outside of ARES or RACES.  And the last thing Amateur Radio EmComm needs is further Balkanization.

Finally, no one is forcing anyone to go through the checks, but they need to be informed that they might be making the decision to sit at home during the next disaster if they don't.  

73

Gary, K2GW
Logged

AC2Q

  • Member
  • Posts: 394
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2008, 05:51:58 AM »

K2GW writes:
It was so explained by the head of the Red Cross Disater Comm/IT group at the Red Cross Forum at last year's Dayton Hamvention.

It was explained at the same time and place.
 
First of all, there's no evidence that most members are concerned.

___________________________________________________
"It was so explained" ?? I find the use of the King's English appropriate, since all of this has come down with the flavor of "A Royal Decree" =0)

First off, I am not so vain as to think the volunteer effort will fall apart if I am not there, nor do I have a "need to be needed" such that I will consent to a background check as a VOLUNTEER.

To those, myself included, who object to a background check as a matter of principal, JUST SAY NO.

If we aren't needed, then I wouldn't have wanted to be there taking up space anyhow, if we are needed, then the "revolving 7 day rule" will be put into place IMHO.

I freely admit I do not have a feel for the consequences of ARC's decision, and sadly none of us will know for certain until the aftermath the NEXT "event".



Logged

AJ4DW

  • Member
  • Posts: 148
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2008, 05:25:33 PM »

Gary;

I'm not particularly worried about the ARC misusing the information (although they're not angels), but rather the vendor. I can understand why the ARC might want to be able to quickly upgrade our clearance levels in certain situations. So, if we decide to dispense with my conspiracy theories, then the last objection comes up:

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. My understanding is that there's specifically no such a prohibition (but, I've been wrong before). If not, why not?

The ARC can take my proffered services during an emergency or not, that's up to them.

73 de Carl AJ4DW
Logged

K2GW

  • Member
  • Posts: 538
    • homeURL
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2008, 07:07:57 PM »

>>I suppose that my last objection would vanish if the vendor is forbidden from using selling or otherwise revealing the information collected. My understanding is that there's specifically no such a prohibition (but, I've been wrong before).

Once again, it's their rules and they're the served agency, not the other away around.  You can get a copy of all of the policies from your local Red Cross chapter through "Crossnet".

When hams first objected to the Red Cross background check system, I pointed out that the advantage of our participating in it is that the Red Cross  pays the bill for it and gets a great rate because of their volume.  And now you have background check certificate you can use for other things if you wish.

Remember, the Red Cross policy in effect says  "Fine, if your members don't want to use the background check service that we're providing to you for free, then, as your own agency, set up a standard national one that has the appropriate level of checking".  For us hams that would be a simple crminal and SSAN check, just like the Red Cross actualy runs on us.

So if the league wants to set up it's own national background check system with a vendor and a consent form that eliminates any concern about the potential (albeit extremely low)  for "mode of living or financial checks" and other things some folks are having heartburn about, they can.

Looking into it at a number of vendor sites, it seems it would probably cost about $50 bucks per person, because we don't have nearly the volume to get the Red Cross's $12 rate.  And since the League doesn't have the money needed in it's budget, it would have to charge each ham participant the $50 fee.

So as long as every ARES and RACES member wants to support such a system with their own funds, that's an alternative.  Are the concerns about the Red Cross system worth the $50 bucks?  That's a decision each ham may have to make, but to me, not by a long shot.

Also, a lot of folks are bandying about the so called "7 day rule" whom I suspect haven't been on Red Cross national job.  That rule is only for the longstanding category of "spontaneuous volunteers" those well-meaning strangers who show up off the street and are not part of a planned response.

Those folks are limited to doing things like making copies, loading trucks, sweeping floors, etc. at headquarters  and warehouses away from shelters and direct contact with Red Cross clients.  They must work under the direct constant supervision of a Red Cross volunteer who has been previously trained and has passed the background check policy.  

The way hams are used doesn't fit into that category as they often work more on their own and are often at shelters.  Communications staff normally will either have passed the Red Cross background check or have passed the equivalent national background check policy of their own agency. As I mentioned, the latter doesn't exist for hams and won't unless we're willing to individually pay for it.

Finally, I would strongly suggest that those hams who have such stong concerns about all of this go to their local Red Cross chapter and read all of the details about the policies instead relying on Internet hearsay.  Any Red Cross chapter can download all of them from Crossnet.

73

Gary, K2GW

Logged

AC2Q

  • Member
  • Posts: 394
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2008, 06:49:58 AM »

K2GW writes:
Snip>>>>
So as long as every ARES and RACES member wants to support such a system with their own funds, that's an alternative. Are the concerns about the Red Cross system worth the $50 bucks? That's a decision each ham may have to make, but to me, not by a long shot.
SNIP>>>>>
--------------------------------------------------

Gary, you still don't understand. The fact that ARC is willing to fund the invasion of privacy is not the issue.

It's the principal of requiring a background check of a volunteer, in any way shape or form, that is the issue.

As a VOLUNTEER, I refuse to undergo any check whatsoever, and don't mind a bit if that means I am excluded. I understand we must operate under the served agencies rules, and as far as training is concerned, as in things that make me more effective at the position I am volunteering for, I comply freely, as regards a background check, I say NO, and accept the consequnces of same.

What about all those unknown and potentially dangerous EVACUEES?
Logged

K2GW

  • Member
  • Posts: 538
    • homeURL
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2008, 07:12:01 AM »

I realized I never fully answered the concerns about the Red Cross or vendor misusing or selling the information we provide to them as part of this process.  Let's start off with what information you actually provide and what each party receives as part of this background check procedure.

First, all the volunteer provides is the following:

Name (That's not very private)
Address (It's listed on qrz.com already)
Social Security Number as a cross check (you've already given it to the FCC)
Red Cross Chapter Number (so they know who to send the success e-mail to)
An e-mail address so the vendor can tell you the results. (Logical and I can look those up for many hams on qrz.com anyway)

Nothing else is asked and needed. I know, that's all they asked for and all I gave them. (Actually, early on, they didn't even ask me for my SSAN but they found were getting all the John Smiths confused, etc.)

Now what does the vendor do with it?  They look you up in the databases that THEY ALREADY HAVE to find the records about you!  For hams it's a SSN master index and criminal history database.  Thus, whether you participate in this or not, they already have access to your "private" information.  In effect, the only new "private" information they've gathered from the process is that you're a volunteer with the Podunk chapter of the Red Cross.

What info does the Red Cross get from the vendor?

If you fail, absolutely nothing.

If you pass, an e-mail to the chapter showing:
Your Name
Your Address
Your Social Security Number
A simple message saying you passed the background check.

Whether you pass or fail, you personally get an e-mail from the vendor showing what specific checks were run or you and whether you passed.  If you failed any, you're given a chance to talk to the vendor and discuss it.

So there's not much private info being gathered or passed to the Red Cross that's not already out there.

Finally, remember this is the EXACT same procedure the Red Cross is using for all of their other volunteers.  Hams are only a tiny percentage of them.  What makes us think we're so special that we deserve special dispensation to demand that an agency we SERVE should  change their own internal procedures and ones that I still say are pretty benign?  

After all, they did offer us the alternative to set up our own national background check system so hams working with them can meet the mandates imposed on them by Congress.  Unless we're willing to pay for our own background check system, we really have no right to complain about the one the Red Cross is offering to us for free.

73

Gary, K2GW

Logged

K2GW

  • Member
  • Posts: 538
    • homeURL
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2008, 07:18:24 AM »

>>It's the principal of requiring a background check of a volunteer, in any way shape or form, that is the issue.

Then the person you need to talk to about it is your Congressman, not me, not the ARRL, nor the Red Cross.  The Red Cross background check system is the result of the mandates imposed on them by the Congressional committee that investigated the Katrina response.  The Red Cross is responsible to Congress through their National Charter.

How to contact your Congressman can be found at

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

73

Gary, K2GW
Logged

AC2Q

  • Member
  • Posts: 394
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2008, 08:27:35 AM »

Gary, K2GW

I was not rying to give you grief, but your responses indicated you misunderstood my position, so I wished to clarify it.

I do not agree with the requirement, therefore I will not comply, and have no heartburn over being excluded if that is the consequence.

Let me assure you there are no hard feelings on my part.

My biggest issue is with Bureaucracy, and the useless but feel good solutions they put forth.

Regardless of real or imagined necessity, the fact is that every new requirement reduces the pool of available volunteers, either through inability or unwillingness to comply. The requirements for Training are arguable legitimate, as we all must "speak" a common language as regards EmComm "buzz words".

Sadly, this will only be addressed during the NEXT "big thing", I look forward to FEMA explining to the Networks thier rationale for refusing volunteers if it comes to that.

Perhaps all will go well, and I hope it does, but past events would indicate otherwise.
Logged

AJ4DW

  • Member
  • Posts: 148
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2008, 12:12:19 PM »

Gary;

If that's the case, that the vendor is only reporting on information they already have and not collecting information from additional sources then it's not unreasonable.

I will not apologize for my questions or my hesitancy to comply with the ARC background check request. The resistance to invasions of our privacy is a healthy and very American behavior, and we need to continue to question, rigorously, whether it's necessary in each case. Any organization that requires a background check and expects no questions to arise is either naive or used to dealing with a population from a more totalitarian state.

Any organization which contemplates background checks, regardless of how valid a need, should be ready with a good explanation as to why and how. "Because I'm paying for it", "Because you're my employee", "Because I say so" are not valid on their face and assume that the desires of the organization trump the rights of the individual. We must give consent to have our liberties curtailed, and we are obligated to do so very carefully, for our own benefit as well as those that follow us.
Logged

K2GW

  • Member
  • Posts: 538
    • homeURL
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2008, 07:20:37 PM »

>>Any organization that requires a background check and expects no questions to arise is either naive or used to dealing with a population from a more totalitarian state.

No, problem, Carl.  All of the questions asked by hams were asked by other Red Cross volunteers first.  What most  hams haven't done is gone to a Red Cross Chapter and reviewed the guidance documents explaining the procedures.  If the chapter doesn't have hard copies, they can download them from Crossnet for you.

Let's get back to the original question. ARRL does not at at this time have a curent National SOU/MOU with the Red Cross.  How does a county EC handle that?

Well, if you already have a good relationship and frequent contact with your local Red Cross chapter, then you don't need a National SOU/MOU to get in the door as you already have done so!

How do you keep the relationship going?  By being able to serve their communications needs and remaining constantly visible.  In NJ, each Red Cross chapter has a permanent Ham radio station.  Monthly statewide nets (it happened to be tonight) are run to test the equipment by linking the chapters together.  A monthly report is then sent to the heads of all chapters indicating which chapters checked and in which were missing.  The directors want all of their peers to see that their chapter checked in and thus encourage the hams to come in!

As a result, the Red Cross folks are used to ARES/RACES folks showing up and aren't going to be looking hard in a real emergency for ID cards and background checks of hams they've personally seen many times before.

You can also work out and document a local ARES/RACES criminal background check policy through local law enforcement, have all of your members go through it, keep careful records, and get your local chapter to accept it as an equivalent check.  That doesn't do you any good responding out of county, but it will work locally.

I also recommend encouraging those ARES/RACES members who are willing to go through the Red Cross background check to do so (don't assume all aren't; we have about 20 percent who have done so in our section), instead of waiting (possibly forever) for Red Cross to drop it.  Keep track of those who do on your roster and they become the hams you assign to Red Cross shelters. Those who don't, you assign to other places like EOC's, hospitals, etc.  

If you run short of hams who have passed the Red Cross background check, you might be able to stretch things a bit by using them as lead operators at a shelter and then assign other hams to work under their immediate supervision as "Spontaneous Volunteers".  Don't make a big deal publicly about it.  If Joe the ham they know introduces Harry the ham they don't as his assistant, few questions will probably ever be raised.

The bottom line is the Red Cross is the biggest of our served agencies and if we want to remain viable in disaster emergency communications, we have to figure out how to meet their needs.  Otherwise, we will rapidly find ourselves on the outside looking in with little ability to show the FCC how we're meeting our obligation to provide emergency communications justifying our frequency allocations.

Finally, did you know that all SATERN operators have to go through a similar background check with the Salvation Army?  So it's not going away there either.

73

Gary, K2GW
Logged

AC2Q

  • Member
  • Posts: 394
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2008, 06:54:48 AM »

K2GW writes (in seperate posts)

3) Why is the ARRL (including our president as well as most members) concerned about this if it is so benign?

First of all, there's no evidence that most members are concerned.

SNIP>>>

I also recommend encouraging those ARES/RACES members who are willing to go through the Red Cross background check to do so (don't assume all aren't; we have about 20 percent who have done so in our section),
---------------------------------------------------


So, 80% (EIGHTY) of your membership aren't complying with the Background Check requirement, and you see that as "no evidence that most members are concerned" ?

It all boils down to numbers, in our Ares group, there are 40+ "roster" members, 15 who regularly attend meetings, and 10 who have completed the IS and EmComm Courses. I suspect your mumbers are similar, correct me if I am wrong.

So, we are at 25% "deployable" BEFORE the background check requirement.

What do your numbers look like Gary? Cause for Concern?
Logged

K2GW

  • Member
  • Posts: 538
    • homeURL
ARC/ARRL MOU UPDATE?
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2008, 11:46:47 PM »

>So, 80% (EIGHTY) of your membership aren't complying with the Background Check requirement, and you see that as "no evidence that most members are concerned" ? What do your numbers look like Gary? Cause for Concern?

The number of active folks who have completed the ARC background checks (60) match those who have completed recommended ARRL Certification, etc, so I wouldn't say it's any more  of a concern than those issues.  As I explained, collectively, not everyone needs to do it, just those folks that we assign to Red Cross activities.  We support OEM's, hospitals and other agencies as well so there are still some other opportunities for the others.  But guess what, those agencies often have similar background check policies!
 
And if you think background checks going to go away because some of us don't like them, look at this comment I just received from an experienced Salvation Army officer about this thread:
 
"FYI, it's not just SATERN volunteers that The Salvation Army requires to go through the criminal background check - it's EVERY registered volunteer, employee and professional staff member, including its ordained ministers. We had been Salvation Army officers for over 30 years when the background check policy was put into effect and we had to go through it, too, only ours included the lifestyle and financial part, as well.

Even our church members who have contact with children and seniors as Sunday School teachers and group leaders have to go through the procedure.

I personally think many of the folks complaining have never operated in the real disaster world and have no concept of what is involved. All they have ever done is some local ARC chapter exercise and think they are seasoned responders."
 
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.

As has been shown, background checks aren't going to go away, no matter how many posts we make on this forum.  I've given some facts about how the Red Cross program actually works, why it's not that big a deal, and how to operate in the new environment.  It's as simple as that.  Those living in the past who wish that the situation might change back to the days before 9/11 and Katrina will probably disagree, but there is nothing that I as experienced Red Cross DSHR volunteer (and as an experienced Salvation Army Officer has now also said) see to believe it will.
 
Finally, everyone has the right to be concerned about their own privacy, even if it's pretty trivial in the case of what the Red Cross background checks actually entail.  But public service always involves sacrificing your own comfort and time to benefit others through our served agencies.  Those who aren't willing to do what Congress is asking those agencies to require of us are increasingly going to find that the EmComm aspects of this hobby are no longer suited for them.
 
73
 
Gary, K2GW
 
 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up