View Full Version : ARRL Board of Directors Acts on Background Checks
kg4kww
07-31-2007, 02:44 PM
I think doing background checks is a good thing. if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
The ARRL Board of Directors took action on two pressing matters -- background checks and emerging digital technologies -- at its second meeting of 2007, held July 20-21 in Windsor, Connecticut. Invited guests included IARU Vice President Tim Ellam, VE6SH, and Radio Amateurs of Canada President Earle Smith, VE6NM.
Background Checks
A major concern at this Board meeting was the topic of served agencies and background investigations. The Ad Hoc Background Investigation Committee agreed that pursuing federally recognized credentialing for Amateur Radio volunteers was critical for the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) to function. The Committee chairman, ARRL Atlantic Division Director Bill Edgar, N3LLR, proposed that the Board adopt a policy with regard to Memoranda of Understanding with the various served agencies.
The Board adopted a policy that "communications volunteers participating in ARRL-sponsored programs should not be required by served agencies to undergo background investigations of any kind," but notes that criminal background checks -- performed by law enforcement agencies -- are "generally acceptable." The policy continues, "It is not reasonable for a served agency to require these volunteers to consent to credit checks, mode of living investigations or investigative consumer reports. In negotiating or renegotiating Memoranda of Understanding that commit the League to provide volunteer emergency communications support, the League must be assured that these volunteers will not be required by the partner organization to consent to credit checks, mode of living investigations or investigative consumer reports."
Full Story (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/07/30/100/?nc=1)
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ July 31 2007,07:44)]if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
May I place web-cams throughout your house, then?
W3MIV
07-31-2007, 03:09 PM
It might be interesting for you to know that the very first survey conducted in the Atlantic Division by Director Edgar was on the topic of background checks and what, if anything, was acceptable to the majority.
The input from that survey was taken into account in the formulation of the recommendations that Edgar made to the Board, which accepted his recommendations that each volunteer should remain free to opt for whatever level of background check he or she is comfortable to accept, but that the League would not sign any formal Memoranda of Understanding that mandated anything beyond a criminal background check as a requirement for participation by volunteers.
These served agencies need to re-learn the old adage about looking a gift horse in the mouth.
W3MIV
07-31-2007, 06:11 PM
You're right.
You're right, again.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Hmm..like most things, there are caveats. #Who does the background checks on the background checkers? #Who makes the decisions as to what is reasonable and what is not? #Why would this be any different than what goes on in the back rooms in D. C?
Interesting that their response to the issue was a general statement. Instead of telling the Red Cross that they would break ties with them unless they modified their position, the ARRL wimped out. It's like when you work with a group of people and there's ONE guy who is always late, but instead of talking to the guy face to face, the Boss wimps out posting a sign that says, "All employees must be on time or you will be fired!" Yep, threaten the entire group to avoid telling one guy to hit the road.
W3MIV
07-31-2007, 07:47 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 31 2007,14:51)]Interesting that their response to the issue was a general statement. #Instead of telling the Red Cross that they would break ties with them unless they modified their position, the ARRL wimped out. #It's like when you work with a group of people and there's ONE guy who is always late, but instead of talking to the guy face to face, the Boss wimps out posting a sign that says, "All employees must be on time or you will be fired!" Yep, threaten the entire group to avoid telling one guy to hit the road.
Charlie, sometimes your filament is not burning very brightly. The League is currently in the midst of negotiating a series of new memoranda, and that is where the action will be, not in minutes. The statement by the Board is a policy statement to let the membership know what the new policy will be, and to put new guidelines in place for the staff. It is not a part of a negotiation.
Quote[/b] (n8yx @ July 31 2007,10:05)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ July 31 2007,07:44)]if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
May I place web-cams throughout your house, then?
Please, keep the pictures to yourself if you do. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
kc9jqm
07-31-2007, 07:53 PM
nm
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ July 31 2007,10:44)]I think doing background checks is a good thing. if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Is this really true?
How thorough of a background check? To see if I have an criminal record, or certain types of abuse? OK, that one I can see.
But financial? Marital status? Medical status? What does the status of my bank account and the balance of my outstanding credit have to do with how well I can provide communications in the event of an emergency?
I'm sorry, but I believe (and am probably in the minority on this) that people have a fundamental right to privacy without an outstanding reason for an exception.
-----------------
A few weeks ago, my wife's church sent us a letter from the diocese. Seems that anyone who volunteers for anything for the church these days now has to provide all sorts of information for a database regarding background, financials, and so forth. For them and their families. All on the grounds that because a volunteer might come into contact with a minor, and that to protect themselves from lawsuits, they need full information on all volunteers. And they need it from everyone so that they're not accused of discrimination.
And all she does is sing in the choir.
For that, they want my SSN, permission to investigate my background, have permission to look at my credit reports? And it's not even my church! Forget it.
Unneccesary background checks are a violation of our civil liberties and an open invitation for future mischief. And that it's done under the cover of "it's for the sake of the children" or "it's to make sure we're ready" or for some other lame excuse, is pathetic and reprehnsible.
The sadest part is that by objecting in principle to these types of intrusions, it is automatically assumed that you must have something to hide.
W3MIV
07-31-2007, 09:11 PM
Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 31 2007,16:51)]I'm sorry, but I believe (and am probably in the minority on this) that people have a fundamental right to privacy without an outstanding reason for an exception.
And you are quite correct, and certainly not in a minority at all.
This idiocy is being forced by the whackoes running the DHS. It is becoming all pervasive. Soon I suspect one may not be able to apply for a library card without filling out a comprehensive history, including full genealogy back twelve generations!
As the secretary of a gun club, I kept a series of records (deeds and that sort of thing) in a safe deposit box at a local bank. Of a sudden, I got a letter informing me that to continue to keep the box I had to provide all sorts of information, including SSN, a copy of a valid drivers' license -- and not just for me, but for every other officer in the club, whether or NOT they were listed on the access card for the box!
The League's policy is that a criminal background check, alone, should suffice for any purpose. If individual members acquiesce in more intrusive demands from any agency, that is their call. I personally think it a big mistake to do so, and I would refuse flatly. I agree with Kevin, above, in that these people who ask for VOLUNTEER assistance cannot then treat them like suspected felons or worse.
This is going to get far worse before it gets better, and not just in amateur radio or EmComm voluntarism. Government is power focused on its own needs first, and the needs of the citizenry are lower on the list. Such laws as are being foisted on a frightened public by the charlatans in DC and elsewhere (for all government is the same at base; only the degree of raw power it may exercise separates a rat from a tiger) will get worse, for they are the fuel of the engines of domination.
To simply acquiesce in any of this is a fool's game.
k5jat
07-31-2007, 09:41 PM
I don't mind a criminal background check. My record is clean. I do have a problem with mode of living and credit checks. Why should they care? It's my privacy, and I have an implied Right to it.
Of course, if Dubya et al continue on their battle against the People, and are successful at it, then it won't matter anymore. Think 1984 in the present.
73, Jay KE5NRH
kg4kww
07-31-2007, 09:46 PM
Should these background checks become a standard practice when getting a license to operate?
As long as you don't covet the honey next door you will be ok.
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ July 31 2007,16:46)]Should these background checks become a standard practice when getting a license to operate?
As long as you don't covet the honey next door you will be ok.
What if you have bad or questionable credit?
That's what many of these "background" checks entail anyway.
K0RGR
07-31-2007, 09:54 PM
Yes, I think the ARRL pegged it just about right.
Why does the Red Cross need to know my credit rating? I guess they want to protect themselves from thefts by volunteers like those that happened after Katrina, but I'm afraid no amount of background check will fix that, and if they're going to exclude everyone with a poor credit rating, they won't get enough volunteers to do anything constructive, anyway.
The rest of it is just plain not necessary.
Next time you're asked for something like that in public (note: they will very rarely do that!), stand up, say "NO, I WILL NOT SHOW YOU MY PAPERS", and walk out. This would be most effective in a church setting. And then don't wimp out. The Department of Fatherland Security can get their intelligence someplace else.
n6hcm
07-31-2007, 10:54 PM
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ July 31 2007,07:44)]I think doing background checks is a good thing. if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
that's an interesting idea, but it's also very short-sighted. background checks means there's yet another opportunity for personal data to be mismanaged and/or lost. the data collected during a background check can often be used against the person being investigated (by identity thieves).
Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 31 2007,16:54)]Yes, I think the ARRL pegged it just about right.
Why does the Red Cross need to know my credit rating? I guess they want to protect themselves from thefts by volunteers like those that happened after Katrina, but I'm afraid no amount of background check will fix that, and if they're going to exclude everyone with a poor credit rating, they won't get enough volunteers to do anything constructive, anyway.
The rest of it is just plain not necessary.
Next time you're asked for something like that in public (note: they will very rarely do that!), stand up, say "NO, I WILL NOT SHOW YOU MY PAPERS", and walk out. This would be most effective in a church setting. And then don't wimp out. The Department of Fatherland Security can get their intelligence someplace else.
They want to know who's likely to steal the aid their handing out, assuming that those with lax credit would be more inclined to "help themselves".
ab0wr
08-01-2007, 02:16 AM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 31 2007,17:02)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 31 2007,16:54)]Yes, I think the ARRL pegged it just about right.
Why does the Red Cross need to know my credit rating? I guess they want to protect themselves from thefts by volunteers like those that happened after Katrina, but I'm afraid no amount of background check will fix that, and if they're going to exclude everyone with a poor credit rating, they won't get enough volunteers to do anything constructive, anyway.
The rest of it is just plain not necessary.
Next time you're asked for something like that in public (note: they will very rarely do that!), stand up, say "NO, I WILL NOT SHOW YOU MY PAPERS", and walk out. This would be most effective in a church setting. And then don't wimp out. The Department of Fatherland Security can get their intelligence someplace else.
They want to know who's likely to steal the aid their handing out, assuming that those with lax credit would be more inclined to "help themselves".
Do you agree with that assumption?
I don't.
A criminal background check will do *MUCH* more to identify those likely to steal than a credit check will do.
Some of the best people I know are not very credit worthy but they will give you their last dollar or the shirt of their back if you are in need -- that's why their credit is so poor.
tim ab0wr
N5PVL
08-01-2007, 11:52 AM
Since the DHS basically ordered the various agencies to work with amateurs, and since DHS grant money is now generally predicated upon that cooperation with those amateurs, I think we can simply tell the Red Cross to drop thier demands - or explain to the DHS why they are refusing to work with amateur radio operators.
These checks were never 'necessary' in the past and they are not necessary today - if they want to work with amateur radio operators and see the funding continue to flow.
So the Red Cross can pucker up and kiss my smelly old ham radio butt if they think that I will stand by in Willacy County, Texas while they play silly little PC dominance games in order to harass and discourage volunteer hams, of which we already have a short supply.
The Red Cross can straighten up it's act, or it can stand by and watch Willacy County amateurs work with every agency involved in local ecomms - except for the American Red Cross.
km6mb
08-01-2007, 01:00 PM
Won't be long before the redcoats are billited in your houses again against your wishes..
Papers please!
How soon they forget!
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ July 31 2007,14:46)]Should these background checks become a standard practice when getting a license to operate?
As long as you don't covet the honey next door you will be ok.
How about mandatory, retroactive, publicly available DNA analysis for all amateur licensees? Just so we can figure out what makes you tick! I think the "missing link" would be found at last!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
k0dxc
08-01-2007, 03:24 PM
Quote[/b] (n5xm @ July 31 2007,11:13)]Hmm..like most things, there are caveats. Who does the background checks on the background checkers? Who makes the decisions as to what is reasonable and what is not? Why would this be any different than what goes on in the back rooms in D. C?
Good point.
km6mb
08-01-2007, 03:36 PM
As far as the Red Cross can go, they can go kiss my fat white....... You get the picture!
I won't volunteer my services to ANY organisation that requires background checks of me. Even though I am sqeaky clean. It's an insult to ANY freedom loving person and a slap in the face to the very people who founded this great nation and were inspired to write the Constitution.
We need more Dr Ron Pauls in Congress!!
In fact we need Dr Paul to replace the traitor Bush in the White House.
KC2PBJ
08-01-2007, 03:55 PM
Most emergency management agencies conduct a reasonable background check for their volunteers as a matter of routine. Red Cross has, for many years, had a spotty relationship with amateur radio - depending on political and leadership posturing and media hype. The EMCOMM group that I belong to has chosen not to work under ARC control and has informed them of our choice. SATERN and other groups are far more capable of providing cooperative and effective coordination with amateur radio - without the fuss, muss, bother, or self-serving policies.
Quote[/b] (kq9j @ Aug. 01 2007,07:02)]# #I think the "missing link" would be found at last!
It already has
It's on 27MHz!!!!!
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 31 2007,21:16)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 31 2007,17:02)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 31 2007,16:54)]Yes, I think the ARRL pegged it just about right.
Why does the Red Cross need to know my credit rating? I guess they want to protect themselves from thefts by volunteers like those that happened after Katrina, but I'm afraid no amount of background check will fix that, and if they're going to exclude everyone with a poor credit rating, they won't get enough volunteers to do anything constructive, anyway.
The rest of it is just plain not necessary.
Next time you're asked for something like that in public (note: they will very rarely do that!), stand up, say "NO, I WILL NOT SHOW YOU MY PAPERS", and walk out. This would be most effective in a church setting. And then don't wimp out. The Department of Fatherland Security can get their intelligence someplace else.
They want to know who's likely to steal the aid their handing out, assuming that those with lax credit would be more inclined to "help themselves".
Do you agree with that assumption?
I don't.
A criminal background check will do *MUCH* more to identify those likely to steal than a credit check will do.
Some of the best people I know are not very credit worthy but they will give you their last dollar or the shirt of their back if you are in need -- that's why their credit is so poor.
tim ab0wr
It's not my assumption.
The Red Cross admitted they were instituting the background checks specifically because of the theft of supplies by volunteers. They assume because the people caught stealing after the hurricanes had either criminal records or lousy credit that ALL people with criminal backgounds and lousy credit are automatically suspect.
I don't make the same assumption.
As for those trying to throw some "big brother" aspect on all of this.......which department of the federal government has control of the Red Cross?
They are not a government agency. They do accept government grants but so does the ARRL.
kg4kww
08-02-2007, 05:34 PM
Seems like a few folks have some skeletons in the old closet they want to keep locked up. Maybe that's why they are against background checks.
I have had them before and i have no problem with them.
In todays dangerous world, I don't think it's such a bad idea depending on the job to be performed.
But, that's my feeling.
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Aug. 02 2007,10:34)]Seems like a few folks have some skeletons in the old closet they want to keep locked up. Maybe that's why they are against background checks.
I have had them before and i have no problem with them.
In todays dangerous world, I don't think it's such a bad idea depending on the job to be performed.
But, that's my feeling.
It's not about background checks, Greg. I't about credit checks.
KC5SAS
08-02-2007, 05:40 PM
The local Office of Emergency Preparedness does a basic criminal background check on members of it's ACS/RACES group. Same as what's done for volunteer firefighters and CERT members.
If the ARC needs hams for an emergency and requests personel for the Parish ACS/RACES then they will have to accept that or come up with people from ARES or their own cadre of volunteers.
W3MIV
08-02-2007, 05:41 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Aug. 02 2007,13:38)]Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Aug. 02 2007,10:34)]Seems like a few folks have some skeletons in the old closet they want to keep locked up. Maybe that's why they are against background checks.
I have had them before and i have no problem with them.
In todays dangerous world, I don't think it's such a bad idea depending on the job to be performed.
But, that's my feeling.
It's not about background checks, Greg. #I't about credit checks.
Don't confuse him any more than he already is.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
kg4kww
08-02-2007, 05:41 PM
Quote[/b] ]AG4YO-It's not about background checks, Greg. I't about credit checks.
Pay your bills on time and you will have no worries.
Credit checks are pretty standard this days, because, it says something about ones character among other things.
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Aug. 02 2007,13:34)]Seems like a few folks have some skeletons in the old closet they want to keep locked up. Maybe that's why they are against background checks.
I have had them before and i have no problem with them.
In todays dangerous world, I don't think it's such a bad idea depending on the job to be performed.
But, that's my feeling.
That's rather presumptious. And insulting.
My refusal to submit to an onerous background check could simply mean that I'm an ornery old bas... buzzard who believes in the individual's fundamental right of privacy, and in the words and meanings of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
If there is truly a need to know that's one thing. If it's merely a fishing expedition required by a lawyer so that the organization has a convenient excuse to CYA when something goes bad, well, that's something else.
Why do you feel the need to poke around in my closets, and why do you feel that I must be hiding something if I just think you're being a nosy bas...buzzard?
And not that it should matter, but I my objecting to a background check on principle does not mean I won't submit to one for good cause (and I have). It does mean that you had better have a damned good reason.
And FWIW, I also object, in principle, to use of pre-employment or random drug testing as an invasion of privacy and of your (and mine) civil liberties and rights. Do you, by the same reasoning, assume that I'm hiding something there too?
And while I'm on the rant... Do you also assume that someone asking to see a police officer for a search warrant, as is required by law, must be hiding something? If you do, you're watching too many Law and Order reruns.
KB1KIX
08-02-2007, 08:53 PM
Bottom line - this is what I tell my volunteers.
I refuse to do the Red Cross check. It isn't a background check - let's get this straight off. It's a background and mode of living check. i.e. Credit check.
If a volunteer wants to do it, so be it, its their call. I refuse, my finances have nothing to do with my ability to serve (and they aren't all that bad, I have new toys!).
However, I don't mind a criminal check done by local law enforcement. I have to have that done for access to a few EOC's. That is fine, no credit being run - no problem.
So, under current rules, I can only volunteer for 7 days for a Red Cross deployment.
Sucks for them then. I'm one of the few guys here that actually is an avid outdoorsman and has the camping supplies to be self sufficient, mobile for up to a month at a time (and an employer that will let me take the time off if needed).
They get fed funds, as stated earlier, would be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Jonathan
KB1KIX
08-02-2007, 08:55 PM
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Aug. 02 2007,13:41)]Quote[/b] ]AG4YO-It's not about background checks, Greg. #I't about credit checks.
Pay your bills on time and you will have no worries.
Credit checks are pretty standard this days, because, it says something about ones character among other things.
AG4YO is totally correct ( did I say that!).
Why should my credit have anything to do with it? Do any of my volunteers handle Red Cross money? Do they dispense those debit cards that were abused (by their own staff and volunteers)?
I provide a service to them, not the other way around.
They have no business snooping in my life, as I do not handle any of their equipment, money, etc. So, as a volunteer who equips himself, it is none of their business.
I have no skeletons in my closet - I burried them long ago with the ex wife!
Jonathan
Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 31 2007,17:47)]What if you have bad or questionable credit?
That's what many of these "background" checks entail anyway.
Or if Equifax (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/privacy/equifax.html)has bad data and won't fix it.
I'm going through that myself just now.
Cortland
KA5S
W3MIV
08-03-2007, 05:37 PM
Quote[/b] (ka5s @ Aug. 03 2007,13:09)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 31 2007,17:47)]What if you have bad or questionable credit?
That's what many of these "background" checks entail anyway.
Or if Equifax (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/privacy/equifax.html)has bad data and won't fix it. #
I'm going through that myself just now.
Cortland
KA5S
The only answer to this sort of abuse is revised federal law to rein in the abusers. Alas, since Uncle Sam is among the primary abusers, you might outlive Methuselah and never see satisfaction.
wb6mmj
08-03-2007, 06:28 PM
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ July 31 2007,07:44)]I think doing background checks is a good thing. if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
The ARRL Board of Directors took action on two pressing matters -- background checks and emerging digital technologies -- at its second meeting of 2007, held July 20-21 in Windsor, Connecticut. Invited guests included IARU Vice President Tim Ellam, VE6SH, and Radio Amateurs of Canada President Earle Smith, VE6NM.
Background Checks
A major concern at this Board meeting was the topic of served agencies and background investigations. The Ad Hoc Background Investigation Committee agreed that pursuing federally recognized credentialing for Amateur Radio volunteers was critical for the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) to function. The Committee chairman, ARRL Atlantic Division Director Bill Edgar, N3LLR, proposed that the Board adopt a policy with regard to Memoranda of Understanding with the various served agencies.
The Board adopted a policy that "communications volunteers participating in ARRL-sponsored programs should not be required by served agencies to undergo background investigations of any kind," but notes that criminal background checks -- performed by law enforcement agencies -- are "generally acceptable." The policy continues, "It is not reasonable for a served agency to require these volunteers to consent to credit checks, mode of living investigations or investigative consumer reports. In negotiating or renegotiating Memoranda of Understanding that commit the League to provide volunteer emergency communications support, the League must be assured that these volunteers will not be required by the partner organization to consent to credit checks, mode of living investigations or investigative consumer reports."
Full Story (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/07/30/100/?nc=1)
I have nothing to hide at all but I don`t like giving out my personal information.
Last year I was asked to help with a off road event, using Amateur Radio for communications, here in the mountains where I live, with inner-city children.
The children from the inner-city come up here every year and the off-roaders that live up here show them what nature is all about by driving the children into the forested areas.
I thought it was a great idea and wanted to help out with this program.
I was handed paperwork and told I would have to go on line to complete the application. This was for the Red Cross.
When I went on line I noticed they wanted allot of information. Information that, first, I don`t ever type into my computer. Example, I never give my social security number to anyone over the Internet.
When I saw the information that they wanted, I stopped.
I told the people that asked me to help out that I was sorry but, in my opinion, The Red Cross wanted too much information. End of me trying to do my good deed.
I think that the A.R.R.L. made a good decision on this subject. I`m not a member and I won`t go into why I`m not here but they do, on this subject, deserve a pat on the back.
w8znx
08-04-2007, 09:20 PM
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Aug. 02 2007,10:34)]Seems like a few folks have some skeletons in the old closet they want to keep locked up. Maybe that's why they are against background checks.
I have had them before and i have no problem with them.
In todays dangerous world, I don't think it's such a bad idea depending on the job to be performed.
But, that's my feeling.
# # # # WAR IS PEACE
#
# ## #FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
## #IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
# # # #Greg loves Big Brother
#
# expects us to also love Big Brother
Greg feels safer when Big Brother is watching you
# mac
W3MIV
08-04-2007, 09:25 PM
Watch it, Mac, we've got our eyes on you...