RadioBanter - View Single Post

Steve Bonine · March 16th 07, 08:08 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated

wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:20 pm, Steve Bonine wrote:

I don't object if others
choose to participate in parades. I trust that they won't object if I
choose not to do so.

I certainly don't object. You've described other things that you chose
to do. The thing that I object to is the folks who say that they don't
have time to participate in training, but "I'll be there if you need me
in an emergency."

What does the group do between
the "E"s? How do they build and maintain their expertise?

We're fairly unique in this area. The old state prison at Moundsville
is now used by national law enforcement for training. There are mock
prison riots a couple of times per year in which Marshall County ARES
is a participant. There was also a mock plague drill in which all
agencies participated throughout the area. Radio amateurs manned
positions at various EOC's, local hospitals and at the epicenter of
the event. The ARES group also participates in Field Day each year.
We've all received training in operating county radio equipment so
that we can serve as auxiliary ops in the event that there is a
shortage of professional ops.

That's impressive. It's just about as opposite from our situation here
as it could possibly be.

Many of the same kinds of tactical-communications and organizational
skills that are valuable in an emergency situation are used in public
service events.

Well, a number of them are used. A guy sitting in his car with a
mobile dual-bander or a fellow with an HT on a street corner for a
couple of hours doesn't use all of the skills involved in a severe
weather event which might last for days and require loads of spare
batteries and other backup equipment. Passing accurate messages via
digital modes may not come into play

Yes, but it's a lot better than nothing, and the only thing that we have
to work with in an area with no ARES.

[National database of hams trained in emergency communications]
I think that is a very good idea. Having a pool of trained ops who
can leave for a major disaster site on short notice would be extremely
helpful. I'd think that not many of us would be in a position to drop
everything and rush to a different region, especially for what might
become a prolonged absence.

You might be surprised. Quite a few are retired and in exactly that
position. I was pleased to discover during the Katrina effort that many
companies are willing to give their employees time off with pay to
participate in national disaster work.

I seem to recall the word "financial", coupled with the words
"background check".
Am I mistaken?

You're not mistaken about recalling the words. The Red Cross is not
doing a financial background check. There is controversy on how the
wording reads on the web site that does the background check. I believe
that the problem has been worked out, but the last I checked the
information on the ARRL web site had not been updated.

A lot of people have
a problem even with that.

I think I'd have a problem with that. The FCC has issued me an
amateur radio license. The FCC knows who I am and where I live. I
have other forms of identification. That should be good enough for
the American Red Cross.

The reason that the Red Cross instituted background checks was to try to
prevent the type of fraud that occurred during Katrina. There's no
correlation between having an FCC license and passing a background
check. I'd like to think that all licensed amateurs are honest
upstanding folks, but I know that's not true.

I'm not hiring on with that agency. I'd simply be volunteering my
time.

It's not that simple.

For one thing, you are likely to be issued Red Cross credentials. This
implies a level of responsibility for the Red Cross.

Also, you're likely, as a communicator, to be in very sensitive
locations like the EOC or in service centers in close proximity to
sensitive documents and information. If there's logic for Red Cross
volunteers to be required to pass a background check, the same logic
applies to the ham radio operators who are shadowing them or assisting
them in close quarters. And speaking of close quarters, you're likely
to be sharing sleeping quarters with these people; personally I feel
better about sleeping with 100 of my new co-workers if I have reason to
believe that at least some basic screening has been done on them.

Finally, there's the public view of things. The "man on the street"
sees two people walking together, both wearing similar credentials, and
doing the same job. The ham radio operator will not be distinguished
from the Red Cross volunteer. If there's a problem, the Red Cross will
take the heat. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to hold ham
volunteers to some standard.

If it finds itself short of volunteers, it'll likely wake up.
"Waking up", in the sense of not requiring the background check, isn't
an option.

It certainly is an option. Whether the Red Cross thinks that everyone
will bow to the idea is an unknown. Who is hurt if the Red Cross has
a shortage of volunteer radio operators spending their own money?

The people who are hurt are the disaster victims. You seem to think
that logic applies here. It doesn't. This is a political decision.

FEMA and the NGOs took a lot of heat for errors made in the Katrina
response. One of those errors involved not adequately screening
volunteers and suffering fraud because of it. I do not think that those
errors will be made again.

Will this result in better service to the disaster victims? NO, most
certainly, it will not. Every check that is put in place to prevent
fraud will make it harder for legitimate victims to obtain the aid that
they need. But that will not stop those checks from being made because
the taxpayers demand a certain level of assurance that their tax money
is being distributed to people with a legitimate need.

The background check has been mandated by all the publicity
related to fraud during previous operations.

Were there any reports of radio amateurs being involved with fraud?

You're trying to invoke logic again. grin

Yes, I did run into a few radio amateurs during the Katrina operation
who were not mentally stable. Fraud? No. Irrational behavior? Yes.
Would a background check have had any effect? I don't know. It MIGHT
have kept them at home. Or not.

One more comment, only peripherally related to background checks. This
is specifically aimed at _national_ disasters, not local ones where
local credentials are used. I am afraid that Katrina was the death
knell for just showing up and being put to work. The agencies -- be
they non-governmental or official -- are likely to be much more picky
about who they press into service. An FCC license or an ARES membership
card may not mean much, and you are likely to have to submit to a
background check before being able to participate fully in the
operation. Maybe I am completely wrong, and the need for qualified
people will trump the need to screen out the crooks. Time will tell.

The Red Cross is not the only factor though. One can work with local,
county or state police, with the Salvation Army with any number of
other non-governmental organizations. I used to belong to the
Northern Kentucky Amateur Radio Association. It did respond to the
Red Cross. My local ARES group here does not.

You're right. It depends on the disaster and what role you want to play.

In a national disaster, the Red Cross is mandated by Federal law with
the Mass Care component. They run the shelters, including regulating
health and welfare traffic. They handle disbursement of disaster aid
funds. They do the damage assessment.

But they don't have responsibility for the EOC. So depending on the
mutual-aid arrangement that got you into the disaster, you might have
nothing to do with the Red Cross. But as I mentioned above, the agency
you're working for may have their own requirements in place.

We have the HF amateur bands through international treaty. We don't
risk losing them through lack of public service participation. The
percentage of radio amateurs who regularly participate in ARES or
public service operations have always been traditionally small.

The ARRL continues to lobby in DC, and they need ammunition for that
lobbying effort. I don't see them talking to a Senator and saying, "We
need these political concessions so that hams can sit on their butt and
chew the fat with their buddies." I think "We provide a public service"
is likely to have a better effect.

We American radio amateurs have free licenses and a great deal of
freedom to participate in numerous ways in amateur radio. It behooves
us to become skilled ops, using as many different modes as possible.
Public service work plays a role, but it isn't the ne plus ultra of
amateur radio.

I wish that I had a better feeling that current US hams were doing that.
My personal method of achieving the goal involves public-service
activities. I'm certainly not saying that that's the only way to
justify the hobby. One of the things that makes ham radio great is that
it has so many different aspects.