NHQ to begin rescreening members

Started by Eclipse, October 24, 2017, 01:57:28 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

"Dear Valued CAP Member

The industry best practice for nonprofit volunteer organizations, as well as most government agencies, is to conduct background rescreening every five years. As the U.S. Air Force's newest Total Force partner, it is imperative that CAP always maintains the support, confidence and trust of our parent organization. To demonstrate due diligence and get CAP into the five-year rescreening cycle, we have contracted with Verified Volunteers, a highly respected company that regularly completes background screening for numerous volunteer organizations, including Big Brothers Big Sisters, Girl Scouts, and Pop Warner Football.

Initially, approximately 13,500 members screened prior to 2014 will be rescreened. These background checks will be conducted electronically; a fingerprint card and the normally required paperwork are NOT required. The rescreening process will begin in the next several weeks and will be completed in early 2018.

National Headquarters will use its currently-established process to review any information received. Members will, of course, have the opportunity to provide documentation or additional information before a final decision concerning membership eligibility is reached.

Please note that CAP Regulation 39-2, paragraph 3.2.2.2, requires all members to notify National Headquarters within 30 days of any changes on the membership application that may affect membership eligibility. Although we know this would be a very rare occurrence, an arrest after joining CAP that has not been reported to National Headquarters should be reported now, prior to the rescreening process. This could reduce the amount of time required to adjudicate any findings and help to ensure continuous participation in Civil Air Patrol.

Once these initial rescreenings are completed, all Civil Air Patrol senior members will be rescreened every five years, concurrent with their membership renewal date starting in 2019. Initial screening for new members will still be accomplished through the current screening process.

Thank you for your support as we make this important change to our membership screening process.

Sincerely



MARK E. SMITH
Major General, CAP"


That...is a win...

"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

EMT-83

One and done for background checks certainly isn't best practice.

Eclipse

#3
Quote from: etodd on October 24, 2017, 02:03:35 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 24, 2017, 01:57:28 AM


That...is a win...

Are you expecting our numbers to be pared down?

Yes, and I understand it has happened before.

I was not a member, but I was told on more then one occasion that in the mid-90's
when NHQ started doing FBI checks and required all members to submit fingerprints,
a non-trivial number of people either self-selected to avoid embarrassment or were
found to have "issues" that disqualified their membership.

This is a definite step in the right direction. If not a single member is terminated,
great, we've got a new baseline.

"That Others May Zoom"

dwb

Periodic re-screens are a good idea. Looks like they're making it low friction for members too, which is nice.

FW

A painless way to do things. Who would have thought we could provide a great service without causing the membership undo hardship. Go figure... ;D

A.Member

Concur...This is a good thing and long overdue.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Spam



I recall the first cadet protection policy being briefed to us at a 1989 Wing Conference; the finger printing and checks for all over-18s started then, and we started losing a certain segment of members. By 1991 I think that loss was over and done, and we had exposed quite a few people that had obviously been sailing under false colors with us from day one. Not a bad thing at all; some had convictions of bad things. I would doubt that we'd see the number of voluntary attrits as we did when screening was instituted, but one and done is thankfully headed out.

If you have a clearance, you are long used to reinvestigation as a normal and healthy thing.

V/r
Spam



NIN

CPP was implemented circa 1988.  I know this because I was stationed at Cp Humphreys Korea, and I went down to the PMO to have them print me after my squadron commander mailed me a card.

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

MSG Mac

When the screenings started in the 80's it was specifically mentioned that there would be recurrent screenings about every 5 years. I guess monetary concerns kept that from happening.
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

Devil Doc

Oh no, there going to find out about that one time in Vegas, Oh well... nice knowing yall.
Captain Brandon P. Smith CAP
Former HM3, U.S NAVY
Too many Awards, Achievments and Qualifications to list.


NIN

Quote from: Devil Doc on October 24, 2017, 05:18:13 PM
Oh no, there going to find out about that one time in Vegas, Oh well... nice knowing yall.

Don't sweat it. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

arajca

Quote from: Devil Doc on October 24, 2017, 05:18:13 PM
Oh no, there going to find out about that one time in Vegas, Oh well... nice knowing yall.
Don't sweat THAT one time, worry about the 27 other times... >:D

Fubar

I'm not sure they had to tell us they were re-screening, but it's smart that they did. Instead of having to talk with certain members about stuff that popped up and all the hassle that comes with it, most of those folks will suddenly be disappearing on their own. Win-win.

Live2Learn

Periodic screening is a good idea.  It's also called "due diligence".  That said, I sincerely hope CAP's OPSEC  is better than that of OPM, DOD, EquiFax, VA, etc.  I also expect to see a hard copy letter to my address of record advising me to call the CAP NHQ phone number.  I don't do online surveys purportedly from a legitimate source... thats a great spoofing technique.  And especially if I am expected to spill personal, private (and commercially valuable) details on my life that can be translated into commoditized product and sold online.

The IRS doesn't contact taxpayers online, banks may - but use far more sophisticated methods than CAP's hokey cybersecurity CAP, OPM doesn't, Social Security doesn't, investment houses (mutual funds, etc. don't...  CAP really needs to be very professinal about this entire re-screen thing.

RiverAux

Haven't they been rescreening CD folks every so often.  I'm sure I remember doing that at least once, but I haven't been qualified in that for 5+ years now. 

Eclipse

Quote from: Live2Learn on October 24, 2017, 07:57:25 PMI also expect to see a hard copy letter to my address of record advising me to call the CAP NHQ phone number.

For?

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2017, 08:19:30 PM
Haven't they been rescreening CD folks every so often. 

You get a more through, second BGC in order to qualify for CD, but AFAIK you only get
rescreened if your qual lapses.

"That Others May Zoom"

NIN

Quote from: Live2Learn on October 24, 2017, 07:57:25 PM
Periodic screening is a good idea.  It's also called "due diligence".  That said, I sincerely hope CAP's OPSEC  is better than that of OPM, DOD, EquiFax, VA, etc.  I also expect to see a hard copy letter to my address of record advising me to call the CAP NHQ phone number.  I don't do online surveys purportedly from a legitimate source... thats a great spoofing technique.  And especially if I am expected to spill personal, private (and commercially valuable) details on my life that can be translated into commoditized product and sold online.

The IRS doesn't contact taxpayers online, banks may - but use far more sophisticated methods than CAP's hokey cybersecurity CAP, OPM doesn't, Social Security doesn't, investment houses (mutual funds, etc. don't...  CAP really needs to be very professinal about this entire re-screen thing.

Did you not read the letter?

CAP has engaged the services of a reputable 3rd party (you know, reputable. Hopefully moreso than Equifax?) that does this kind of rescreening for lots of organizations.  I have a friend whose son, a former cadet, does this for a living (probably not for the same outfit). Its a lot of public records searches, 3rd party database searches, law enforcement stuff, etc.

I'm pretty sure that unless they need to confirm that you're Anthony Soprano Jr and not Sr, you're not even going to get a phone call.

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Johnny Yuma

#19
Quote from: NIN on October 25, 2017, 01:03:12 AM


Did you not read the letter?

CAP has engaged the services of a reputable 3rd party (you know, reputable. Hopefully moreso than Equifax?) that does this kind of rescreening for lots of organizations.  I have a friend whose son, a former cadet, does this for a living (probably not for the same outfit). Its a lot of public records searches, 3rd party database searches, law enforcement stuff, etc.

I'm pretty sure that unless they need to confirm that you're Anthony Soprano Jr and not Sr, you're not even going to get a phone call.

I did.

Volunteer Verification is owned by Sterling Infosystems. A Google search on this company doesn't give me warm fuzzy feelings on the way they do their business. Plenty of complaints and lawsuits from both paying clients as well as those investigated for faulty reporting, illegal search procedures and fraudulent billing. This includes a number of class action lawsuits directed against them.

Oh, by the way, your personal information, including your SSN, will be processed by Sterling employees located in India. They actually closed a 600 man office here in the US and relocated offshore a few years ago.

NHQ would be better served re-running everyone's fingerprint cards every 5 years than this.
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

SarDragon

Well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine. :(
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

jeders

Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2017, 08:19:30 PM
Haven't they been rescreening CD folks every so often.  I'm sure I remember doing that at least once, but I haven't been qualified in that for 5+ years now.

Every 4 years you have to submit a new Form 83.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

PHall

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on October 25, 2017, 02:13:10 AM
Quote from: NIN on October 25, 2017, 01:03:12 AM


Did you not read the letter?

CAP has engaged the services of a reputable 3rd party (you know, reputable. Hopefully moreso than Equifax?) that does this kind of rescreening for lots of organizations.  I have a friend whose son, a former cadet, does this for a living (probably not for the same outfit). Its a lot of public records searches, 3rd party database searches, law enforcement stuff, etc.

I'm pretty sure that unless they need to confirm that you're Anthony Soprano Jr and not Sr, you're not even going to get a phone call.

I did.

Volunteer Verification is owned by Sterling Infosystems. A Google search on this company doesn't give me warm fuzzy feelings on the way they do their business. Plenty of complaints and lawsuits from both paying clients as well as those investigated for faulty reporting, illegal search procedures and fraudulent billing. This includes a number of class action lawsuits directed against them.

Oh, by the way, your personal information, including your SSN, will be processed by Sterling employees located in India. They actually closed a 600 man office here in the US and relocated offshore a few years ago.

NHQ would be better served re-running everyone's fingerprint cards every 5 years than this.

Considering that the Office of Personnel Management lost my personal information I am not that concerned with these clowns.

Live2Learn

Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2017, 08:19:30 PM
Haven't they been rescreening CD folks every so often.  I'm sure I remember doing that at least once, but I haven't been qualified in that for 5+ years now.

Yes, every 4-5 years (don't recall for sure).  BUT, the person being re-screened wasn't sent a link...  They signed on to eServices or completed a hard copy background doc.  BIG difference from clinking on a link that appears in the email inbox...  Very big difference!

Live2Learn

#24

Quote from: NIN on October 25, 2017, 01:03:12 AM


Did you not read the letter?

CAP has engaged the services of a reputable 3rd party (you know, reputable. Hopefully moreso than Equifax?) that does this kind of rescreening for lots of organizations.  I have a friend whose son, a former cadet, does this for a living (probably not for the same outfit). Its a lot of public records searches, 3rd party database searches, law enforcement stuff, etc.

I'm pretty sure that unless they need to confirm that you're Anthony Soprano Jr and not Sr, you're not even going to get a phone call.

I read the letter.  "Re-screening" has lots of meanings.  It can mean updating PPI, it can mean a simple online check of various db, it can be like the FAA's MedExpress where new information is provided that is then cross checked for veracity.  Every time my personal data is handled, shuttled through a contractor, etc. then there's a risk to ME (or anyone else subjected to the process) that is largely borne solely by the individual.  I'm sure we're all aware that to date no agency or company has accepted in any meaningful way adequate responsibility for data losses - no matter how egregious their cyber security flaws.  Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, data handling by either the Federal Government or commercial enterprises to date fails to engender warm fuzzy feelings, and certainly not a lot of faith that "lapses" will be avoided.  They say "oops", and move on.   If you are satisfied with the performance of the VA, OPM, Equifax, etc. etc. etc. then have at it.  Clink on all the links sent across unsecured email.  But, please don't criticize by snarky comments those who, based on abundant evidence, prefer secure servers, hardcopy, or other meaningful measures to avoid pfshing, spoofing, etc. should CAP use unsecured email as a means to conduct all or portions of  this 'rescreen' exercise.

ßτε

Quote from: Live2Learn on October 25, 2017, 10:36:45 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2017, 08:19:30 PM
Haven't they been rescreening CD folks every so often.  I'm sure I remember doing that at least once, but I haven't been qualified in that for 5+ years now.

Yes, every 4-5 years (don't recall for sure).  BUT, the person being re-screened wasn't sent a link...  They signed on to eServices or completed a hard copy background doc.  BIG difference from clinking on a link that appears in the email inbox...  Very big difference!
What's this link you keep mentioning?

Eclipse

Are you expecting a link from somewhere?
No one is getting anything, NHQ didn't even have to notify people.

"That Others May Zoom"

jeders

Quote from: Live2Learn on October 25, 2017, 10:44:19 PM

Quote from: NIN on October 25, 2017, 01:03:12 AM


Did you not read the letter?

CAP has engaged the services of a reputable 3rd party (you know, reputable. Hopefully moreso than Equifax?) that does this kind of rescreening for lots of organizations.  I have a friend whose son, a former cadet, does this for a living (probably not for the same outfit). Its a lot of public records searches, 3rd party database searches, law enforcement stuff, etc.

I'm pretty sure that unless they need to confirm that you're Anthony Soprano Jr and not Sr, you're not even going to get a phone call.

I read the letter.  "Re-screening" has lots of meanings.  It can mean updating PPI, it can mean a simple online check of various db, it can be like the FAA's MedExpress where new information is provided that is then cross checked for veracity.  Every time my personal data is handled, shuttled through a contractor, etc. then there's a risk to ME (or anyone else subjected to the process) that is largely borne solely by the individual.  I'm sure we're all aware that to date no agency or company has accepted in any meaningful way adequate responsibility for data losses - no matter how egregious their cyber security flaws.  Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, data handling by either the Federal Government or commercial enterprises to date fails to engender warm fuzzy feelings, and certainly not a lot of faith that "lapses" will be avoided.  They say "oops", and move on.   If you are satisfied with the performance of the VA, OPM, Equifax, etc. etc. etc. then have at it.  Clink on all the links sent across unsecured email.  But, please don't criticize by snarky comments those who, based on abundant evidence, prefer secure servers, hardcopy, or other meaningful measures to avoid pfshing, spoofing, etc. should CAP use unsecured email as a means to conduct all or portions of  this 'rescreen' exercise.

First off, there is no link. All of the re-screening goes on behind the scenes where we will likely never see any effect of it.

Second, hard copy documents get lost and mishandled all the time. They are in no way more secure than electronic means.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2017, 10:52:30 PM
Are you expecting a link from somewhere?
No one is getting anything, NHQ didn't even have to notify people.

I'm not so sure about that.

Fair Credit Reporting Act requires authorization before a third-party background service does a "computerized records check." (I won't refer to it as a "background check" because it really isn't one. It is PART of one).

I don't remember signing anything when I joined CAP that authorizes on-going record checks by third party vendors.

That said, it really isn't hard to set that up. A link in an email that takes you to the third party site. Click a couple of boxes and send.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

Toad1168

CAPR 39-2

3.2.2.2. Members may be re-screened periodically as required by National Headquarters
or upon request of unit commander of assignment or commanders of higher echelons with
reason to question a member's continued eligibility. Members late renewing 180 days after their
renewal date must submit a new FBI fingerprint card (see paragraph 6.2.). All active members
must notify the National Headquarters Screening Division (CAP/DP) of changes in the information
originally submitted on their CAPF 12 within 30 days of any change that might make the individual
ineligible for membership (i.e., changes in residency status, military status, arrests, etc.). Upon
receipt of the updated information, National Headquarters will follow the established procedures
for reviewing background information to determine continued membership eligibility. National
Headquarters will notify the wing commander concerned of the pending membership eligibility
review. A new fingerprint card may be requested by National Headquarters if necessary to
complete the review process. Failure to properly notify National Headquarters of any change in
information shall be grounds for termination of membership.
Toad

Eclipse

Anyone with "privacy concerns" who is an active Twitspace user, is just amusing,
and they are usually the most vocal in places, you know like TwitSpace, that are meaningless but loud.

The same goes for anyone who uses a bank, credit card, email, the internet, a cell phone,
electricity, natural gas, has a driver's license, a job, a house, apartment, etc.

Your "concerns" are noted...along with your current geolocation, device identifier, anniversary,
favorite color, political leaning, current mood, Netflix history, and naiveté.

"That Others May Zoom"

NIN

Quote from: Toad1168 on October 26, 2017, 07:34:59 PM
CAPR 39-2

3.2.2.2. Members may be re-screened periodically as required by National Headquarters

Or the statement just above your signature on the CAPF12:
QuoteIn applying for membership in Civil Air Patrol, I hereby execute the oath on the reverse side and understand and agree as follows: (a) To permit CAP to use my Social Security Number in my membership records as an identification number and to obtain background information from any person, corporation, or government agency (local, state, or federal) to be used to determine membership eligibility; (b) that if my membership eligibility is questioned, I will be notified and provided the reasons; (c) that prior to a final decision on my eligibility, I will have an opportunity to submit documentary evidence on my behalf; and (d) that CAP membership is a privilege and not a right and CAP's decision on my membership eligibility is final.

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Briank

Quote from: Toad1168 on October 26, 2017, 07:34:59 PM
A new fingerprint card may be requested by National Headquarters if necessary to
complete the review process.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that.  It was an expensive and time sucking royal pain to get the fingerprint card done.  I'd prefer to not go through all that hassle again!

Eclipse

You can't get it done at the local PD?

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone in 18 years in my AOR having to pay for printing.

"That Others May Zoom"

NIN

Happens here. Most depts charge for prints.

We have a fingerprint kit donated (a legit one) and 4-5 of our seniors are trained in how to roll prints.

Only 1 reject in 3 years
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse

Quote from: NIN on October 26, 2017, 09:55:43 PM
Happens here. Most depts charge for prints.

That's a stone bummer, my town will do it free for anyone, as do most of the surrounding.

I've even heard recently that some are doing Livescan prints and then printing out the
prints onto the card.  Cool.

A couple units here have their own kits as well, as long as you know how to do it, it doesn't matter the source.


"That Others May Zoom"

sardak

^^^ "Science in a Flash," "Experiment Kit"
Maybe we can add this to the list of STEM kits we get through National, train the cadets and have them do all the fingerprinting for no bucks.

Mike

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: NIN on October 26, 2017, 09:09:35 PM
Quote from: Toad1168 on October 26, 2017, 07:34:59 PM
CAPR 39-2

3.2.2.2. Members may be re-screened periodically as required by National Headquarters

Or the statement just above your signature on the CAPF12:
QuoteIn applying for membership in Civil Air Patrol, I hereby execute the oath on the reverse side and understand and agree as follows: (a) To permit CAP to use my Social Security Number in my membership records as an identification number and to obtain background information from any person, corporation, or government agency (local, state, or federal) to be used to determine membership eligibility; (b) that if my membership eligibility is questioned, I will be notified and provided the reasons; (c) that prior to a final decision on my eligibility, I will have an opportunity to submit documentary evidence on my behalf; and (d) that CAP membership is a privilege and not a right and CAP's decision on my membership eligibility is final.

I'd bet that the CAPF 12 language did not take into account the many changes to the FCRA.

I'm wary of CAP going ahead with the database records searches without first complying with the FCRA provisions and taking the unbelievably simple step of having people click on an email link to give permission for the search. If somebody objects to giving permission, fine, 2B them. But placing reliance on a long ago signing of an even longer ago form as being "authorization" sounds to me like inviting trouble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

Eclipse

There's nothing in a CAP BGC that violates FCRA, and just because a document is "old"
doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

Does UCMJ no longer apply because a member raised his hand "a long time ago"?

How about a mortgage?  29 years in can you say "meh, not so much.."?

And regardless, it's not "long ago", since members re-attest to the oath, including
complying with the regs (i.e. 39-2), every year, which means "long ago" is less then 12 months.




"That Others May Zoom"

abdsp51

Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2017, 02:58:15 AM
Does UCMJ no longer apply because a member raised his hand "a long time.

That depends and even the UCMJ has statute of limitations on offenses... i can tell you that i can seperate tomorrow and the UCMJ would no longer apply to me even though I raised my hand a long time ago. 

Eclipse

Yes, factually correct, not really what was said.

If you still >in< it applies even if it was "long ago".

"That Others May Zoom"

BuckeyeDEJ

You know, I don't even remember filling out an application for senior membership. I was booted to s'member status at age 21, having been a cadet the previous nine or so years. There's nothing in my personnel file...


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

stillamarine

I'm sorry, I'm confused about how the FCRA is in play here. Will CAP be running peoples credit reports or are they merely doing a criminal background investigation. A criminal background doesn't look into your credit at all. FCRA to employment backgrounds that utilize credit reports only.

Source - the 80 hour police hire background investigation class I had to attend through the feds.
Tim Gardiner, 1st LT, CAP

USMC AD 1996-2001
USMCR    2001-2005  Admiral, Great State of Nebraska Navy  MS, MO, UDF
tim.gardiner@gmail.com

NIN

Quote from: stillamarine on October 27, 2017, 01:03:03 PM
Source - the 80 hour police hire background investigation class I had to attend through the feds.

Wait, you're a subject matter expert?  Get out.  8)

Only ill-informed guesses and conspiracy suppositions allowed here.

;D

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: stillamarine on October 27, 2017, 01:03:03 PM
I'm sorry, I'm confused about how the FCRA is in play here. Will CAP be running peoples credit reports or are they merely doing a criminal background investigation. A criminal background doesn't look into your credit at all. FCRA to employment backgrounds that utilize credit reports only.

Source - the 80 hour police hire background investigation class I had to attend through the feds.

I'm sorry, but your Information is incorrect. FCRA applies to ANY use of third-party background record checks for employment*  purposes. It's not limited to credit checks. Further, there are procedures that must be followed wherein specific permission must be obtained from the person being checked. So far, I do not see those mentioned by CAP. My hope is that they are going to follow them.

*Yes, "employment" includes volunteer positions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

Briank

Quote from: Eclipse on October 26, 2017, 09:44:19 PM
You can't get it done at the local PD?

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone in 18 years in my AOR having to pay for printing.

Finding a place that could do the old-fashioned cards that CAP uses was the biggest issue.  Most places around here have gone full digital.  Finally found a nearby township that could do it old-school style, and it cost $$.  Even there, they were visibly annoyed at having to deal with this archaic form of doing fingerprints.  Nobody in the office could even do it.  They had to call in an old timer off the road back to the office to get someone that was still approved to do it.

lordmonar

Why is it that there is always someone who comes on here and assumes that they know more about this then NHQ?

I mean if NHQ came out and said "John in the back office is going to do the back ground checks" or "The checks will be conducted by the local squadron Special Security Officer"....I would agree with you that maybe we should be worried.

But as has been pointed out.   NHQ is contracting out this work to a professional organization with a national reputation.   One would suspect that they know what they are doing and are complying with federal laws and regulations. 

Bottom line.   

NHQ is bringing their standards and practices to match the best practices of other reputable national youth organizations.   They are using the same services, and same techniques.   There is nothing to see here at this time.

If you don't want to be background checked......well the proper procedure would be to submit at CAPF 2b to your commander.  Turn in any assigned CAP property and your CAP ID card and have a nice day.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: lordmonar on October 28, 2017, 12:10:19 AM
Why is it that there is always someone who comes on here and assumes that they know more about this then NHQ?

I mean if NHQ came out and said "John in the back office is going to do the back ground checks" or "The checks will be conducted by the local squadron Special Security Officer"....I would agree with you that maybe we should be worried.

But as has been pointed out.   NHQ is contracting out this work to a professional organization with a national reputation.   One would suspect that they know what they are doing and are complying with federal laws and regulations. 

Bottom line.   

NHQ is bringing their standards and practices to match the best practices of other reputable national youth organizations.   They are using the same services, and same techniques.   There is nothing to see here at this time.

If you don't want to be background checked......well the proper procedure would be to submit at CAPF 2b to your commander.  Turn in any assigned CAP property and your CAP ID card and have a nice day.

I think you are talking to me.

I have no objections to being screened. However, I am deeply troubled when it appears that the screening is being done contrary to the law.

You mention that the screening is being done by a contracted professional organization. In other words, a third party. And that is precisely what raises my concerns. Because there are legal requirements that must be met in order to conduct those third-party checks. I am of the belief that, based on what I have read from CAP, and what I heard today in a phone conversation with CAP, there are shortcomings in the process. I am concerned that CAP is taking a shortcut that should not be taken.

Yes, I understand that CAP is trying to match the best practices of other organizations. But those organizations best practices do not include the shortcut that I believe CAP is trying to implement.

Per the call I had with NHQ today, even the vendor has expressed concerns about the process.

Now, I am not professing to know more about CAPs plans than does CAP. But I am professing that I do know about how background checks are supposed to be done. I've administered and held responsibility for a background system that had over 160,000 people processed through it. As a consultant, i have been well paid to  set up background processes for non-profit organizations. In fact, I was working with a vendor and an organization just this week to resolve some things that needed adjusting, including the very issue of notifications and approvals.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act is governing for these checks, whether or not credit is checked. One of the requirements is to obtain permission in advance to conduct the checks. And, no, the CAPF 12 does not suffice, as the requirement is for the authorization form to be stand-alone, and specifically not on the application.

I'm going to take this up with CAP in greater depth. My objective is not to avoid the check. Nor is it to stop CAP from checking. My only objective at this point is to make sure that the process CAP plans to use is a legal one.

The laughingly frustrating thing about this is that compliance with the FCRA is absurdly simple.

If it turns out that I am wrong, then so be it. But I'd feel more foolish if I saw something  that didn't seem right and then didn't point out the problem. I will say this - my call to NHQ was not reassuring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

Johnny Yuma

Quote from: lordmonar on October 28, 2017, 12:10:19 AM
  NHQ is contracting out this work to a professional organization with a national reputation.   One would suspect that they know what they are doing and are complying with federal laws and regulations. 



You might want to do some research on the company doing the checks. Verified Volunteers is owned by Sterling Info systems, a quick google search on them will show numerous complaints and class action suits for a variety of reasons. Also know that the persons handling your check and all your personal data will handled and stored offshore in India.

I'd just a soon do a new fingerprint card every 5 years than have NHQ farm out their entire membership database overseas.
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

lordmonar

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on October 29, 2017, 03:06:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 28, 2017, 12:10:19 AM
  NHQ is contracting out this work to a professional organization with a national reputation.   One would suspect that they know what they are doing and are complying with federal laws and regulations. 



You might want to do some research on the company doing the checks. Verified Volunteers is owned by Sterling Info systems, a quick google search on them will show numerous complaints and class action suits for a variety of reasons. Also know that the persons handling your check and all your personal data will handled and stored offshore in India.

I'd just a soon do a new fingerprint card every 5 years than have NHQ farm out their entire membership database overseas.
You assume our database has not already been framed out overseas.  In this day and age I just go be the assumption that my identity has already been compromised.   And while yes Sterling has has a bit of legal trouble. Volunteer Verification seems to be a reputable organization that is used by many other youth organizations.  So, bottom line,  CAP is doing periodic verification.  They are using a third party organization.   CAP may or may not have to send out written, individual notifications and/or authorization to everyone getting a Consumer Report (credit check) during that verification.   If you don't want your data going to India........the resignation process is pretty simple.   
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Holding Pattern

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on October 28, 2017, 04:10:05 AM

The Fair Credit Reporting Act is governing for these checks, whether or not credit is checked. One of the requirements is to obtain permission in advance to conduct the checks. And, no, the CAPF 12 does not suffice, as the requirement is for the authorization form to be stand-alone, and specifically not on the application.


Having just reviewed the law and seen several companies fined for thinking that they could skip a standalone authorization form, I am inclined to agree with your assessment.

Someone at CAP legal better look at this pronto.

skyhawkcdr

No worries for me. Former airline employee. After 9-11 many folks hired lawyers because of CBC that came back with questionable past. In fact my boss was surprised at how fast mine came back. I smiled and said on file with DOD/CAP. No Felony you have AOA Clearance  (AIR OPERATIONS AREA- Ramp) Felony...bye bye

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: skyhawkcdr on October 29, 2017, 09:43:52 AM
No worries for me. Former airline employee. After 9-11 many folks hired lawyers because of CBC that came back with questionable past. In fact my boss was surprised at how fast mine came back. I smiled and said on file with DOD/CAP. No Felony you have AOA Clearance  (AIR OPERATIONS AREA- Ramp) Felony...bye bye

Some misdemeanors were also disqualifying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

Johnny Yuma

Quote from: lordmonar on October 29, 2017, 05:15:15 AM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on October 29, 2017, 03:06:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 28, 2017, 12:10:19 AM
  NHQ is contracting out this work to a professional organization with a national reputation.   One would suspect that they know what they are doing and are complying with federal laws and regulations. 



You might want to do some research on the company doing the checks. Verified Volunteers is owned by Sterling Info systems, a quick google search on them will show numerous complaints and class action suits for a variety of reasons. Also know that the persons handling your check and all your personal data will handled and stored offshore in India.

I'd just a soon do a new fingerprint card every 5 years than have NHQ farm out their entire membership database overseas.
You assume our database has not already been framed out overseas.  In this day and age I just go be the assumption that my identity has already been compromised.   And while yes Sterling has has a bit of legal trouble. Volunteer Verification seems to be a reputable organization that is used by many other youth organizations.  So, bottom line,  CAP is doing periodic verification.  They are using a third party organization.   CAP may or may not have to send out written, individual notifications and/or authorization to everyone getting a Consumer Report (credit check) during that verification.   If you don't want your data going to India........the resignation process is pretty simple.

Volunteer Verification is now owned by Sterling, they are one and the same.

Again, I'd rather have a FBI check and redo my fingerprints every 5 years than this.
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

Live2Learn

Quote from: lordmonar on October 29, 2017, 05:15:15 AM
If you don't want your data going to India........the resignation process is pretty simple.

IMHO, This comment is neither helpful nor respectful.

Off shoring personal information has known risks that go beyond personal considerations.  Security standards vary across the globe.  Low bidder contracts are often associated with low standards contractors.   Sending PPI off shore, processing reviews (aka 're-screening) of any sort off shore, and storing PPI off shore even briefly for members of an "Auxiliary of the USAF" suggests that concerns for data security should be a big red flag at the highest level of CAP.  It's a reasonable concern "that data which goes offshore stays offshore" in some form or another, and for purposes diametrically different from the intent of any 3rd party agreement.

Johnny Yuma

#55
Quote from: Live2Learn on October 29, 2017, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 29, 2017, 05:15:15 AM
If you don't want your data going to India........the resignation process is pretty simple.

IMHO, This comment is neither helpful nor respectful.



Agreed. If anyone wonders why CAP can't retain members, it's this attitude of blind obedience to everything CAP mandates no matter how ridiculous or wrong it is. The attitude that one can either be okay with their PERSEC being handed over to an overseas 3rd party with a sketchy record of due diligence and billing or else quit smacks of Jim Jones mixed with  Nuerenberg "I was just following orders".
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

OldGuy

Section 604(b)(2) of the FRCA specifies that an employer may not obtain a background check report unless:

• a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and
• the consumer has authorized in writing the procurement of the report by that person.

The Federal Trade Commission (the agency charged with enforcing the FCRA) has advised that employers should not include any extraneous information on the disclosure form to avoid an applicant or employee from being distracted by other information that is presented side-by-side with the important disclosure language. The concern is that the disclosure is not diminished in importance by including unrelated information and that the disclosure is not buried in small text at the end of other documentation where it can be missed.

Failure to comply with the FCRA can result in state or federal government enforcement actions, as well as private lawsuits. See FCRA, Sections 616, 617, and 621. In the case of willful noncompliance, an employer can be subject to any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. In addition, any person who knowingly and willfully obtains a consumer report under false pretenses may face criminal prosecution. See id., Section 619.

Currently, the courts are split as to what types of additional information will result a violation of the FCRA's "stand-alone disclosure requirement." That said, if one accepts what the plaintiffs in the Big Lots cases are arguing, any document that contains more than the nine words specified in the FCRA – "a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes" – automatically violates Section 1681b(b)(2) because it does not consist solely of the disclosure. That is a hyper-technical, narrow reading of the statute.

PHall

Quote from: Cicero on October 29, 2017, 08:48:38 PM
Section 604(b)(2) of the FRCA specifies that an employer may not obtain a background check report unless:

• a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and
• the consumer has authorized in writing the procurement of the report by that person.

The Federal Trade Commission (the agency charged with enforcing the FCRA) has advised that employers should not include any extraneous information on the disclosure form to avoid an applicant or employee from being distracted by other information that is presented side-by-side with the important disclosure language. The concern is that the disclosure is not diminished in importance by including unrelated information and that the disclosure is not buried in small text at the end of other documentation where it can be missed.

Failure to comply with the FCRA can result in state or federal government enforcement actions, as well as private lawsuits. See FCRA, Sections 616, 617, and 621. In the case of willful noncompliance, an employer can be subject to any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. In addition, any person who knowingly and willfully obtains a consumer report under false pretenses may face criminal prosecution. See id., Section 619.

Currently, the courts are split as to what types of additional information will result a violation of the FCRA's "stand-alone disclosure requirement." That said, if one accepts what the plaintiffs in the Big Lots cases are arguing, any document that contains more than the nine words specified in the FCRA – "a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes" – automatically violates Section 1681b(b)(2) because it does not consist solely of the disclosure. That is a hyper-technical, narrow reading of the statute.

Since we're "Volunteers", is CAP considered our "Employer" in the eyes of this law?

OldGuy

In July of 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued an expanded and more liberal interpretation of the FCRA's language: employment purposes. Under the new interpretation, FCRA compliance rules would apply to organizations made up partially or entirely of volunteers, as well.
This means that in order to remain in compliance with FCRA, nonprofit organizations conducting background screening checks for volunteers must:
Obtain consent prior to the background check;
Notify the volunteer of negative information before taking any adverse action;
Notify the volunteer of his/her right to a copy of the report;
Notify the volunteer of his/her right to appeal any action; and
Properly dispose of information received in the report.

NIN

Quote from: PHall on October 30, 2017, 12:05:18 AM
Since we're "Volunteers", is CAP considered our "Employer" in the eyes of this law?

As Cicero pointed out, it appears to pertain to volunteers specifically as well as "employees."

And remember, CAPR 39-2, para 1.1.1: "1.1.1. Compensation.  Civil Air Patrol members are not employees of the CAP; they are volunteers who provide their services for the public good without expectation or receipt of salary, pay, remuneration or compensation of any kind."

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: NIN on October 30, 2017, 01:13:03 AM
Quote from: PHall on October 30, 2017, 12:05:18 AM
Since we're "Volunteers", is CAP considered our "Employer" in the eyes of this law?

As Cicero pointed out, it appears to pertain to volunteers specifically as well as "employees."

And remember, CAPR 39-2, para 1.1.1: "1.1.1. Compensation.  Civil Air Patrol members are not employees of the CAP; they are volunteers who provide their services for the public good without expectation or receipt of salary, pay, remuneration or compensation of any kind."

Yes, as I mentioned a couple of days ago, the FCRA provisions apply to volunteers as well as paid employees. AND, yes, despite the word "credit," it applies to any third-party background check whether or not a credit report is sought.

I think the CAPF 12 language was written long before the FCRA was enacted. Also, the FCRA itself has been tweaked and refined over the years.

There is no doubt in my mind; the CAPF 12 does not suffice for FCRA purposes. I am absolutely boggled that CAP believes it does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

Luis R. Ramos

Does not surprise me judging the time it takes to update the regulations and manuals.
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

Eclipse

Perhaps asserting more current case law in this regard would be more useful.  Everything indicating the
FCRA is applicable is from 2011, however there are more recent federal court cases, for example
Lamson v. EMS Energy Marketing Service, Incc.
http://blog.preemploy.com/fcra-ruling-on-independent-contractorsvolunteers-causes-a-wave-of-new-questions.

http://preemploymentdirectory.com/federal-court-fcra-does-not-apply-to-independent-contractor-relationships/

As CAP members are decidedly >not< employees, their membership most likely fails the Darden test since they
receive no remuneration beyond expense reimbursements.

One would have to imagine that if coffee-house lawyers here on CT could find this case law, actual lawyers at NHQ
are at least peripherally aware of it as well.

I'd say it's a fair point to make an issue of NHQ off-shoring member personal information, if in fact
it is found that this is the case, and the member wants to pretend their data isn't already there
from their health insurance provider, FTE, credit card company, or 12 other vectors, but a challenge
based on FCRA isn't likely to be effective.

"That Others May Zoom"

Mitchell 1969

#63
Quote from: Eclipse on October 30, 2017, 05:43:03 PM
Perhaps asserting more current case law in this regard would be more useful.  Everything indicating the
FCRA is applicable is from 2011, however there are more recent federal court cases, for example
Lamson v. EMS Energy Marketing Service, Incc.
http://blog.preemploy.com/fcra-ruling-on-independent-contractorsvolunteers-causes-a-wave-of-new-questions.

http://preemploymentdirectory.com/federal-court-fcra-does-not-apply-to-independent-contractor-relationships/

As CAP members are decidedly >not< employees, their membership most likely fails the Darden test since they
receive no remuneration beyond expense reimbursements.

One would have to imagine that if coffee-house lawyers here on CT could find this case law, actual lawyers at NHQ
are at least peripherally aware of it as well.

I'd say it's a fair point to make an issue of NHQ off-shoring member personal information, if in fact
it is found that this is the case, and the member wants to pretend their data isn't already there
from their health insurance provider, FTE, credit card company, or 12 other vectors, but a challenge
based on FCRA isn't likely to be effective.

The Lamson case appears to cover independent contractors living in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. How that is relevant to volunteers on a nation-wide basis is another issue.

Try this:

"Because the term 'employment purposes' is interpreted liberally to effectuate the broad remedial purpose of the FCRA ... it includes ... a nonprofit organization staffed in whole or in part by volunteers." See page 32 of the FTC staff report 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act: An FTC Staff Report with Summary of Interpretations (July, 2011)."

And, this, clipped from the very blog where your Lamson cite was obtained:

"According to Pamela Devata of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, www.seyfarth.com, employers should use caution before abandoning the notion that volunteers and/or independent contractors should not be subject to "employment purposes" under the FCRA. "While the Lamson opinion is helpful to employers, it is still a single District Court opinion on the issue and other Courts may choose not to follow its reasoning.
The Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may have different interpretations and can bring enforcement actions through the Attorney General or Department of Justice. If nothing else, however, if companies choose to rely on the decision and not comply with the FCRA as it relates to volunteers and independent contractors, they may be able to defend against a claim that their actions are willful."

"Brian Short of the law firm Porter Wright, www.employerlawreport.com was even more forthright in his opinion regarding this ruling and cautions: "The Lamson decision would be the law in the jurisdiction covered by the Eastern District of Wisconsin, but not necessarily anywhere else. Courts outside that jurisdiction might find it persuasive or not. In my opinion, employers are going to be better served erring on the side of the FTC's interpretation, to which most courts likely would defer because there is no strong downside legal risk to doing so."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

Eclipse

Lamson is a Federal case, and would certainly be cited by NHQ lawyers on the first court challenge of member screening.

Your quotes support my point.

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on October 30, 2017, 06:09:18 PM
"According to Pamela Devata of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, www.seyfarth.com, employers should use caution before abandoning the notion that volunteers and/or independent contractors should not be subject to "employment purposes" under the FCRA. "While the Lamson opinion is helpful to employers, it is still a single District Court opinion on the issue and other Courts may choose not to follow its reasoning.
The Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may have different interpretations and can bring enforcement actions through the Attorney General or Department of Justice. If nothing else, however, if companies choose to rely on the decision and not comply with the FCRA as it relates to volunteers and independent contractors, they may be able to defend against a claim that their actions are willful."

"Brian Short of the law firm Porter Wright, www.employerlawreport.com was even more forthright in his opinion regarding this ruling and cautions: "The Lamson decision would be the law in the jurisdiction covered by the Eastern District of Wisconsin, but not necessarily anywhere else. Courts outside that jurisdiction might find it persuasive or not. In my opinion, employers are going to be better served erring on the side of the FTC's interpretation, to which most courts likely would defer because there is no strong downside legal risk to doing so."

There is no question that this is a complicated issue, but considering the far-reaching implications of Lamson not becoming national precedent, there will be deep pockets involved in any challenge to the ruling that might strike it down.

Pretty much the whole issue is "maybe".

"That Others May Zoom"

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: Eclipse on October 30, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
Lamson is a Federal case, and would certainly be cited by NHQ lawyers on the first court challenge of member screening.

Your quotes support my point.

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on October 30, 2017, 06:09:18 PM
"According to Pamela Devata of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, www.seyfarth.com, employers should use caution before abandoning the notion that volunteers and/or independent contractors should not be subject to "employment purposes" under the FCRA. "While the Lamson opinion is helpful to employers, it is still a single District Court opinion on the issue and other Courts may choose not to follow its reasoning.
The Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may have different interpretations and can bring enforcement actions through the Attorney General or Department of Justice. If nothing else, however, if companies choose to rely on the decision and not comply with the FCRA as it relates to volunteers and independent contractors, they may be able to defend against a claim that their actions are willful."

"Brian Short of the law firm Porter Wright, www.employerlawreport.com was even more forthright in his opinion regarding this ruling and cautions: "The Lamson decision would be the law in the jurisdiction covered by the Eastern District of Wisconsin, but not necessarily anywhere else. Courts outside that jurisdiction might find it persuasive or not. In my opinion, employers are going to be better served erring on the side of the FTC's interpretation, to which most courts likely would defer because there is no strong downside legal risk to doing so."

There is no question that this is a complicated issue, but considering the far-reaching implications of Lamson not becoming national precedent, there will be deep pockets involved in any challenge to the ruling that might strike it down.

Pretty much the whole issue is "maybe".

And...my point is that if CAP simply started out by following the extremely simple procedures mentioned in the FCRA, there won't be any need to defend a bootstrapped self-written "CAP exemption" in any court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

OldGuy

Quote from: Eclipse on October 30, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
Pretty much the whole issue is "maybe".
Really? It is not. The FCRA applies. Period.

A simple eSignature form that complies is the correct fix.

OldGuy

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on October 30, 2017, 09:01:47 PM
And...my point is that if CAP simply started out by following the extremely simple procedures mentioned in the FCRA, there won't be any need to defend a bootstrapped self-written "CAP exemption" in any court.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are correct. With clarity and precision.

Holding Pattern

Quote from: Eclipse on October 30, 2017, 05:43:03 PM
Perhaps asserting more current case law in this regard would be more useful.  Everything indicating the
FCRA is applicable is from 2011, however there are more recent federal court cases, for example
Lamson v. EMS Energy Marketing Service, Incc.
http://blog.preemploy.com/fcra-ruling-on-independent-contractorsvolunteers-causes-a-wave-of-new-questions.

http://preemploymentdirectory.com/federal-court-fcra-does-not-apply-to-independent-contractor-relationships/

As CAP members are decidedly >not< employees, their membership most likely fails the Darden test since they
receive no remuneration beyond expense reimbursements.

FECA and FTCA coverage was considered enough of a remuneration to give us silly rules about not using ham radios thanks to the pecuniary interest rule.