Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 17, 2017, 11:40:51 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NHQ to begin rescreening members
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print
Author Topic: NHQ to begin rescreening members  (Read 5573 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« on: October 23, 2017, 09:57:28 PM »

"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...
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 865

« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2017, 10:03:35 PM »



That...is a win...

Are you expecting our numbers to be pared down?
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
EMT-83
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,825

« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2017, 10:10:29 PM »

One and done for background checks certainly isn't best practice.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2017, 10:49:26 PM »



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.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 07:35:19 AM by Eclipse » Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

dwb
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,319

« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2017, 06:49:47 AM »

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

Posts: 2,145

« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2017, 07:44:05 AM »

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
Logged
A.Member
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,612

« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2017, 09:56:29 AM »

Concur...This is a good thing and long overdue.
Logged
"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." - Leonardo da Vinci
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 970
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2017, 10:26:33 AM »



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


Logged
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,686
Unit: of issue

« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2017, 10:31:12 AM »

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.

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,796
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2017, 11:28:21 AM »

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.
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
Devil Doc
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 849
Unit: MER-NC-162

« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2017, 01:18:13 PM »

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

NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,686
Unit: of issue

« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2017, 01:32:32 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.
Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,169

« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2017, 01:39:29 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
Logged
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 626

« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2017, 02:09:54 PM »

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.
Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 482

« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2017, 03:57:25 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.
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,926

« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2017, 04:19:30 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. 
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2017, 04:20:21 PM »

I also expect to see a hard copy letter to my address of record advising me to call the CAP NHQ phone number.

For?
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2017, 04:21:24 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.
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,686
Unit: of issue

« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2017, 09:03:12 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.

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Johnny Yuma
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 594

« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2017, 10:13:10 PM »



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.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 10:19:17 PM by Johnny Yuma » Logged
"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
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,085
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #20 on: October 24, 2017, 10:30:29 PM »

Well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine. :(
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,013

« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2017, 11:04:46 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.
Logged

If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,886

« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2017, 12:11:07 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.
Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 482

« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2017, 06:36:45 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!
Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 482

« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2017, 06:44:19 PM »




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.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 06:55:39 PM by Live2Learn » Logged
ßτε
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 781
Unit: PCR-CA-205

« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2017, 06:46:06 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?
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2017, 06:52:30 PM »

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

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,013

« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2017, 09:35:50 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.
Logged

If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2017, 03:14:42 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
Logged
_________________
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
Forum Regular

Posts: 131
Unit: NCR-MO-110

« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2017, 03:34:59 PM »

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.
Logged
Mike Toedebusch
Spaatz Award 1168 - 1 June 1993
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2017, 04:33:07 PM »

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.
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,686
Unit: of issue

« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2017, 05:09:35 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:
Quote
In 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.

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Briank
Member

Posts: 61
Unit: GLR-OH-064

« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2017, 05:29:51 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!
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2017, 05:44:19 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.
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,686
Unit: of issue

« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2017, 05:55:43 PM »

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
Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2017, 05:58:11 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.

Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

sardak
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,144

« Reply #36 on: October 26, 2017, 07:12:21 PM »

^^^ "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
Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2017, 10:39:36 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:
Quote
In 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
Logged
_________________
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
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #38 on: October 26, 2017, 10:58:15 PM »

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.



Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,327
Unit: Classified

« Reply #39 on: October 26, 2017, 11:08:43 PM »

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. 
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2017, 11:12:32 PM »

Yes, factually correct, not really what was said.

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

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

BuckeyeDEJ
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,069
Unit: GLR-001

« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2017, 12:00:51 AM »

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...
Logged


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group and wing PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member, at region level now
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 in marketing.
stillamarine
400,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816
Unit: SER-AL-134

« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2017, 09:03:03 AM »

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.
Logged
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
VIP

Posts: 4,686
Unit: of issue

« Reply #43 on: October 27, 2017, 09:07:56 AM »

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

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #44 on: October 27, 2017, 02:50:59 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
Logged
_________________
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
Member

Posts: 61
Unit: GLR-OH-064

« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2017, 06:30:07 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.
Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,587

« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2017, 08:10:19 PM »

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.
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #47 on: October 28, 2017, 12:10:05 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
Logged
_________________
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
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 594

« Reply #48 on: October 28, 2017, 11:06:15 PM »

  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.
Logged
"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
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,587

« Reply #49 on: October 29, 2017, 01:15:15 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.   
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,094
Unit: SI

« Reply #50 on: October 29, 2017, 02:27:19 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.
Logged
skyhawkcdr
Recruit

Posts: 5

« Reply #51 on: October 29, 2017, 05:43:52 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
Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #52 on: October 29, 2017, 11:52:36 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
Logged
_________________
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
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 594

« Reply #53 on: October 29, 2017, 12:53:29 PM »

  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.
Logged
"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
Seasoned Member

Posts: 482

« Reply #54 on: October 29, 2017, 01:46:47 PM »

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.
Logged
Johnny Yuma
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 594

« Reply #55 on: October 29, 2017, 03:42:27 PM »

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".
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 03:46:19 PM by Johnny Yuma » Logged
"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:
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 132
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #56 on: October 29, 2017, 04:48:38 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.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,886

« Reply #57 on: October 29, 2017, 08:05:18 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?
Logged
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 132
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #58 on: October 29, 2017, 08:13:55 PM »

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.
Logged
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,686
Unit: of issue

« Reply #59 on: October 29, 2017, 09:13:03 PM »

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."

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #60 on: October 29, 2017, 10:14:13 PM »

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
Logged
_________________
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
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,535

« Reply #61 on: October 30, 2017, 01:22:18 PM »

Does not surprise me judging the time it takes to update the regulations and manuals.
Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #62 on: October 30, 2017, 01:43:03 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.
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2017, 02:09:18 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
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 02:13:55 PM by Mitchell 1969 » Logged
_________________
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
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 28,082

« Reply #64 on: October 30, 2017, 03:47:06 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.

“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".
Logged

"The man who does more than he is paid for will soon be paid for more than he does." - Napoleon Hill.
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 694
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #65 on: October 30, 2017, 05:01:47 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.

“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
Logged
_________________
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.
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 132
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #66 on: October 30, 2017, 06:10:51 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.
Logged
Cicero
Forum Regular

Posts: 132
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #67 on: October 30, 2017, 06:11:40 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.
Logged
Mordecai
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,094
Unit: SI

« Reply #68 on: October 30, 2017, 09:31:50 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NHQ to begin rescreening members
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.928 seconds with 21 queries.