Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2017, 05:41:30 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 5226 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,987

« 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

"Effort" does not equal "results".
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: 803
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: 4,664
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: 689
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: 60
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: 10,584

« 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: 689
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: 593

« 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: 10,584

« 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: 1,077
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: 689
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: 593

« 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: 465

« 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: 593

« 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: 105

« 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: 5,864

« 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: 105

« 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: 4,664
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.
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 0.084 seconds with 17 queries.