[Birdtalk] Question re: Rare Bird reports

[Lu Giddings]

hi Ryan,

I appreciate your note and your observations and I want to take a moment to
answer. I want to begin by saying that while I am grateful for her response,
it would be terribly unfair and just plain wrong for me to let Kris shoulder
the blame. These lengthy delays are my fault, as Secretary of the Utah Birds
Records Committee, and I accept full responsibility for the frustration I
know that you and many others feel with the Committee. I invite you and
anyone else in the birding community to contact me privately and give me
royal hell, as it is deserved. I only ask that these comments come to me
directly, and not to either of the lists. My email address is
seldom74 at gmail.com.

Having said this, I have to admit that it was my observation before I began
my term as secretary last summer that this is not a new problem. In my
limited personal experience with the Committee and the review process, it
seemed that there were times when the Committee moved with alacrity. And
occasionally, there were times when it didn't. In speaking with previous
Secretaries, there were at times some very real and unavoidable causes for
delay. But I also know that, at times my predecessors have been as baffled
and as frustrated by unexplained delays in the review process as the rest of
the birding community.

You're perfectly correct in stating that those who serve on the Committee do
so on a voluntary basis and also, that most of us find ourselves rather
busy. But - this does *not* absolve anyone who accepts a position on the
Committee from doing their best to submit their decisions in a timely
manner, as required by the By-Laws.

You've raised some interesting points about the reporting process. I know
there on those on the present Review Committee and also past committee
members who have some very useful insights. I hope that they will respond to
this note and share their opinions with you and the rest of the group.

You've also touched on a very important and personally painful point for me.
I know there are a variety of attitudes toward the Records Committee, and
that not all of them are positive. When approached last summer, I had some
very serious reservations about accepting this position, knowing full well
the bad feelings that some harbor toward the Committee as a body and toward
some of its members as individuals. I have more respect that I can
articulate for those who currently serve on the Committee, and for those
past members with whom I am acquainted - but - I know that not everyone
feels the same, and I am not in a position to comment on the merits of these
contrasting opinions. I can only hope that people will let this be about the
hobby and science of birding, not about personalities and egos, and that
past grievances can perhaps be set aside.

Ryan, I very much appreciate your reports and your willingness to share with
the rest of us. You have a right to feel frustrated with the Committee, and,
in my opinion, you and the rest of the birding community have the right to
hold us accountable. I'm not particularly receptive to rants, venting, or
axe-grinding, but I invite you - and the rest of you on the list - to share
your thoughts, suggestions, and constructive criticisms with me, any time. I
can't promise you satisfaction. But I promise I'll listen. I apologize for
your frustrations. I'll try to do a better job. And to the rest of you, I'm
not begging. That's beneath me. But please - if you see something good, give
us chance.

Lu Giddings
Secretary, Utah Birds Records Committee
seldom74 at gmail.com



On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Ryan O'Donnell <ryan at biology.usu.edu>wrote:

> I have a question for the list about Rare Bird Reports
> (http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/index.html).  I'm trying to better
> understand the process of reviewing these reports.  The Records
> Committee webpage explains the procedures for the appointment of
> committee members, the terms that they serve, and the process of
> commenting on and voting on rare bird records.  The Committee bylaws
> specify that each record will be voted on within two months of its
> distribution to the committe (Section III. D. 2. a.), although
> exceptions can be granted by the secretary.  With a normal two-month
> limit for voting, and with the prompt timing with which the records are
> always posted by the secretary, it should take no longer than about two
> months for a record to go through the first round, and no longer than
> six months for the entire process, even if three rounds of voting are
> required.
>
> I counted up the times required for each stage of the voting process for
> the last ten records completed.  The average time to complete the first
> round was about 4.5 months. Of the six records that required a second
> round, they each required a little over 4.5 months on average as well.
> The three records in the third round averaged slightly longer at 6
> months in this stage.  Of the nineteen votes held on these ten records,
> only one was completed in under two months.  Of the records that are
> currently awaiting voting, one has been in the first round for over
> eight months and another is still in the second round over a year after
> its submission.
>
> I appreciate the hard work that the committee does for the Utah birding
> community, and I thank them for their dedication. I know that it must
> not be an easy job; I know that it comes with little recognition and no
> pay; and I know the reviewers must be very busy people.  I think that
> the work they do is very important and valuable for better understanding
> patterns of bird distribution.  This is why I continue to submit rare
> bird records for every review list species whose sighting I can
> document, and why I encourage others to do the same.  But I must admit
> that the wait to see the committee's decision is frustrating.  I know
> there are some people out there who are put off enough to not bother to
> submit records.  And I know that my own records, and my own birding
> skill, could be improved by reading the comments of the reviewers,
> sooner rather than later.  Every new record I submit that is not
> informed by the comments on the last record I submitted is one that I
> could probably have been written better.  Maybe this is even a positive
> feedback loop, where poorly-written reports slow the review process, and
> a slow review process results in more poorly-written reports.  So, I
> guess after all this rambling, my question is: How can I, as a submitter
> of rare bird records, help this process move more quickly?
>
> Sincerely,
> Ryan
>
> Ryan P. O'Donnell
> Department of Biology and the Ecology Center
> Utah State University
> 5305 Old Main Hill
> Logan, UT 84322-5305
>
> http://200birds.blogspot.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Birdtalk mailing list
> Birdtalk at utahbirds.org
> http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/birdtalk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/birdtalk/attachments/20090323/024dedf5/attachment-0001.htm