[reccom] Thoughts on Committee Issues

[Kristin Purdy]

Hi all,

I'm concerned about our lack of progress on the checklist project and 
decided it was time either to bend your ears or engage in a little 
catharsis. My concerns have led me to relay additional thoughts on Dennis' 
role as a member of the records committee. Here goes, with a request at the 
bottom for your thoughts:

Milt kicked off our year by organizing and then embarking on revising our 
state checklist, a project our bylaws require us to do every three years. We 
were making progress, albeit at the speed of tectonic plate drift, until we 
started wavering on what kind of information should be included in the 
checklist. I'm not sure we clearly established a basic direction in the 
first place, and I'm guilty of derailing the progress we had made by 
expressing concerns about the new direction. Since this occured months ago, 
let me summarize with a refresher: we began simply by updating the currency 
of information presented in the 2004 checklist, which morphed into 
presenting a more finite and complex degree of regional information that 
emphasized the committee's needs for review species reports rather than 
checklist info. Once Milt resigned, the project came to a halt.

I can't find copies of 2004 checklists anymore in bird-oriented visitor's 
centers and such, presumably because the copies have run out and there's no 
use in printing more. Correct me if you find this next thought to be an 
unsubstantiated leap in logic, but I believe our lack of progress in 
updating the checklist means we're no longer serving the Utah birding 
community in what's likely the most visible and useful means (to them) that 
we could be serving. We all may feel the primary means we serve is to review 
and vote on records, but I think only a very small sector of Utah birders is 
aware of this role and they have to dig to find out the results of what we 
do. The checklist, however, is a more tangible contribution to the greater 
birding community and is just as important as records review and voting.

We need to return to this project if for no other reason than it's one of 
our five purposes as stated in the bylaws.

My next thought is not meant to be critical of any committee member; I fall 
into this category as well. I believe our progress was slow because the 
seven voting members failed to prioritize on the checklist, to contribute 
when asked, or even answer Milt's messages in a timely manner or at all. We 
will never produce a new checklist if we continue in this vein. I apologize 
if this is starting to sound like a lecture from your mother.

I believe we need to return to the project with a clear philosophy of what 
information the completed checklist will offer, a timeline that includes 
milestones and a completion date. Dennis, we need your leadership and 
direction to accomplish this task.

The issue above leads me to what may be a greater one--the role of our 
secretary and chairman. I hate the fact that Dennis' title, and formerly 
Milt's, is/was secretary, implying an administrative function. The more 
important title is that of chairman because it recognizes the leadership 
that person imparts to the committee. We need leadership, having nothing to 
do with who votes on records and who doesn't. Without leadership, the voting 
members are like seven whirlygig beetles spinning on the surface of a pond. 
I believe our records committee will fail to serve Utah's community of 
birders and scientists without leadership.

I've heard from several Utah birders who wonder why the records committee 
doesn't serve the birding community in a higher profile way, including 
commenting on challenging IDs posted on the listserv, to making 
presentations to birding groups and such. I'm not particularly worried about 
this criticism because I didn't agree to serve on the records committee so I 
could address everyone's ID issues or make presentations. But I did agree to 
serve and do the work that the bylaws require of me. And right now I think 
we're in a postion not to meet our bylaw requirements. If we fail to update 
the checklist in 2007, we will have failed to serve the birding community in 
one of the most visible and useful ways required of us.

I'm probably going to have second thoughts about sending you this message 
after I press the 'Send' key, but so be it.

Please comment on my thoughts, above. How do you think we should approach 
updating the checklist? What do you think Dennis' role should be?

Thanks,

Kris