[reccom] Thoughts on Committee Issues

[sadler]

Thanks Kris for bringing the state checklist to our attention again.   
Personally I think we should keep the basic checklist as simple as 
possible, much like we did in 2004.  Of course it needs to be updated 
with all those wonderful new species seen the past few years.   I  
helped prepare the 2004 checklist and would be glad to offer assistance 
in getting a new one out.  The hardest part was lining up the funding by 
the various agencies and individuals.  I will let someone else take the 
lead on that part.

I believea more detailed,regional checklist is something that could 
worked on over a longer period of time and placed on the UOS website.

Terry



Kristin Purdy wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> reccom mailing list
> reccom at utahbirds.org
> http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/reccom
>
>
>