[reccom] Proposed Bylaw Change

Tue Jan 15 19:13:54 MST 2008

Hello,

David, I hope you have a great trip, be careful and have fun!  Before he
skips the country I thought I better hurry and respond to the points David
makes below.  I have to respectfully disagree with David.  I'm not sure it's
really worth dredging up the past inadequacies of the committee, but  I
don't think term limits were a driving factor in the changes and "rebirth of
reviews and motivation" in 2000-2002 (in fact, I believe 2007 is the first
time term limits have ever come into effect).  There was some turnover of a
few members of the committee, but the key factors in this "renaissance" were
changing to electronic voting, removing some nebulous voting categories that
perpetuated record review (i.e. Abstain, Discuss, etc.), and primarily a
change from an inactive secretary to one that revitalized the entire
committee process.  My first year or so on the committee I never once heard
a single word from the secretary (and talking with Steve S. and Steve H.
apparently Matt had been inactive for a long term prior to my arrival).
>From my perspective if there was a "renaissance" in the Utah Bird Records
Committee, Milt Moody was single handedly responsible for it. Long before
Milt became the official secretary, he was key in rebuilding the committee
process, revitalizing the review of both old and new records, updating the
state checklist, and reworking the defunct committee bylaws.

But to get back on point regarding David's email below.  David states that
term limits are important to keep people from sitting on records for a long
time and encourage more prompt review.  I believe this issue is completely
independent of term limits.  There certainly were (and occasionally still
are) problems with members not providing timely input on records.  Because
this was a recurrent issue, the bylaws were amended to clarify timeframes,
member responsibilities, and provide a process to remove inactive members
from the committee.  This mechanism is entirely independent of term limits,
and should remain so.  Term limits should not be the mechanism to remove an
inactive member that is not keeping up with their responsibilities. Why wait
three or six years when the bylaws provide a mechanism for dealing with this
issue directly?  Two year terms with an open nomination process and
committee voting is a better process to ensure quality input from each
committee member or as David put it  "keep things circulating, and make
people feel like they can truly be voted off".   In fact, I think one could
make the argument that term limits actually are responsible for encouraging
inactivity and lack of member response.  Currently, term limits lead to the
potential for 'lame duck' membership towards the end of one's final term
(e.g. check out the voting status of the current records).

The current proposal does not limit new members (and in fact open
nominations following two year terms should increase timely review and the
chances for new membership).  The proposal simply allows individuals who are
performing well and meeting their responsibilities to continue to volunteer
their time and expertise if they desire to remain on the committee.

Respectfully,

Rick

  -----Original Message-----
  From: reccom-bounces at utahbirds.org [mailto:reccom-bounces at utahbirds.org]On
Behalf Of David Wheeler
  Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:22 AM
  To: Utah Bird Records Committee
  Subject: Re: [reccom] Proposed Bylaw Change

  Hello, fellow members,

  I am afraid I must demur.  Although I cannot think of two more qualified
voting members on the Committee than Mark & Ron, and I do not think we can
ever really fill their well-worn shoes until they run again, I think we
should be careful before we make this change.  Term limits are crucial in
preventing a "clot" of good ol' boys/gals at the top.  If we want to keep
things circulating, and make people feel like they can truly be voted off
(thus hopefully to try harder), we should have term limits.  I seem to
recall being told that the term limits were in part responsible for a
Committee membership change some years back that broke the control of a
group of people who had sat on records for a very long time, bringing the
review process to a virtual halt.  The new folks brought about a rebirth of
reviews and motivation.  I was told the renaissance would not have happened
without the term limits because the limits allowed fresh blood=>change.
Now, whether or not this story is apocryphal, I think it points to something
critical.  Mark & Ron provide a depth to our deliberations that will be
missed for two years, but I think we don't want to eliminate the mechanism
in our laws that force us now & then to infuse new blood into the corpus
sanctum.  By way of an imperfect analogy (I know its limitations, but there
is still a point here), remember that a dictatorship always sounds great
when the current leader is beloved; but once the system changes, it is hard
to get rid of his offspring.

  I for one, think the pool of knowledgeable/experienced people in Utah is
not so shallow as we may fear.  I have great admiration for many of the
insights provided by remaining members of the Commitee on records we have
reviewed over the last two years.

  Now, the question really should be, can we convince Mark & Ron to stagger
their terms so we always have at least one of them around?  As a
consolation, assuming I get elected to another term myself, at least now I
will be able to discuss records with Mark prior to the second round.  [For
those who would feel more comfortable if I offered up my body & soul to
possession by the Venerable Stackhouse, to act as a hollow shell whence
issued Mark's wisdom, channeled from the tropical dankness of San Blas,
Mexico, this might bring some solace.]

  David

  P.S.  Though I have not been officially notified, I think Mark is now a
married man again as of the end of December.  From everything I have heard
about the bride, Eli, he is lucky man and may have his attentions elsewhere
than empids and juvenile sandpiper molts anyway.  I offer up a cup (of tea,
since I am at work) to their health & love (and hopefully a green card).  I
know Mark is very happy right about now.

  >>> "Kristin Purdy" <kristinpurdy at comcast.net> 1/2/2008 10:35 PM >>>
  Gents,

  I support the change to the bylaws, but am uncomfortable with a do-over
  affecting new terms on which we've already voted and that should have
begun
  yesterday. I think we should consider changing the bylaws and put
potential
  changes into play for next year.

  Kris
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Rick Fridell" <rfridell at burgoyne.com>
  To: "Utah Bird Records Committee" <reccom at utahbirds.org>
  Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:50 PM
  Subject: RE: [reccom] Proposed Bylaw Change

  > Hello All,
  >
  > Terry wrote "Is it too late to consider this bylaw change given where we
  > are
  > in voting to replace them?"
  >
  > I'm very sorry I've been out of touch and did not address this sooner.
  > When
  > I went to the voting page, I was sincerely surprised that neither Ron or
  > Mark were on the ballot. I honestly did not realize that the bylaws were
  > written to prevent them from remaining on the committee.
  >
  > If the committee supports the change, and shares Terry and my concerns,
I
  > would also like to contact Mark and Ron and see if they are willing to
  > continue to volunteer their time, and if possible put them on the ballot
  > and
  > re-vote.
  >
  > What do others think?
  >
  > Rick
  >
  >
  > PS I also realized right after I hit send that letter d. under the
  > proposed
  > changes should also be changed to read:
  >
  > d. THREE or FOUR Members will be up for reselection or replacement each
  > year
  > (i.e. THREE in year on, FOUR in year two.)
  >
  >
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: reccom-bounces at utahbirds.org
  > [mailto:reccom-bounces at utahbirds.org]On Behalf Of Terry Sadler
  > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:03 PM
  > To: Utah Bird Records Committee
  > Subject: [reccom] Proposed Bylaw Change
  >
  >
  > I support the suggested bylaw change proposed by Rick.   I have been
  > fretting about losing the caliber of review given by Mark and Ron.
  > While the current candidates to fill their vacancies are knowledgeable,
  > they lack the depth of experience that Mark and Ron have provided over
  > the years they have served on the committee.
  >
  > Terry
  > _______________________________________________
  > reccom mailing list
  > reccom at utahbirds.org
  > http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/reccom
  >
  > _______________________________________________
  > reccom mailing list
  > reccom at utahbirds.org
  > http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/reccom
  >

  _______________________________________________
  reccom mailing list
  reccom at utahbirds.org
  http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/reccom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/reccom/attachments/20080115/9f1362f8/attachment.htm