[reccom] First State Record Criteria

[Kristin Purdy]

Gents,

I've finally developed the mental fortitude to address an issue we discussed 
prior to Colby's and Eric's joining the committee, and that some of you 
dealt with in July and August 2006--first state record criteria.

The crux of the issue is this: our bylaws prescribe different and more 
stringent criteria for accepting a first state record than they do for a 
review species that has been seen in the state many times. Those of you who 
participated in the discussion in July and August 2006 were generally of the 
opinion that the criteria should be the same for all records; here's a link 
to the archived messages so you can review them for background if you wish. 
Also check the December 2007 archives when I briefly addressed the topic and 
said I'd get back to it after we added new members for 2008:

http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/reccom/

Rick weighed in with his opinion during the December discussion; David noted 
that we discuss proposals and leave them half-finished, and Milt noted that 
based on the Jul-Aug 06 discussion, the committee added the hypothetical 
category for first state records accepted without physical evidence.

The changes that the committee adopted from the 2006 discussion did not 
entirely resolve the problem. Here are the germane bylaw criteria for 
records and then for first state records:

IV.C.7.  Voting Criteria. The criteria used by a member for acceptance or 
rejection of a record are based on that member's knowledge and experience 
and will not be specifically addressed in these rules. However, members are 
encouraged to accept or reject records on the basis of more-or-less 
objective criteria such as the adequacy of the field marks reported or the 
conditions under which the observations were made (e.g., lighting, weather, 
optical equipment, etc.) The veracity of the observer should not normally be 
questioned without good cause.

IV.C.11.   First State Records. It is preferable that a first state record 
have some form of physical documentation. Acceptable evidence could consist 
of photographs, sound recordings, specimens, verified band numbers, etc. 
However, a first state record may be accepted without physical documentation 
with these considerations in mind:

(1) The species is obvious and easy to identify and cannot be confused with 
a similar species.

(2) The observer is familiar with the species.

(3) The observer is known by the committee members as a careful competent 
observer with experience in documenting rare birds.

(4) There are multiple competent observers that submit separate, careful 
documentation.

Accepted records will be listed as either "verified with physical evidence" 
or "accepted but not verified with physical evidence." First state record 
submissions that involve only a single observer, may be accepted as 
"hypothetical" and added to the UOS Checklist of Birds of Utah as such. 
Species shall remain on the hypothetical list until a record meeting the 
above criteria is accepted by the committee.
------------------------------------------------------

Knowledge of first state record criteria has caused me not to accept two 
first state records whose first or second round vote comments are now 
available for us to discuss (Gilded Flicker and Blackburnian Warbler). I 
don't think I have the authority to dispense with the rules and choose my 
own criteria with which to vote, but I have the obligation to start the 
discussion to change the rules.

My proposal is this: eliminate item IV.C.11. from the bylaws. I believe that 
each record must be considered on its own merit and that first state records 
must not have to meet more stringent criteria than records of species seen 
in the state many times.

Dennis, could you please start the formal proposal process that requires all 
of us to weigh in and vote on this proposal?

In addition, for everyone, please feel free to discuss again the issue above 
or to submit counter proposals.

Kris