[reccom] Records Committee Meeting - forwarded from Lu

Thu Sep 4 08:25:57 MDT 2008

First, I don't wish for Rick's service to end before his term does and Rick, 
I hope your message below doesn't constitute a resignation.

Second, Rick's suggestion for checklist and individual record criteria is a 
large-scope issue in my opinion and we need to discuss it. But it does mean 
that we'll have to re-scrub our checklist and it could result in species 
removal (like the Laughing Gull a couple years back). Could it result in 
species addition from historical records that didn't meet then-present day 
criteria, but do now?

Third, regarding the bylaw requirement to meet. If meeting in concert with 
the annual conference doesn't work for us, then we can change the bylaws to 
create a standard that does. The change process is simply a matter of 
considering and voting on a proposal. I'm not sure that conducting our 
business by e-mail is the solution, because we haven't been effective at 
getting things done once and for all by this method.

Fourth, I agree with Milt's proposal to consider nominees for the committee 
before asking them if they're willing to serve.

Finally, I didn't make a formal proposal for our comments to be made public; 
I offered the issue for discussion and received one private response. I 
don't know what most members' feelings are on the issue. Here's the message:

http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/reccom/2008-June/000370.html

Kris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "rfridell" <rfridell at burgoyne.com>
To: <reccom at utahbirds.org>
Cc: <seldom74 at gmail.com>; <rfridell at redrock.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [reccom] Records Committee Meeting - forwarded from Lu

>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> If it works out better for me to resign now so someone else can attend the 
> upcoming meeting....It's cool with me.   I think I'm caught up on all the 
> votes, so now's a good time.
>
> I do, however, have a suggestion for the committee to discuss at the 
> meeting:  It seems that over the years, there have been different criteria 
> used to determine whether a species is included on the 'official' state 
> checklist. Also, varying criteria have been extended to reviews of 
> individual records. For example the pre record committee Utah checklists 
> developed by Behle and Heyward et al. (sp?, I'm on the road and don't have 
> access to copies of these publications) used a standard of multiple 
> records of a species, or physical evidence accompanying a single record, 
> etc. Similar standards were used by the Utah Bird Record Committee for a 
> time, then for a while some species were added to the checklist without 
> accompanying physical evidence if there were multiple written submittals 
> of a single sighting (e.g. Prairie Warbler). Next, other records were 
> reviewed, accepted, and the species added to the state checklist with a 
> single occurrence and written description (e.g. Louisiana!
>  Waterthrush, Gray Hawk).   Recently other records were reviewed and 
> dismissed because "they did not meet bylaw standards", and most recently 
> the committee decided to change the by-laws and accept 'state-first' 
> records without accompanying physical evidence.
>
> So anyway, the point of this ramble is that there have been many different 
> standards applied over the years, resulting in some species on the list, 
> and others left off based on changing criteria.  Regardless of the 
> standard used for inclusion on the "Official Checklist of the Birds of 
> Utah", I believe we should apply that standard across the board. This 
> might mean re-addressing older records reviewed under previous criteria 
> (both by the committee and perhaps some single records listed in Behle and 
> Heyward et al. - I don't recall these specifically but might include 
> Blue-throated Hummingbird and others?).
>
> One possible solution is to separate the criteria used for reviewing 
> individual records from the criteria used to include a species on the Utah 
> list. As you all are aware, I have been a proponent for using a single 
> consistent criteria to review each record submitted and basing acceptance 
> on the likelihood that the bird described / photographed / taped etc. was 
> indeed a naturally occurring individual of the species reported.
>
> Additional (and/or different) standards could potentially be used to 
> determine inclusion on the Utah list (e.g. physical evidence, multiple 
> occurrences, multiple submittals, etc.). I'm less concerned about the 
> specific criteria used for determining whether a species is included on 
> the Utah list (as long as those criteria are consistently applied).
>
> I regret that I won't be able to make it to the meeting.  I've appreciated 
> working with you all, and enjoyed my time on the committee.
>
> Thanks and I'll see you all later,
> Rick
>
>
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: Milt Moody <miltonmoody at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: miltonmoody at yahoo.com,Utah Bird Records Committee
>
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: Milt Moody <miltonmoody at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: miltonmoody at yahoo.com,Utah Bird Records Committee 
> <reccom at utahbirds.org>
> Date:  Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
>
>><this should have gone though, but didn't -- here it is>
>>(By the way, I can attend the records committee meeting. ~ Milt)
>>
>>
>>--------- Forwarded message ----------
>>From: Lu Giddings <seldom74 at gmail.com>
>>Date: Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:32 PM
>>Subject: UOS meeting - Records committee meeting
>>To: Utah Bird Records Committee <reccom at utahbirds.org>
>>
>>
>>greetings all,
>>
>>a few days ago I sent a note to the committee about meeting at the UOS 
>>conference. The responses are as follows:
>>
>>Yes, can attend: Dave, Eric, Kris, Lu
>>No, cannot attend: Colby, Rick
>>No response: Larry, Terry
>>Unclear: Milt
>>
>>This means we may or may not have a quorum, as - as I understand it - Milt 
>>will probably be present but is not a voting member, nor am I.
>>
>>I do not think there are any elections on the agenda, unless, we are to 
>>vote at this meeting on replacements for Terry and Rick. If I'm wrong 
>>about this gentlemen, please forgive me. I'm not trying to get rid of you 
>>before your terms end.
>>
>>Items of business:
>>1. Kris's proposal about having comments made public. Kris, I'm sure you 
>>have formally proposed this but I cannot find it. Could you please help me 
>>with this?
>>
>>2. Milt offered the following proposal in an e-mail on 8/25:
>>
>>"Also, if I can propose a change to the bylaw, as the webmaster or maybe 
>>past secretary -- that may not be appropriate -- I'd like to propose that 
>>nominations for positions on the records committee be made without having 
>>to ask if the people are willing to serve and then have the secretary ask 
>>the "winners" in order of the ones who receive the most vote, so that the 
>>process will be more quick and efficient and also so that the secretary 
>>and others don't have to inform the nominees that don't make it that they 
>>were "rejected."
>>
>>3. I propose that we discuss the by-law requiring the Records Committee to 
>>meet annually at the UOS meeting, Article III.H.1. I can see pros and cons 
>>to this requirement. I have no opinion, one way or the other, other than 
>>to say that if it's a by-law then it should either be adhered to or it 
>>should be changed or dropped. I don't believe we should have by-laws that 
>>we ignore.
>>
>>
>>If I've forgotten something or have incorrectly stated something, please, 
>>let me know. All comments are welcome, good, bad, or ugly.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Lu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
> 