[reccom] Considerations

[Rick Fridell]

Hello Everyone,

I thought I'd run through the issues addressed below by Terry as well:

First: I don't have a strong opinion on this one either way, but I can't see
a big downside in making the comments public, particularly after completion
of the review process.

Second: I'm fine with Milt's proposed change on the nomination process.

Third: This still needs some discussion, however, Terry's proposal is a good
standard and could easily be applied to both historic, reviewed, and future
records.  With this process in place we could denote the "S" category
species on the checklist, or include them at the end, etc.

Fourth: Updating and reviewing the state checklist is rather
straightforward, and perhaps a subgroup (Terry, Lu, Milt, and I?) could
accomplish this?  As Terry points out, finding the funding to get it printed
is another story. Terry, do you recall the total price of the printing?
Depending on the cost, I can probably come up with funding.

And regarding a yearly meeting, since there hasn't been one during the
modern restart of the committee, it seems this 'bylaw requirement' is
antiquated.  I wouldn't argue against the potential benefits of everyone
getting together, but the fact that it has never happened means it's not
likely or entirely necessary. I agree with Terry, that a meeting is
justified, scheduling it in advance would enhance attendance.

One final thought: another potential agenda item might be voting on the
records?


Yours,

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: reccom-bounces at utahbirds.org
[mailto:reccom-bounces at utahbirds.org]On Behalf Of Terry Sadler
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:13 PM
To: reccom at utahbirds.org
Subject: [reccom] Considerations


Hello Everyone,

Since I won't make it to the meeting I thought I would let you know my
position on several issues that will be discussed.

First, regarding Kris's proposal to make our comments public.  I believe
the summary statement published annually by the Chair of the Records
Committee should suffice.  It summarizes the general  consensus of the
committee.  If we do decide to make individual comments available I
recommend we start withrecords submitted  _after_ this proposal is or
may be adopted.

Second,I support the proposal to consider nomination before we contact
the individual.  This was the case when I was nominated

Third, The shifting standards for acceptance of records is an issue that
needs addressing.  I propose we adopt a standard similar to California.
If their is not an actual specimen collected for the species then the
record is given a letter indicating how the record was accepted. The
following was copied and pasted directly from California's checklist.

> P - At least one record supported by identifiable photograph (100 species)
> V - At least one record supported by identifiable videotape (21 species)
> T - At least one record supported by identifiable taped vocalization
> (6 species)
> S - Supported only by sight records (2 species)
>
Forth, Merrill Webb and I  (with a lot of input from Rick Fridell and
Ron Ryel ) worked jointly on the last checklist.   Milt Moody provided
tremendous assistance in giving us a computerized format to work on and
making the final document.  The most difficult part of the whole process
was lining up funding for the printing several thousand copies.  If you
have a hard copy of the checklist list the monetary contributors are
listed on the front page.   I ,personally, don't want to do that part of
preparing a new checklist again.  I would like to help in other ways
though. if others will take the lead.

Regarding a yearly meeting,  maybe if we knew far in advance when the
meeting was to be held possibly more of us could make the meeting.

Best wishes to you all,

Terry


_______________________________________________
reccom mailing list
reccom at utahbirds.org
http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/reccom