[reccom] Re: UOS committee mtg summary

[Terry Sadler]

Lu,

Thanks for sending the summary of the meeting and thanks again for your 
willingness to take on the responsibility of Secretary.   I hope as 
committee members we can do our part by voting on records in a timely 
fashion and adding our input to business items.

Best wishes,

Terry

Lu Giddings wrote:
> hi all,
>
> here is a summary of those things discussed on the meeting held on
> 9/12 at Weber State University.
>
> Present:
> Eric Huish
> Milt Moody
> David Wheeler
> Lu Giddings
>
>
> 1. A brief review of committee members, term, and end of term:
>
> Committee Member: Terry Sadler (2, 2008)
> Committee Member: Rick Fridell (2, 2008)
> Committee Member: Larry Tripp (2, 2009)
> Committee Member: David Wheeler (2, 2010)
> Committee Member: Kristin Purdy (1, 2009)
> Committee Member: Colby Neuman (1, 2010)
> Committee Member: Eric Huish (1, 2010)
> Secretary: Lu Giddings (1, 2011)
> Webmaster: Milt Moody
> Archivist: Erich Huish
>
>
> The following were mentioned as business items for the committee but
> as a quorum was not present, it was decided to present each of these
> by email, to have the committee comment, and to vote through the
> records committee web page where appropriate and necessary.
>
>
> 2. 	Kris's proposal:
> 	Should we make our completed votes with comments available to the
> public automatically?
>
> Discussion of this item was deferred for the recommendations of the
> full committee.
>
>
> 3. 	Milt's proposal:
> 	"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."
>
> This was seen by those present as desirable, both as it would expedite
> the selection and voting process. It would also help avoid possible
> bad feelings in those who had been nominated but not elected to the
> committee as it's hard to miss what you've never anticipated.
>
>
> 4. 	Terry's proposal:
> 	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)
>
> This was viewed positively by those present. In addition, it was
> suggested that it might be desirable for committee members to be able
> to contact those who have submitted records under review for further
> information that might help the committee gain a clearer idea as to
> the record being reviewed, i.e., to ask for photographs,
> identification details, etc.
>
> The topic of multiple submissions for a single individual bird was
> also discussed. Is it desirable to "lump" these submissions in to one
> submission, or to treat the multiple submissions on an individual
> basis?
>
>
> 5. 	Checklist revision
>
> Rick's suggestion was reviewed. Milt and Lu indicated a willingness to
> work with Terry and Rick on the actual list. The need for committee
> members to help with the funding aspect of the list was acknowledged.
>
>
> 6. 	Should the Records Committee meet annually as per by-laws?
>
> Discussion of this item was deferred for the recommendations of the
> full committee.
>
>
> 7. 	The "out of range - out of season" records proposal was mentioned
> as one that may be desirable but in need of refinement.
>
> 8. 	Records submission in a "timely manner" was discussed. A brief
> discussion of how to expedite record review was held. The possibility
> of alternate voting members was discussed  as is implemented by the
> record committees of other states.
>
>
>
> Lu Giddings
>