[reccom] Voting proposals

[Kristin Purdy]

David et al,

I'm sorry that my tardiness on voting is partly responsible for the 
proposals, below. My intentions to catch up have not produced results and 
unfortunately, the cycle of injury/surgery/convalescense that I'm in isn't 
over yet. Everything but back-to-back recoveries (or more properly, 
back-to-ankle recoveries, pardon the pun) and preparing for the next round 
has taken a lower priority and I regret the negative impact on records 
committee business.

Regarding the discussion proposal, I admit to a cynical viewpoint in trying 
to inspire it prior to a first-round vote. We're not a talkative bunch, and 
when one member specifically asks for feedback on proposals or later round 
votes through our private list serv, most members don't comment. I don't 
know why; it just is what it is.

Kris
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Wheeler" <dswheeler at utah.gov>
To: <reccom at utahbirds.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:12 AM
Subject: [reccom] Voting proposals


> Hello, one and all.
>
> I hope that all of you have enjoyed your holidays.  It is now the new year 
> (even according to the Chinese Calendar), yet we have a very long list of 
> unfinished business from last year.  For whatever reasons, some of us 
> sometimes find it difficult to vote in a timely manner and records pile 
> up.  That is unfortunate to the process for several reasons.  First, poor 
> Milt is aging at an unnatural rate from the frustration of members not 
> following our bylaws.  Second, we are failing in our duties to the public 
> which has trusted the Committee with review of their records, often after 
> extensive efforts at documentation on their part.  I have more than once 
> heard that people in the birding community are cynical and discouraged at 
> our tardiness.  We are seen as non-responsive.  I've heard people say 
> "what's the point?" [of submitting records for review].  That is a 
> reputation and loss of good will that only hampers our mission.  And 
> third, when a record is held up for more than a coup!
> le months, those who voted on it in a timely manner may forget much of 
> their original reasoning.  The record is no longer fresh in their minds. 
> That means that they either have to study again to refamiliarize 
> themselves with the record, or, to some extent, re-engage with less 
> familiarity.  This is especially unfair for records that are very complex 
> and require a lot of research.  I believe something should be done to make 
> us more functional.
>
> I have two proposals I'd like to float for consideration by the rest of 
> you.
>
> 1.  The first idea was discussed at the last Committee meeting in Ogden, 
> and strikes me as a wonderful solution which allows for those times when 
> something comes up that temporarily precludes us from voting (vacations, 
> illnesses, life crises, or simply other priorities) with honor. 
> Apparently this is an idea used by some other Committees.  The basic idea 
> is this:  we elect two Alternates to the voting members.  These Alternates 
> vote on every record, just like a regular voting member, but their votes 
> are only counted if a regular voting member (or two) does/do not vote in 
> the prescribed time frame.  The regular voting member would not have to 
> justify him or herself, nor would they be booted from the Committee. 
> Simply, their vote for that record would be replaced by a vote from one of 
> the Alternates.
>
> 2.  The second idea is mine, so it probably has little precedent and may 
> well be foolish in ways I have not even pondered.  But I throw it out 
> there for your consideration because it is a possible partial solution to 
> the problem of tardy voting.  Please feel free to savage the idea in a 
> free discussion.  I have noticed over the years that there are some 
> records that we Committee members would like to discuss before voting on 
> the first time.  How many times have we written "I am voting NO in hopes 
> of sending this to the second round" or some similar comment?  The problem 
> is two-fold.  We then guess how the other members are voting just to vote 
> contrary to them in order to move the record into the second round.  That 
> is an undesirable solution because it introduces a vote into the record 
> that you may not actually agree with (albeit qualified), and it is a 
> gamble because you may guess wrong as to how the rest of the Committee is 
> voting, thus failing to send the record into the !
> second round precisely because you didn't vote what you thought was the 
> logical vote in the first place.  So my proposal, is this:  Why not add 
> another voting option to the yeah or nay ones we can choose form now?  Why 
> not add an option like "pass record to second round for discussion," which 
> doesn't force the voter to guess the intentions of others, doesn't pollute 
> the record with these qualified spoiler votes (which I have employed 
> myself), and doesn't keep the Committee voting process waiting on those 
> who are unable to come to a decision on a particular record (often for 
> very excellent, thoughtful reasons).  After all, sometimes there are 
> difficult questions regarding particular records which would benefit from 
> discussion.  I know I have repeatedly learned from comments of other 
> members.
>
> I suppose I would also propose that if we decide to incorporate the first 
> idea about Alternate voters, we should allow the regular voting members to 
> vote "abstain --pass my vote to Alternate" so as to allow the vote to 
> proceed at a faster pace without having to wait for the deadline.
>
> Please give my proposals some thought.  I would be very interested in your 
> thoughts on how to solve our dilemma.
>
> Thank you very much if you have made it down this far,
>
> David Wheeler
>
> _______________________________________________
> reccom mailing list
> reccom at utahbirds.org
> http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/reccom
>