[reccom] Proposal

[David Wheeler]

Hello, all.
 
I would like to cast my lot with whichever method allows at least 7 votes, for the excellent reasons noted by Bob.  If that means 7 regular members plus two alternates, great.  If that means 9 regular members with at least 7 voting to make it real, great too.  I would caution that if we have 9 voters (of any kind) and simply allow first 7 to vote, we are incentivizing quickness over thoroughness.  I liked the part in Lu's original proposal which gave everyone the two months before resorting to alternates.  However, I'm sure we can come up with some language to allow everyone who votes under a 9 regular voter system the two months too.  This is important, I think.  This isn't speed chess.
 
Thank you all for all the brain storming.
 
David

>>> Robert Bond <rgbond at earthlink.net> 5/5/2009 11:21 AM >>>
Hi Milt,

Let me just say that I would be happy to accept any decision that is 
made regarding the committee makeup, but let me tell you what my 
preference would be, and why.

I have just checked the committee makeup of many of the records 
committees in the west.  Arizona has 8 members, California has 9, 
Oregon has 9 with 6 alternates, Washington has 7, and Idaho has 7 with 
2 alternates.  As I have reviewed the names of many of the members on 
these committees, several are on anyone's list of Who's Who in the 
world of birding.  Obviously we are not bound to any decision that 
other states have made, but I do feel that there is a benefit in having 
adequate numbers to make the best decisions.  I have reviewed many of 
the votes on birds for the past year or so just to help me get oriented 
to being a member of the committee.  When I have read the comments that 
members have made regarding their votes, it has been very helpful and 
educational.  I just feel that 5 votes that count are too few.  
Whatever decision is made, I still would like to see at least 7 votes 
on each record that count.

My preference would be that we have seven members and that we require 
all to vote on each record.  For whatever reason, this system just 
doesn't seem to be working adequately,  so my second preference would 
be to have 2 alternates, like Idaho, and have the first 7 votes cast be 
the ones that count.  It has been mentioned that this would not be fair 
to the two alternates, as they are not receiving any credit as  members 
of the committee.  However, if we picked two alternates with the idea 
that they would be the next two members of the committee as spots 
opened up, it seems that might allay that concern.

Anyway, those are just my rambling thoughts for whatever they are worth.

Bob
On May 3, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Milt Moody wrote:

>
> Greetings,
> This may be inappropriate for the Record Committee webmaster to 
> comment on committee proceedings -- if it is, please just ignore it.
>
> There is a proposal for bylaws change that has been submitted.  This 
> is a good time to let your opinions be heard.  Ron has suggested that 
> we could have 9 regular (and equal) voting members but a minimal 
> number of 7 votes to conclude the vote for that round.  If you like 
> this idea or don't like it, it might be good to hear about it.  Eric 
> commented that he likes the idea and might suggest that we could 
> possibly keep the committee at seven members but have the minimal 
> number needed to conclude the vote might be lowered to 5 (Ron's system 
> with fewer members basically).  If someone like or doesn't like this 
> idea it might be a good time to give your opinion on this. (It seems 
> like the opinions come more when it's time to vote, which might be a 
> little too late).
>
> I've worked with the committee for quite a long time (it's got to be 8 
> years or so) and I think that if it's going to work well, 
> communication just might be the most important thing.
>
> Like I say, it might be a completely inappropriate for me to comment 
> on this, but...I think communication is where it's at in this 
> "business", so here it is. (I hope no one takes offense).
>
> Thanks,
> Milt
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/reccom/attachments/20090505/b388e4a2/attachment.htm