[reccom] Proposal

Tue May 5 18:40:18 MDT 2009

Hi all,

I agree with David, Bob and Ron's ideas for the most part.  I think a method
allowing 7 votes is rather important...rather than cutting it down to 5
votes.  While I'm not sure we would have a problem with this given our past
and current timeliness issues, I do think a race could start for people to
get in the first 7 votes if we had 9 equal members...and as Dave mentions I
think thoroughness and quality issues arise quickly.  As a result, I do
think having 2 extra voting members on the team (waiting...ready to vote) in
cases where records have not gone through after 2 months seems
reasonable...this gives the 7 normal voting members plenty of time to
contact others, go through the literature, etc. if they have time...if they
don't, which certainly happens...then there are the 2 other members
waiting...we could alternate records between the 2 members waiting in the
wing (and have both vote if 2 votes are needed)...and as someone mentioned,
I think then having these 2 extra voting members become part of the official
records committee every 2 years seems completely reasonable.

I think that may have been Ron's original idea in which case, I like it, and
to me, it seems the most logical (given our issues) and consistent (with our
current system)...

Colby

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:05 PM, David Wheeler <dswheeler at utah.gov> wrote:

>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090505/6729c321/attachment.htm