[reccom] Less than 7 votes

Tue May 5 21:00:39 MDT 2009

I'm glad to hear some responses on this issue so a vote on the proposition will be thoroughly thought out and discussed before hand.

On the concern about have a record pass (or be passed to the next round) with less than 7 votes, I think the wording "at the discretion of the Secretary " is key (and is maybe the main idea here).  If for instance if the deadline arrives for a first round records where 5 have voted to accept and 1 has vote not to -- it's going to the second round no matter what the last vote is, so the secretary, instead of waiting for the 7th vote could send it to the second round.  So passing a record to the next round doesn't seem to be a problem in this case (and a good Secretary should be able to make a good call).  The main problem, I think, would be if there is a "tough" record that requires a lot of research and study or a "first state record" (with a 5-0 vote at the deadline).  In this case it would be "at the discretion of the Secretary," who doesn't have to declare the record accepted at all, but could choose to do a number of things like, give the record
 more time, contact those who have not yet voted to see what the situation is, etc., and then react appropriately to that.  If it were a record for one of the more "commonly seen" or easily identified rare birds, then it may not be as critical to have all 7 votes -- again the Secretary would decide on that.  (Having several people not voting by the deadline should be a pretty rare thing anyway, I'd hope).

Another thought that could ease everyone's minds in a general way is that if there is further evidence or research that comes forward about any record that has been reviewed by the committee, it can always be re-submitted for another review.  We wouldn't want that to be happening often, but at least knowing that an "error" can be corrected in this system,  should be comforting.  Having said this, I think reviewing records should NOT be done in haste nor in a less than thorough way, but neither
should it be done in fear of making a "dumb" mistake either -- everyone
should do their best in a reasonable time and with a reasonable amount
of effort, is what I figure.

Anyway, those are my thought about keeping the committee at 7 members.  Whatever works well is good as far as I'm concerned, though.  Like I say, I'm glad to be have a good discussion on the topic.

Thanks,
Milt

--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Colby Neuman <colby.neuman at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Colby Neuman <colby.neuman at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [reccom] Proposal
To: "Utah Bird Records Committee" <reccom at utahbirds.org>
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 6:40 PM

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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20090505/91a9d7c5/attachment-0001.htm