Records Committee
Bylaws Proposals
March 2020
Results
  

    Results: 9 accept 

Main Idea:  Remove the option to deal with the records through regular mail.

Rationale:  Although, in the now distant past, the records committee work was done by sending records through the regular mail, for over 20 years it has been done completely through the internet.  I think we need to make sure that everyone on the committee has the expectation and capability to work with these records over the web.

Original Text:  | Link to the Bylaws |

 IV.B,2 and 3 [parts in question are in red]
   2.  Distribution to Voting Members
      a.  All records will be posted to the Utah Records Committee web site within one week of reception
      b. After posting, the Secretary will send an email to the Committee explaining that there is a new record for voting
      c.  If a member has opted for hard copy, the Secretary will distribute materials to that member via mail
  3.  Receipt by Voting Members
      a.  Judge the record's validity and vote on it.
      b. Complete on‑line voting form and hit submit for compilation.
      c.  If member has elected to receive and submit hard documentation, voting form will be sent to the Secretary via mail.
      d. Members are strongly encouraged to evaluate and vote on the Utah Records Committee web site

Proposed Changes:  

     Delete the parts highlighted in Red in the above text.    
 

    Results: 9 accept 

Main Idea:  The Secretary must be a resident of the State of Utah -- but the Voting Member do not need to be, but they must meet the qualifications in Sections III.B.1 and be willing to carry out the responsibilities listed in III.D.2

Rationale:  Since the Committee functions completely through the internet, the residence of the Voting Members is not a limiting factor.  Possessing the qualifications listed in the Bylaws and the willingness to carry out those responsibilities should be the things to be considered.
     (Here are the listed qualifications: ...possess expertise in identification of Utah birds, knowledge of Utah bird distribution, and familiarity with birders and localities in Utah)

Original Text:|  Link to the Bylaws |

III.B.3
     3. The Secretary and Voting Members must be residents of the State of Utah.

Proposed Changes:  

     3. The Secretary must be a resident of the State of Utah.    
 

    Results: 9 accept 

Main Idea:  If there is a tie for the last person going in the final elections there may be an extra nominee for the finals.

Rationale:  Even though there are ways to have a tie breaker in the preliminary elections, it would be fair to have an extra nominee in the finals since the outcome may be different than expected since some "strategic voting" in the preliminary round may have skewed the real preferences which could be could be more accurately expressed in the final vote.

Original Text:|  Link to the Bylaws |

III.C.1.c
     c. If there are four or more nominees, above the number of open positions to be filled, there shall be a preliminary vote to determine the finalists reducing the number of nominees to two more than the number of open positions.

Proposed Changes:  

     Add to c. above:.  "...or more if there is a tie for the last finalist".    
 

    Results: 8 accept, 1 reject 

Main Idea:  Modify the list of Voting Member responsibilities.

Rationale:  The Bylaws describes a lot of functions of the Committee, most of which are assigned mainly to the Secretary with assistance from other members of the Committee.  It would be good reference the expectation of this assistance in the list of Voting Member responsibilities.

Original Text:|  Link to the Bylaws |

III.D.2. Responsibilities  (of Voting Members)

a. Vote on all records in a timely manner. Although each Voting Member is expected to vote on each record expeditiously, there will be a final deadline of two months for each individual record from the time it is posted. If there are unusual circumstances, an extension may be granted either to the Committee as a whole, (i.e. for a difficult record), or to an individual for any valid reason (upon request by that individual to the Secretary).

b. Vote in all elections and on all proposals in a timely manner or before any reasonable deadline which might be established by the Secretary

Proposed Changes:  

a. Vote on all records in a timely manner. Although each Voting Member is expected to vote on each record expeditiously, there will be a final deadline for each round of the review (see section IV.C.9). If more time is needed to make a good decision, an extension will be granted upon request to the Secretary by any Voting Member.

 add the following sections

c. Assist the Secretary in carrying out the Bylaw.  For example: making Review List changes, updating the checklist, reviewing and updating the Bylaws, creating the yearly reports. etc..

d. Propose changes to the Review List and Bylaws when a change is appropriate.

e. Maintain internet access and an email account that can be checked often.
           
 

    Results: 8 accept, 1 reject 

Main Idea:  Modify the list of responsibilities for the Secretary

Rationale:  The responsibilities of the Secretary are mentioned throughout the Bylaws.  It would be good for the Secretary or a prospective Secretary to have a list of responsibilities that described the expectations more clearly.  Since the Committee is working through the internet, it would be good to suggest what duties might fall on the webmaster and which might remain on the Secretary.

Original Text:|  Link to the Bylaws |

II.E.2 -  Responsibilities (Secretary)
  2. Responsibilities
     a. Receive, circulate, recirculate, file, and maintain all bird records and supporting data submitted to the Committee.
     b. Tabulate results of all votes of the Committee, including votes on bird records, but excepting the election of the Secretary.
     c. Keep or cause to keep minutes of Committee meetings.
     d. Furnish to anyone, upon request, any accepted or rejected bird record with all evidence, including Committee comments.
     e. Produce an Annual Report of the Committee's decisions and publish it on the internet or in an appropriate publication.
     f. Call and preside over all meetings required by these Bylaws

Proposed Changes:  

II.E.2 -  Responsibilities (Secretary)
    a. Preside as acting chairman of the Committee [See section III.A]
    b. See that the Bylaws are carried out in an appropriate and timely manner with the voluntary assistance of other members of the committee.  (Some specifics listed below:)
       1. See that elections are carried out at the end of each year..
       2. Make sure the Review Species list is up-to-date (V.A) and is made available to the public (V.B.3).
       3. Make sure that the Bylaws are up-to-date and are changed when needed (VI.B).
       4. See that any proposals are discussed and voted on by the Committee (VI.A).
       5. See that a yearly report is published (IV.D.)
     c. Call, preside over and provide minutes for any meeting deemed appropriate for the needs of the committee.
     d. Upon completion of a review, write a summary of the comments of the Vote Members explaining the decision of the Committee.  (This will be included in the "Summary section of the "Summary Page" for each record).
    h.  Appoint other officers as needed to assist in secretarial duties.  (For example: A webmaster, an eBird liason, an archivist, etc.).
               (The following duties may be assigned to a webmaster and possibly an archivist with supervision of the Secretary:)
    i. Receive and post sight records, and maintain all information relating to these records.
    f. Furnish to anyone, upon request, any accepted or rejected bird record with all evidence, including Committee comments.
    g. Publish all the appropriate reports, records and information on the Committee website.
 

    Results: 9 accept 

Main Idea:  Modify some aspects of the Circulation Procedures

Rationale: 
     - Add that a record would be appropriate for review if it would be a new species for Utah.
     -.Replace awkward or vague wording so it is more accurate
     - Add the procedure of creating a "Summary Page" for each record, which would have  information relating to the record and the associated processes of the Committee.
     - Delete the option to receive hard copies of voting material vie regular mail.
 

Original Text: (IV.B.1)     |  Link to the Bylaws |

  IV.B.1. Initial Receipt by Secretary. Upon receipt of a record, the Secretary shall do the following:

      a. Determine if the record meets circulation criteria (is it on the Review Species Lists)
      b. If it is on the list, follow below procedures
      c. If it is not on the list send letter to submitter thanking for the record and explain that it will not be voted on.
      d. Give the record a unique number, consisting of the year of receipt (not the year of sighting) followed by a hyphen and the next unused number, starting with "01," for each calendar year.
      e. The Secretary may split any record containing multiple sightings into two or more records if it appears that this will facilitate voting. The Committee may also, by the vote of a simple majority, split any record containing multiple sightings into two or more records. This action, whether instigated by the Secretary or the Committee, should take place before the end of the first round.

Proposed Changes:  

  IV.B.1
         a.  Add   "(is it on the Review Species Lists or would be a new species for Utah)
       b. Replace with: "If it is an appropriate sighting, follow the procedures below."

       Insert  e. Create a Summary Page for each record, to keep track of the subsequent sighting of the bird(s), links to other sight records submitted and to photos, recordings and other supporting documents including expert opinions, and a final summary of the results of the committee review.

      Shift item e. down to item f. (...to make room for the new item e.)

Original Text:  (IV.B.2)    |  Link to the Bylaws |

    IV.B.2. Distribution to Voting Members

       c. If a member has opted for hard copy, the Secretary will distribute materials to that member via mail

Proposed Changes:  

  IV.B.2
         delete item c.  (the hard copy option).
       
 

    Results: 6 accept, 3 reject 

Main Idea:  Add a option to send a record to a second round for discussion without voting to accept or reject.  (You don't have to guess which would be a dissenting vote).

Rationale:  If a record looks like it would need further discussion it can be sent to a second round with this new vote.  This should speed up the process for first round records and get to critical discussion and collaboration with other Voting Members.

Original Text: (IV.C.3)     |  Link to the Bylaws |

    3. Voting Categories:
       a. Accept
       b. Accept, but not at the species level.
       c. Reject, specific identification not established.
       d. Reject, natural occurrence questionable
       e. Reject, establishment of introduced population questionable.

Proposed Changes:  

      IV.C.3
          Add   f. To Second (To2nd),  send to a second round for discussion.
       
 

    Results: 9 accept 

Main Idea:  Delete the mention of abstentions.

Rationale:   The mention of "abstentions" can be deleted since there is no longer an option to abstain from voting.

Original Text: (IV.C.9)     |  Link to the Bylaws |

     9. Tabulation. There shall be a two-month deadline for members to vote on any given record in each round. If after the deadline at least seven members have voted yes or no, the record will be dealt with as in section IV.C.10 below. Abstentions, whether voluntary or involuntary, do not count toward the seven vote requirement.


Proposed Changes:  
     (IV.C.9)

    [delete]: The last sentence above highlighted in red.    
 

    Results: 6 accept, 3 reject 

Main Idea:  Change the length of time before the deadline to vote on the records.

Rationale:   With an expectation of quick responses to sightings and other birding activities created by our modern internet, we should decrease the time it takes to review easy records as much as possible while making sure that difficult records receive the time necessary to make a good decision. (The use of a deadline extension request described in III.D.2 --see the new proposed version in Proposal #4 -- should guarantee enough time for any difficult records).

Original Text:    |  Link to the Bylaws |

     9. Tabulation. There shall be a two-month deadline for members to vote on any given record in each round. If after the deadline at least seven members have voted yes or no, the record will be dealt with as in section IV.C.10 below. Abstentions, whether voluntary or involuntary, do not count toward the seven vote requirement.


Proposed Changes:

   IV.C.9
     9. Tabulation. There shall be a one-month deadline for members to vote on any given record in each round. If after the deadline at least seven members have voted yes or no, the record will be dealt with as in section IV.C.10 below. [delete the last sentence and replace with this] If an extension is needed it can easily be requested as in section III.D.2.a.

(If proposal #4 is NOT accepted, but this one IS, the following change would have to be made in section III.D.2.a: Replace the "two-month deadline" with "one-month deadline" -- this would make things consistent).

    Results: 9 accept 

Main Idea:  Simplify the language of the Decisive and Non-decisive Votes in the first round.

Rationale:   The same thing can be said in a shorter and more clear way

Original Text:    |  Link to the Bylaws |

   IV.C.10. Decisive and Non‑decisive Votes.

     a.  First Round votes have to be 7-0, 8-0, or 9-0 in the affirmative or 0-7, 0-8, or 0-9 in the negative. If a first round record receives any of these votes then it is considered decisive and no second round is needed. If anything less than this it goes to second round.

Proposed Changes:

  IV.C.10.
     a. First Round votes must have at least 7 unanimous votes to be decisive (whether affirmative or negative), otherwise the record will go to a second round.
    
 

    Results: 9 accept 

Main Idea:  A review and amendment of the State Checklist should be done when it is deemed appropriate rather than after a set number of years.

Rationale:   The present Bylaws say "there shall be a review and amendment of the checklist at least every three years." We need to update the checklist whenever there is a new species added, or when there is a change in the Review List, etc., which is easily done on a web version.  It may not be necessary to do a general update of all the status and abundance codes, etc. every three years.  I should be done at the discretion of the committee when it is deemed necessary.

Original Text:    |  Link to the Bylaws |

V.A. Official Checklist

    1. The official checklist shall be reviewed and amended at least every three years
       a. A committee shall be formed and the checklist reviewed at least every three years
       b. The committee will consist of the Secretary and two Members of the Committee
       c. The committee will propose changes to species, abundance and status codes, which shall be voted on by the Committee and accepted by majority vote

Proposed Changes:

1.  The official checklist shall be reviewed at least every three years to see if a general revision is needed.
   a.  If a general revision is deemed necessary, a subcommittee shall be formed to accomplish the task.
    b. The subcommittee will consist of the Secretary and at least two other Members of the Committee
    c. The subcommittee will propose changes to species, abundance and status codes, which shall be voted on by the Committee and accepted by majority vote     
 

    Results: 9 accept 

Main Idea:  Reviewing and changing the bylaws can be done to individual parts at any time.  A general review and "synchronization" so that everything fits together can be done when needed instead of after a set number of years.

Rationale:   The present Bylaws require a sub-committee to be set up to revise the Bylaw at least once every three years.  It seems like we should be able to changes parts of the bylaws whenever a change is proposed and accepted by the Committee and if a general revise is needed that could be done when it is thought to be advisable.

Original Text:    |  Link to the Bylaws |

VI. Bylaws
VI.B. & C.
     B. REVIEW. The Committee shall review the Bylaws regularly, at least once every three years. To do this, the Secretary shall form a smaller sub-committee to discuss and revise the bylaws, review changes with the full committee, and then put the proposed changes to a final vote.
     C.  CHANGES. These Bylaws may be changed by a majority vote of the Committee.

Proposed Changes:

     B. REVIEW & CHANGES. Although the bylaws can be amended at any time when a proposal is made by any member of the Committee, a general review of the Bylaws can be done when deemed necessary. To accomplish this, the Secretary can form a smaller sub-committee to discuss and revise the bylaws, and then review proposed changes with the full committee. To pass, any proposal must receive a majority vote of the Committee.

delete Section C.  (It is now included in Section B)

    Results: 9 accept 

Main Idea:  Maintain the "special rule" for removing a species from the Review Species list that doesn't actually cross the regular threshold and modify the vote requirement to fit the present committee size.

Rationale:  Removing a species from the Review List that actually still meets the "general" criterion for inclusion -- "...average two or fewer times per year in each of the ten years immediately preceding revision of the Review List,"  should require special rules and a supermajority vote appropriate to a 9-member committee, to insure that sightings of that species no longer needs to be reviewed.

Original Text:    |  Link to the Bylaws |

 V.B.   Review List

  2. Special rule for changing status and/or observer coverage.
       a. Notwithstanding the criterion above, any committee member may petition the Committee to remove a species from the Review List if the species can be demonstrated or comfortably presumed to be more abundant than the number of accepted records presently indicates. Such cases will generally fall into two categories:
           i. Increasing Abundance. A species which, because of actual increasing abundance shows a clear upward trend in numbers of accepted records (per year) presumed by the Committee not to be part of a short‑term cyclical trend and which is anticipated to continue to exceed the criterion for retention on the List (i.e., more than four records per year).
          ii. Under-Reported Species. A species historically and regularly occurring in Utah in small to moderate numbers but which for reasons of limited observer coverage, access, and/or limited reporting, has not exceeded the criterion for retention on the List. A significant upward trend in numbers of accepted records (per year) must be demonstrated. (An implicit assumption is that at full coverage or optimal reporting levels, the species would well exceed the criterion for retention on the List.).
       b. The petitioning member must submit written documentation to substantiate the purported patterns of historical abundance, and/or recent trends in abundance and/or access, coverage, or reporting.
       c. Any such petition to remove a species by this special rule shall be voted on and accepted with a vote of 5-2 or greater.

Proposed Changes:

  Change  the required vote in V.B.2.c to fit a 9-memebered committee, as follows:
     c. Any such petition to remove a species by this special rule shall be voted on and accepted with a vote of 6-3 or greater.
    
 

    Results: 8 accept, 1 reject 

Main Idea:  Remove the option to "accept, but not at the species level."

Rationale:  Since a vote to "accept, but not at the species level" means that the record has not established  the actual species of the bird in question, it is, in theory and practice, a "no" vote.  Therefore this vote has no practical purpose and should be removed as an option.  We do have a place to record records of very rare species that are not accepted . We have the Auxiliary Lists (Unverified Species) and the Comprehensive Sightings List, where these records will be noted and will be accessible. The possibility that this could be a valid sighting should be expressed in the "Summary Comments" on the "Summary Page" of the record.

Original Text: (IV.C.3)     |  Link to the Bylaws |
 

a. Accept

b. Accept, but not at the species level.

c. Reject, specific identification not established.

d. Reject, natural occurrence questionable

e. Reject, establishment of introduced population questionable.

Proposed Changes:  

      IV.C.3
          Remove   b. Accept, but not at the species level.
             (shift up all the other options in the Bylaws and on the voting form)