Records Committee
Bylaws Proposals
Deadline is 3 Feb 2021
Results
  

           Conceptual Version. 
   (Written in descriptive language making the purpose of the bylaws section more clear).

11. First State Records: Committee members will consider each submitted record only on its merits, even if it would be a first state record. In order for a potential first state record to be added to our official State Checklist, one of the following must apply:

a) The record must have physical evidence and be accepted by the committee.

OR

b) For records without physical evidence, a species will be added to the official State Checklist upon acceptance of TWO records of that species. 

 

A ‘Provisional List’ will be reserved for first accepted records NOT backed up by physical evidence. The species will remain on this list until a second record is accepted.

Using this guidance, the Secretary will be responsible for placing first state records on the appropriate list (either the official State Checklist or the Provisional List). 

11. First State Records: Committee members will consider each submitted record only on its merits, even if it would be first-state record. To insure that only species supported by physical evidence or by at least two accepted records are placed on the official State Checklist, after a vote on a potential first-state record, the Secretary will proceed as follows.
   
      a. An accepted first-state records with physical evidence or an accepted record for a species already on the 'Provisional List", will be added to the State Checklist.
   
      b. An accepted first-state records with no physical evidence will be added to the "Provisional List" until a second record for that species is accepted.

11. First State Records: Committee members will consider each submitted record only on its merits, even if it would be first-state record..  After a vote on a potential first-state record, the Secretary will proceed as follows.
  
     a. An accepted first-state records with physical evidence or an accepted record for a species already on the 'Provisional List", will be added to the State Checklist.
  
     b. An accepted first-state records with no physical evidence will be added to the "Provisional List" until a second record for that species is accepted.

Outcome

 

First preference:	#1 & #3 tied at 4 votes;     #2 got  1 vote
Second preference:	#1 & #3 tied at 3 votes;     #2 got  5 votes    (one did not vote)
Third preference:	#2 got 5 votes;       #1 & #3 tied at 1 vote      (two did not vote)
It looks like close votes are a theme these day.  There was a tie between #1 and #3 in all three rounds.  Since two people didn't fill in some of their preferences, I went into further analysis.  One person left only the third preference undesignated so it is obvious which one it would have been.  The other person left the second and third choices undesignated. so there were only two possibilities.  So I trying both of those possibilities and both times the winner would have been #3 by the thinnest of margins.  So that's going down to the last "hanging chad" or the last vote on a recount! So since both wordings have the same practical outcome I think we can call #3 the "winner." and go with that -- that should work just fine.

        This are meant to seek opinions and not as a binding vote: 
         (options are: "yes", "no" & "no opinion")

1.  Should we keep the checklist as is and use the new Bylaws procedures only going forward?
   Outcome:  6 voted No,   3 voted Yes
     
2. Should we resubmit some of the records  (the relevant ones)  that have explicit references to having been rejected because of the previous requirement for a  higher level for a first-state record.?   (The new standard for all records  is "on it's merits."  Also, some of these records might just move the species from the  "Unverified List" to the new "Provisional List").
   Outcome:  5 voted Yes,   4 voted No
    
3. Should we review old  eBird checklist reports as a "second sighting" for the requirement to move a species on the new "Provisional List" to the main state checklist?  (Example:  We have a record that was accepted without physical and therefore is on the Provisional List.  There is an eBird checklist sighting for this species that was never submitted to the records committee.  Upon requesting that the observer submit a record for this sighting, the observer indicates that there were no notes taken at the time of the sighting and that the information on the eBird checklist is the best information available.   The question is: should we be able to submit the eBird checklist to the committee to vote on in this case?).
   Outcome:  6 voted No;   2 voted Yes;   1 had no opinion
    
4. Should we consider a second record, without physical evidence, for the same bird, but seen at a different time, and in a different group of observers, as a second sighting required to move that species to the main state checklist?
   Outcome:  6 voted No,   3 voted Yes
     
   Thank you!

Date: