I appreciate all of the feedback on this post. My intention in posting was
not to attack the committee or anyone on it, but was due to genuine
curiosity on why one member thought that the bird should not be accepted. A
contrarian view sometimes becomes the dominant view and I just wanted to
know what that view was in this case. Itís kind of like the Supreme Court
where thereís always a dissenting opinion that spells out why certain
members didnít sign on to the majority opinion. It can be useful and make
you think and make you reexamine what you believe, all of which can be
healthy. Anyway, thatís why I posted what I did.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Laura Erickson <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> One thing that several states do, which seems like a good idea, is to
> keep all the documentation and the Records Committee comments and
> votes in a file that is archived and open for public inspection in a
> secure location. For example, New York archives their committee
> records at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. If MOU were to do this, I'd
> presume the Bell Museum would be the right place for maintaining the
> archives. Of course, for all I know, this may already be the protocol.
> But again, as someone who is utterly burned out after serving on
> various boards and committees, I do not see any value in adding to the
> workload of people on MOURC. And I think it's both unkind and
> destructive of a cohesive birding community to engage a whole listserv
> in criticizing an important committee, and specifically questioning
> one person's vote on that committee, when we never seem to engage the
> listserv in pointing out the huge contribution that this committee
> makes in maintaining our state, national, and international
> ornithological standing. I would much rather see the committee members
> feeling free to vote their concerns on a record than be pressured into
> making votes unanimous when legitimate questions may exist about a
> particular record.
> Laura Erickson
> Duluth, MN
> For the love, understanding, and protection of birds
> There is symbolic as well as actual beauty in the migration of birds.
> There is something infinitely healing in the repeated refrains of
> nature--the assurance that dawn comes after night, and spring after
> the winter.
> óRachel Carson
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
> Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net