It is currently July 21st, 2018, 9:09 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 2:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Posts: 1792
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Please use this thread to discuss edits and amendments to the bylaws regarding issues pertaining to the Database Coordinator and the International Coordinator.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 3:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
The International Coordinator should have 1000 records in NAFHA going forward, (Current administration not included). This insures an mutual investment to the Data in the database.


Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 4:02 pm 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
I don't even know the technical requirments of DC. I was hoping Don could help us out in outlining the skills a person would need to have, to do his job, should he ever decide he can no longer do it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 4:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Posts: 1792
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
hellihooks wrote:
I don't even know the technical requirments of DC. I was hoping Don could help us out in outlining the skills a person would need to have, to do his job, should he ever decide he can no longer do it.

As rapidly as the technology changes in this field, it is probably futile to list a set of requirements to take this job. By the time Don would be looking for a replacement, he may not be using any of the techniques and skills he has to use today.

On another thought: Since we have written in the bylaws in several instances that "such and such shall be decided by the International Board", it may be proper for us to define that method of decision making. If it's by vote, is it carried by a simple majority of the total number of IB members, or a simple majority of votes cast, or some other minimum? We also have to keep in mnd that as new Chapters form, the number of IB members grows accordingly, so if we set some sort of quorum, we may be painting ourselves into another corner in the future.

This situation may also be easily added to Article X in lieu of creating an entirely new DC/IC article.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 5:46 pm 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
So basically the requirment for DC would be 'mad computer skills' and the time to devote to the job? I imagine that Don spends a hell of a lot of time, doing all this for free. Wouldn't hurt to be a herper, too... :roll: PROBABLY would have to be someone very devoted to Nafha and the database, to committ to that much free time and effort.... :shock: Ever losing, or replacing Don is a VERY SCARY thought.

Yeah, fold these into X... the Article Order was just a rough outline, like all of these 'rewrites' have been... :D jim


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 6:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Posts: 2388
Location: Delmarva
Yeah I cant think much else to add. Possibly stipulate IC & DC are mods of Main Forum and MO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 6:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
So basically the requirment for DC would be 'mad computer skills' and the time to devote to the job? I imagine that Don spends a hell of a lot of time, doing all this for free. Wouldn't hurt to be a herper, too... :roll: PROBABLY would have to be someone very devoted to Nafha and the database, to committ to that much free time and effort.... :shock: Ever losing, or replacing Don is a VERY SCARY thought.

Yeah, fold these into X... the Article Order was just a rough outline, like all of these 'rewrites' have been... :D jim


I wasn't referring to the DC. :roll:

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 6:52 pm 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
Ya know, thinking about it, if we for some reason ever lost Don, it would probably be a case of someone 'stepping up to the plate', so to speak, and at most requiring an up/down poll, either by the IB or the members. Given some Chapters have a hard time getting officers to accept nominations, I can hardly imagine 2 people wanting the job of DC. But you never know... so we should probably make provisions for an election (I would suggest just by the IB) and if only one person is willing to accept the job... it would be a straight up yes/no vote.

I think the primary qualification for the IC would be years of experiance 'steering' an organization, and like the DC, a herper willing to dedicate a ton of time to Nafha.... Like the requirement that chapter presidents be members for at least 1 year... I think IC should have been around a bit longer... say 3 years? jim


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 7:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Posts: 2388
Location: Delmarva
I am pretty sure Don has an issurance policy in place just in case. There are a few who know his system well enough to be interim DC.

Do we need to add into the bylaws that the DC is a Volunteer posistion?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 7:43 pm 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
Technically, we're all volunteers... :lol: But yeah, I don't consider myself very qualified to say much about the DC posistion... I son't even know the full scope of his job... but that doesn't change the fact that the bylaws say NOTHING about it... whether he's elected, appointed, first-born...zip.... :shock: I have no problem relying on more 'informed' opinions, so whatever you guys think most appropriate. I was just throwing a few random thoughts out, and don't have any strongly-held beliefs, opinions or posistions to advocate.

Wasn't the election process for IC covered already? jim


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 8:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Wouldn't having an IC with a thousand records make sense? For those of us that have a lot of entries it's important for us to know others have a "vested" interest in data, for long term protection?

1000 entries is not really that many. It sure would make me feel better. Plus it show a vested interest in time spent being a part of us.

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: January 31st, 2011, 11:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3526
I don't know if quantity is a good indicator, at least not that much quantity. Someone else who uses the database differently may only submit 100-200 significant records a year. If they do that for 4-5 years I would say that they are very well-invested in the database and if they were otherwise qualified then I'd support them for IC, but they wouldn't have 1,000 records yet.

If we wanted to make a database minimum requirement, I wouldn't go above 300 entries, and even 100 would be acceptable. Heck, look at Jeff, Kent, Steve, Nate, Don - how many of them have over 1000 records?


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 5:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Posts: 1981
Location: Redding, CA
Steve Bledsoe wrote:
hellihooks wrote:
I don't even know the technical requirments of DC. I was hoping Don could help us out in outlining the skills a person would need to have, to do his job, should he ever decide he can no longer do it.

As rapidly as the technology changes in this field, it is probably futile to list a set of requirements to take this job. By the time Don would be looking for a replacement, he may not be using any of the techniques and skills he has to use today.


For the web based front end, that is probably true - and largely is a matter of personal taste (asp, php, ruby, etc.), but SQL based relational databases have been fairly standard for at least 20 years. The various implementations (MySQL, Postgresql, etc.) have changed and evolved, but any SQL admin worth a damn can fairly quickly adapt to whatever implementation is being used.

Database engineer is basically what we would need to look for, preferably with web development skills.

People with Don's skill and experience are not easy to come by, and are not cheap. NAFHA is extremely lucky.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 5:23 am 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
A point in fact is, any assumption of an office, BM, IC, DC... cuts into your time in the field. When I get this months data in, it will equal bout 25 entries. I could have easily had 100, but spent the majority of this month in front of the computer. Assigning any numerical requirements is problematic and a slippery slope... then what... every pres has to have 750, other officers 500... and so on. That is not in keeping with the ideal of a voluntary organization.
Active membership for a given number of years is a reasonable means of demonstrating stability and committment. jim


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 6:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Posts: 1792
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
My 2-cents is that the DC should not be elected, but chosen by committee (maybe the IB) based on qualifications alone, and not popularity by any degree.

I'd like Don to weigh in on the DC qualifications/replacement issue. Who knows more about what is required than he does?


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 6:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
f we wanted to make a database minimum requirement, I wouldn't go above 300 entries, and even 100 would be acceptable. Heck, look at Jeff, Kent, Steve, Nate, Don - how many of them have over 1000 records?


Lets see Nate, and Steve would meet the requirement by year end. Kyle too, Mike, Jonathan, Chris Harrison, Don will too, Bob aka brick911, The Pingle,

Others will too by the end of the year..

I have 200 entries for Jan give me break on how hard it is.... Its like paying dues, and having a mutual investment in that data..

Seems like a pretty good group to me.. We are talking just one position.



Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 7:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Posts: 2388
Location: Delmarva
Quote:
Lets see Nate, and Steve would meet the requirement by year end. Kyle too, Mike, Jonathan, Chris Harrison, Don will too, Bob aka brick911, The Pingle,


Fundad, I agree that the IC should be very familiar with the database and number of entries is a good gauge, but what if none of those people will accept a nomination for IC?

1000 entries might make the pool of candiates too small, especially if a bunch of us leave. The number also needs to be flexible based on the active membership. So an example: "The IC must be among the top 10% of records entered among active members"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 7:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
Fundad, I agree that the IC should be very familiar with the database and number of entries is a good gauge, but what if none of those people will accept a nomination for IC?

1000 entries might make the pool of candiates too small, especially if a bunch of us leave. The number also needs to be flexible based on the active membership. So an example: "The IC must be among the top 10% of records entered among active members"


Report this post



Were pretty close to that now projected, 18 people by years end..

25 by 3 years... thats pretty close to 10 percent??? Not counting the people that have 5 or less entries...

I could live with 10 percent unless it gets us to the under 500 crowd.

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 7:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Posts: 2388
Location: Delmarva
Quote:
I could live with 10 percent unless it gets us to the under 500 crowd.


My point is though there might be a time when there is a turnover in membership and none of the active membership have over 500 records.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 7:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
My point is though there might be a time when there is a turnover in membership and none of the active membership have over 500 records.


You think so? Lordy I hope not.. I don't see many on that list leaving for 4 years or so. We are not doing our job very well if we can't get membership to have 30+ people with a 1000 records iover the next 4 years..

Just sayin
Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 7:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Posts: 2388
Location: Delmarva
Fundad wrote:
Quote:
My point is though there might be a time when there is a turnover in membership and none of the active membership have over 500 records.


You think so? Lordy I hope not.. I don't see many on that list leaving for 4 years or so. We are not doing our job very well if we can't get membership to have 30+ people with a 1000 records iover the next 4 years..

Just sayin
Fundad


I cant predict the future. 4 years probably not, but 25 years? 50 years? 100 years? Just saying lets not make the requirement too restrictive.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 7:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Posts: 1792
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Fundad wrote:
Quote:
f we wanted to make a database minimum requirement, I wouldn't go above 300 entries, and even 100 would be acceptable. Heck, look at Jeff, Kent, Steve, Nate, Don - how many of them have over 1000 records?


Lets see Nate, and Steve would meet the requirement by year end. Kyle too, Mike, Jonathan, Chris Harrison, Don will too, Bob aka brick911, The Pingle,

Others will too by the end of the year..

I have 200 entries for Jan give me break on how hard it is.... Its like paying dues, and having a mutual investment in that data..

Seems like a pretty good group to me.. We are talking just one position.



Fundad

Brian,
You must remember the scripture from the Ancient Herper ....
"Tis easier for a married man to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for him to enter 200 records per month into the NAFHA database" :lol:

And, just for the record, I made my 1000 last December! :beer:


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 7:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
I cant predict the future. 4 years probably not, but 25 years? 50 years? 100 years? Just saying lets not make the requirement too restrictive.


I have to tell you 25 years from now if we don't have a field of 100 people with a 1000 records, we are really failing at our goals, and job here....... Don't you agree?


Fundad

Quote:
Brian,
You must remember the scripture from the Ancient Herper ....
"Tis easier for a married man to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for him to enter 200 records per month into the NAFHA database" :lol:

And, just for the record, I made my 1000 last December! :beer:


:lol: :lol: There you go Steve.. :thumb: Though you are only at 973 vouchered records... So you have to enter a whole 27 more to make a grand... :lol: Unvouchered Records don't count.. :lol:

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 7:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Posts: 1792
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
[quote="Fundad
Quote:
:lol: :lol: There you go Steve.. :thumb: Though you are only at 973 vouchered records... So you have to enter a whole 27 more to make a grand... :lol: Unvouchered Records don't count.. :lol:

Fundad

Picky, picky, picky :lol:


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 7:53 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Posts: 2388
Location: Delmarva
Quote:
I have to tell you 25 years from now if we don't have a field of 100 people with a 1000 records, we are really failing at our goals, and job here....... Don't you agree?


I would, but membership is going to fluctuate over time, and I am also talking about active members.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 8:11 am 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
I think years of active membership is a less problematic gauge than actual entries.... but that said, anyone who's been an active member for a period of years should have a respectable amount of entries, unless wheelchair bound or something.
I'm just wondering if 1000 is the bright dividing line, or will we continue to slip down that 'controlling' slope by next requiring 'yearly quotas'... :roll:

In 5, 10, 20 years we may have a canidate who's had years and years of 'steering' an organization' (which SHOULD BE the MAIN qualification) who can no longer do much 'actual herping'...and now just writes books on herping, or contributes in another fashion. :D jim


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 8:26 am 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
This is what we currently have in the proposed rewrite, that at the time seemed to pass 'muster' with everyone:
C. The term for the International Coordinator shall be one year and may be elected to office more than once with no limit on consecutive terms. The International Coordinator must have been an active member of the association for at least one year prior to assuming office. In the event that a person elected is unable or unwilling to assume the office, the office shall remain open until a suitable candidate can be elected by a vote pursuant to Article VIIA.

D. The Database Coordinator shall oversee the database and the data release process. There is no term limit for the Database Coordinator, however the Database Coordinator may be dismissed by a vote pursuant to Article VIIA. In the event that this position comes open, the Database Coordinator shall be elected by a vote pursuant to ARTICLE VIIA.[code][/code]

My only point was this contains no provisions for accquiring a new DC, should we ever need to. Maybe the 1 year requirement for IC should be changed to 3 years... but, other than that, I don't see that specifically requiring data quotas is neccessary... as there's no precedent for that anywhere else in the bylaws. jim

Edit... I see we did include a provision for electing a DC... so, we're revisiting this for...??


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 8:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3526
Fundad wrote:
I have 200 entries for Jan give me break on how hard it is....


I'm not talking about how hard it is, but what their data priority is. Sure, I have 2,000+ records, but there are people with only 400-500 records whose data is probably much more important than mine. Someone may only enter very well-detailed, significant records, spend a lot of time working to get those significant records, and spend a ton of time working on survey, conservation, and publicity issues for NAFHA. I don't think that mass data entry on the scales of thousands of entries per person is the only legitimate NAFHA priority, and so I think that there can be people with only a few hundred entries who may be very well-qualified to lead us.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 9:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
You guys don't get it? We ARE about the database and data FIRST and foremost...

Ok so someone can "LEAD" us.. Big deal.. Where is leading us???

Really a thousand records is nothing, THE IC SHOULD HAVE A INVESTED INTEREST IN THE DATA AND DATABASE..

Setting the bar high, is what we should do... I don't want the leader of NAFHA to have 400 entries. There is no serious
investment of time and the data itself.

It's Ironic that most here demand "High Ethical Standards of ALL members", yet not demand a high set of standards for the IC and investment of the IC...

To be honest the Crux of the issue is whats most important "The DATA or Our little projects" And darn it the IC should be
"QUALIFIED" "INVESTED" and trustworthy, of maintaining the integrity of our data, data goals, and data projects..

I for one have so many sensitive records and locals in the database, it greatly concerns me that we might elect someone that doesn't share my (our) investment into the time and sensitivity of said records..

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 10:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3526
400 records can be a very serious investment of time, if the herper involved is looking for really difficult species and completing very high-quality records. Someone could be searching for potentially extirpated toad species in Imperial County, hiking up San Gorgonio looking to verify that salamander report at 10,000 feet, searching for zonata and salis in the White Mountains, getting herps from every county in Nevada, etc. If they were doing that, working it hard until they were successful, and not entering every single scelop and uta they saw, it could take them quite a long time to reach 500 records, much less 1,000. Especially if the same person was heavily involved in meeting with conservancy groups, planning survey trips, and directing those trips while letting the more novice herpers enter the sightings into the database.

Herpers who enter lots of slender salamanders and common lizard species, who flip boardlines and very high-producing rock piles, and who go back to their familiar spots that they know are great will get tons of data. But not every herper does that, and someone who is traveling further to much low-quality yield areas that they don't have set up with boardlines or well-positioned rocks is going to take much, much longer to get to 1,000 entries, especially if they are spending a lot of their time doing things that benefit NAFHA other than data entry.

I'm not saying that data entry isn't important. I think it's the single most important thing we do. But I don't think that 1,000+ data quantities are the sole qualifier of importance. I've helped lots of other people get data in and get their data accurate, promoted the database contest, and helped out on multiple surveys - that's helped NAFHA as much as the thousands of entries I've personally put it.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 10:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
400 is NOT an investment IMO. I have 1300 snake entries, no not the same animals from the same boardlines. (infact we will be bringing that subject up soon)

If they want to be IC, than they should start recording other items except White mtn Zonata, that shows that person cares about all herps not just "their favorite herps".. Heck that person pulled all of their data last year, and not a single person, besides me tried to convince him otherwise..

We need to set the bar high, in order to gain the trust of of the membership with their data, to be honest, I would have serious reservations about any IC with only 400 records... Reservations about the preservation and dedication to the database.

And from where I am standing the other little projects we got going on for the most part are just little projects with little conservation value, in comparison to the data stored in our database..

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 10:53 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Posts: 2388
Location: Delmarva
So what happens when we cant find someone with 1000+ records willing to accept a nomination?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 11:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3526
I trust the members, as a group, to decide whether or not someone running for IC is qualified to hold the position. If we want to add "has demonstrated a consistent and substantial commitment to making naherp.com database entries" to the list of qualifications then I will support that. But I will trust the members to judge that. I don't think there's any justification for a single member right now to decide exactly how many database entries all future IC's must have when the entire membership body can make that decision as a group when they elect their IC.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 11:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Posts: 1792
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Fundad wrote:
400 is NOT an investment IMO. I have 1300 snake entries, no not the same animals from the same boardlines. (infact we will be bringing that subject up soon)

If they want to be IC, than they should start recording other items except White mtn Zonata, that shows that person cares about all herps not just "their favorite herps".. Heck that person pulled all of their data last year, and not a single person, besides me tried to convince him otherwise..

We need to set the bar high, in order to gain the trust of of the membership with their data, to be honest, I would have serious reservations about any IC with only 400 records... Reservations about the preservation and dedication to the database.

And from where I am standing the other little projects we got going on for the most part are just little projects with little conservation value, in comparison to the data stored in our database..

Fundad

Brian,
You tend to not give any consideration to one very important thing. Nobody in our organization is going to argue that the database is not important, but it only has value if someone uses it. We could have a million high quality records in the database, and unless someone uses it for research or for creating better laws or protecting the last holdout habitat of an endangered species, the database has no value at all, not to us, not to anyone

A great percentage of the language in the bylaws is geared towards making sure that the NAFHA is not only perceived to be a professionally run organization, but is a professionally run organization. Does the president of Chase Manhattan Bank have more or an equal amount of money in his bank as the bank's largest investor? I doubt it. Does the President of every large corporation own as much stock as his largest stock holders? Not necessarily. What we are talking about here is management skills, not necessarily herping skills. If we are to be highly successful in putting our database to work, we must be looked upon by the professionals who we want to use our database as being equally professional.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 11:37 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
So what happens when we cant find someone with 1000+ records willing to accept a nomination?


How about 1000 records or top 10 percent, if no one with a 1000 records accepts nomination?

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 11:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Posts: 1792
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
delete


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 11:55 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Posts: 1792
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
(delete)


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 11:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
Brian,
You tend to not give any consideration to one very important thing. Nobody in our organization is going to argue that the database is not important, but it only has value if someone uses it. We could have a million high quality records in the database, and unless someone uses it for research or for creating better laws or protecting the last holdout habitat of an endangered species, the database has no value at all, not to us , not to anyone

A great percentage of the language in the bylaws it geared towards making sure that the NAFHA is not only perceived to be a professionally run organization, but is a professionally run organization. Does the president of Chase Manhattan Bank have more or an equal amount of money in his bank as the bank's largest investor? I doubt it. Does the President of every large corporation own as much stock as his largest stock holders? Not necessarily. What we are talking about here is management skills, not necessarily herping skills. If we are to be highly successful in putting our database to work, we must be looked upon by the professionals who we want to use our database as being equally professional.



The money comparison to a bank is a little ludicrous :lol: Why do you think that CEO's are shareholders? Same reason, I am giving, an invested interest, into the preservation of the Database.. If you look at the list we currently (at years end) have, You'll notice we have A LOT of qualified people to be an IC.

If we want data we need to assure our stake holders first and foremost , that the data they enter will be preserved and used wisely, and that trust can only be accomplished by having an IC with an invested interest.

Your making my point for me, how do I trust any IC, that has ideas on what to do with MY data, if he doesn't have a lot of data of his own invested in it..

Furthermore a good herper IS an important part of being an IC. ... If somoeone isn't a skilled herper (skilled = experienced) how do we trust that persons judgment?

Were not talking all IB members or chapter representatives we are talking ONE position within NAFHA..

Heck if I didn't have a lot of records and I was IB, I might "approve" anything.. :lol: Wouldn't concern me none..


You and I Steve will never agree on where we should stand.. We need to work from a position of power, not looks of being professional. Almost every single agency that works with State agencies, is only there because
the State really has no choice in the matter. When the DFG goes to protect Rosy boas, do you honestly think
they will listen because they like us and think we are professional??? They didn't listen to Sam Sweet, one of the most respected PH D's around (they like him and think he is professional). We had to take to take data to the commission, and say heres the data, how can you protect a common animal..

That said we should always be professional in our dealings with everyone... Not to be confused with a little rant online, about to some items a agency does.

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 12:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Posts: 1792
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Fundad wrote:
That said we should always be professional in our dealings with everyone... Not to be confused with a little rant online, about to some items a agency does.

Fundad

I don't think you'll ever have any problem in that regard. Very few intelligent people ever confuse ranting on line with professionalism. As our friend Mr. Hubbs would say, "Have fun with that". :)


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 3:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:08 am
Posts: 2272
Location: Southern Arizona
Problem here, Brian, is that there's too much emphasis on the database. The organization can't be JUST about the database. There's got to be more to it to maximize our membership. If I thought the IC only had to be in the top 10% data collectors to qualify for the position, I wouldn't have much respect for that position. I'd rather see the leadership qualifications. I don't care how many entries our IC's have had so far, they've been qualified leaders, something our org desperately needs. Let's not reduce it to JUST data. Let's say our leaders need some qualifications in addition to being active NAFHA members and active data collectors and not make one qualification our sole prerequisite.

:) Terry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 3:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
Problem here, Brian, is that there's too much emphasis on the database. The organization can't be JUST about the database. There's got to be more to it to maximize our membership. If I thought the IC only had to be in the top 10% data collectors to qualify for the position, I wouldn't have much respect for that position. I'd rather see the leadership qualifications. I don't care how many entries our IC's have had so far, they've been qualified leaders, something our org desperately needs. Let's not reduce it to JUST data. Let's say our leaders need some qualifications in addition to being active NAFHA members and active data collectors and not make one qualification our sole prerequisite.


Respectfully,
As a member with 2000 records, and a member that believes without a shadow of a doubt our data is WHAT we are about, I wholeheartedly disagree, with every fiber of my being.... And I would be willing to commit even more of myself,
if I entrusted we were going to make it, and that the IB, IC, and all members had the same invested interest. Not having that as an IC (possibly) for me personally, leads to me, not wanting get too involved as I watch to see how we unravel over the next 5 years...

I am on the front lines in getting people to enter data, I know a lot of long time herpers in this community. And the NUMBER 1 concern is "protection" of their data (sensitive places). We have SOOO few people contributing currently, that could, and hopefully will contribute data, that will, rival the best of what we got, and the data would impress the even the most seasoned herpers..... We need those people to believe in us and the protection of the data..

Troy H, Matt G, Tim W., etc etc

Everything else is second IMO..

I sometimes wonder if we would be better served 2 different, elements within us.. One side data only business, the other all other items that some want to get involved in.. As the conflict of interests of the two items, gets in the way of the direction of both at times..

Fundad

I would like to add...

Here is a list of members that would be excellent IC's.
Steve (current IC)
Nate
Kyle
Jonathan
The Pingle
Bob (Brick 911)
Chris Harrison
Don (yes the Don)
Me

I am not sure about the rest of you, but there is plenty in that list, that would be excellent, wouldn't you agree?

How hard is it to manage, volunteers.. To promote us? Seriously? Don't we all do that already?

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 4:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:08 am
Posts: 2272
Location: Southern Arizona
Fundad wrote:
Quote:
Problem here, Brian, is that there's too much emphasis on the database. The organization can't be JUST about the database. There's got to be more to it to maximize our membership. If I thought the IC only had to be in the top 10% data collectors to qualify for the position, I wouldn't have much respect for that position. I'd rather see the leadership qualifications. I don't care how many entries our IC's have had so far, they've been qualified leaders, something our org desperately needs. Let's not reduce it to JUST data. Let's say our leaders need some qualifications in addition to being active NAFHA members and active data collectors and not make one qualification our sole prerequisite.


Respectfully,
As a member with 2000 records, and a member that believes without a shadow of a doubt our data is WHAT we are about, I wholeheartedly disagree, with every fiber of my being....

I am on the front lines in getting people to enter data, I know a lot of long time herpers in this community. And the NUMBER 1 concern is "protection" of their data (sensitive places). We have SOOO few people contributing currently, that could, and hopefully will contribute data, that will, rival the best of what we got, and the data would impress the even the most seasoned herpers..... We need those people to believe in us and the protection of the data..

Troy H, Matt G, Tim W., etc etc

Everything else is second IMO..

I sometimes wonder if we would be better served 2 different, elements within us.. One side data only business, the other all other items that some want to get involved in.. As the conflict of interests of the two items, gets in the way of the direction of both at times..

Fundad



Brian, I hear ya', and I know you're sincere. I see you there talking to these guys all the time. I'm just saying not everyone marches to the same drummer. Saying the database is the only thing doesn't appeal to everyone. I'd settle for the database being first and everything else second fiddle, as long as there's room for the other things. I don't want to shut out the other aspects of a herping organization that appeal to a broad audience, that will then come along with the rest of us and work on the database.

Let me just add that this is the year that I break out of my slump as far as the database is concerned. I've been a member for two years and don't want to say how few entries I have. But that is going to change this year, and it's going to change because now I am a member who believes in the goals of the organization. It took me awhile, but I think I'll be a valuable member in the long run. I believe in the membership and their potential. I believe the membership will grow exponentially and their contributions will also grow. I want them to feel valuable for all their contributions, not just data contributions. I know you know where I'm going with this. So, let me just say, I agree the database is important, and let's make it that way, but let's also include some other important aspects of the organization and not make people think we're only about the database. We have different approaches, but are trying to do the same thing, I think...

:crazyeyes: TC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 4:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Posts: 1981
Location: Redding, CA
I think the IC needs to either be an academic or someone extremely familiar with the academic world.
Why? That is who will be requesting the data, we need an IC that is part of that world.

Now, how to define academic, I'm not sure - but having published papers in academic journals is one possible litmus test.

My two cents, I'll go with the flow on this one.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 4:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
I think the IC needs to either be an academic or someone extremely familiar with the academic world.
Why? That is who will be requesting the data, we need an IC that is part of that world.

Now, how to define academic, I'm not sure - but having published papers in academic journals is one possible litmus test.

My two cents, I'll go with the flow on this one.



I have to tell you I lobbied for Rick Staub hard, and still think he would be the best option for us, if Steve retires....

Sam Sweet would also be my hands down vote...

I think it would be great to create another position, something like NAFHA Advisor or something we can field the most qualified academic we have..


Terry you are a valued member and I appreciate you.... Just talking IC here..

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 4:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:08 am
Posts: 2272
Location: Southern Arizona
Fundad wrote:
Terry you are a valued member and I appreciate you.... Just talking IC here..

Fundad



Thanks. I think I have value too; but if I were running for IC, I wouldn't have a chance if it were based soley on my data contribution. I am talking about the IC, and all aspects of NAFHA. I'm saying that there might be folks in our organization who don't have 1,000 records who would otherwise be highly qualified to be a leader in some regard. I wouldn't want to be the IC, but someone else with less than 1,000 might. What if we had to have 1,000 to be chapter president, which I've been for two years, or even 500. I still wouldn't have been and I probably would have given up on NAFHA. All I'm saying is let's not make the requirements too hard or too narrow. I think an academic background is good too, but I might vote for a candidate that had more entries. I'd like to be able to have that choice.

TC :beer:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 4:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Posts: 1792
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Fundad wrote:
I have to tell you I lobbied for Rick Staub hard, and still think he would be the best option for us, if Steve retires....

Sam Sweet would also be my hands down vote...

I think it would be great to create another position, something like NAFHA Advisor or something we can field the most qualified academic we have..


Terry you are a valued member and I appreciate you.... Just talking IC here..

Fundad

With what you have been advocating all day, neither Rick Staub nor Sam Sweet would qualify to run for IC. Neither would Jeff Lemm for that matter. None of those gentlemen have 1000 records. In fact Staub and Sweet have zero between them.

You would personally support them based solely upon their qualifications and experiences, which is exactly the point most of us here are trying to make.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 5:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Posts: 2388
Location: Delmarva
Fundad wrote:
Quote:
I think the IC needs to either be an academic or someone extremely familiar with the academic world.
Why? That is who will be requesting the data, we need an IC that is part of that world.

Now, how to define academic, I'm not sure - but having published papers in academic journals is one possible litmus test.

My two cents, I'll go with the flow on this one.



I have to tell you I lobbied for Rick Staub hard, and still think he would be the best option for us, if Steve retires....

Sam Sweet would also be my hands down vote...

I think it would be great to create another position, something like NAFHA Advisor or something we can field the most qualified academic we have..


Terry you are a valued member and I appreciate you.... Just talking IC here..

Fundad


Fundad, do you realize the term for the IC is 1 year? Based on what you have written above I am not sure you do.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 9:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
With what you have been advocating all day, neither Rick Staub nor Sam Sweet would qualify to run for IC. Neither would Jeff Lemm for that matter. None of those gentlemen have 1000 records. In fact Staub and Sweet have zero between them.

You would personally support them based solely upon their qualifications and experiences, which is exactly the point most of us here are trying to make.



guess i didn't clarify,

"Without the 1000 record requirement, I would have chosen either one of those hands down. Though I would much prefer Nate, Kyle, Steve, Jonathan with the limit.."

Thats even knowing how Sam and Rick feel about the importance of data.. Heck Rick preached to me for years to keep better notes..

Quote:
Fundad, do you realize the term for the IC is 1 year? Based on what you have written above I am not sure you do.


Not sure how you came to that conclusion, unless, you think I don't get it in the back of your mind, anyway.. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:
Thanks. I think I have value too; but if I were running for IC, I wouldn't have a chance if it were based soley on my data contribution


With all due respect Terry, I would prefer you have a thousand entries before you could become IC.

As I want someone in there that has an INVESTED interest in the data, like I do.. Heck I am practically devoting my life to collecting and sharing the data with Nafha now..

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 1st, 2011, 9:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Look guys, I spoke my peace here..

Looks like most members DONT care enough to chime in, and I am currently going against the grain, AGAIN..

It sure does seem like the current IB is sure on the same page about what they want, to be honest it appears to be a impossible task to break through any of that.. "just an impression I am getting.."

So I am not going to sit here and debate the importance of this over and over again, replying to everyone pushing back on my thoughts on it...

I am just one voice
Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS - DC & IC
PostPosted: February 2nd, 2011, 6:13 am 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
While I don't think it needs to be carved in stone, I'm certain that when IC elections come around, number of entries will be considered much more carefully, so your point IS well-taken Brian.

I do think at this time, we should change the 1 year requirement to at least 3 years, and eventually up to 5 yrs, say when Nafha has been extant for a decade. This is very similar to 'investment' in that it reflects a long-term committment.

I also think that perhaps the term limit for IC should be more than one year,(2 perhaps) just because sometimes with these outside agencies, it seems it takes them a year or so to get anything done, and if we have an IC that is making significant progress and has established a good rapport, we don't want to give the immpression that we're constantly changing horses mid-stream.
On the other hand (see... BOTH sides.. :lol: ) if an IC IS doing that good of a job... he SHOULD have no problem getting re-elected... :thumb: jim

And maybe it's just me, but when I put a record in the database... I stop thinking of it as MY RECORD. And I would NEVER consider 'pulling' those records... I don't place 'conditions' on my gifts, to be later used as bargaining chips, or hostage. But then again, That's just me... :roll:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: