Then if the vote is 7-0 in favor the

record becomes Acceptable, and if the

vote is 6-1 or less in favor the record

becomes Unacceptable.

- After the voting is completed, the

Chairman will, in most cases, notify

the observer of the Committee's deci-

sion. Every three or four months the

Chairman will also send to each mem-

ber a summary of all records voted on

and the results of each vote.

- Any member may appeal the re-

sults of any vote which he strongly

feels was wrong when the Committee

has a meeting. The record in question

is then discussed, a new vote is taken

at the meeting, and the record is

judged Acceptable or Unacceptable ac-

cording to the criteria described above.

Any record which occurred before

MORC began voting in 1974 may also

be brought up for discussion and vote

in the same way if a member feels it

is improperly included on or excluded

from the permanent record of Minne-

sota birds.

- Any change in the criteria used

for judging the acceptability of rec-

ords is not retroactive to previous

records (e.g., before 1980 records of

accidental species could be Accept-

able without a unanimous vote). How-

ever, such records are also open to

appeal in the same way as other rec-

ords.

- The Committee votes only on whe-

ther or not a record is Acceptable for

inclusion in the permanent record of

Minnesota birds; whether or not a

record voted on by MORC is included

in the observer's personal records or

list is not the concern of the commit-

tee. (However, the Editor of The Loon

has the editorial right to have MORC

votes binding on the list totals pub-

lished under the 300 Club or the 200

County Club.)

The Committee also has discussed

several aspects of the manner in which

records are documented and how these

might influence votes: 1) Field notes

written or sketches drawn by the ob-

server while the bird is in view and

before a field guide is consulted is

Winter 1980

most desirable, but the Committee rec-

ognizes this is not always practicable

and is not required for the record to

be Acceptable (although a member

may be influenced in his vote by the

presence or absence of such); 2) If

possible, the observer involved should

write up and submit documentation of

a record, although another person who

did not observe the bird can submit

acceptable details based on what the

observer reports to him (the accept-

ability of the record is then based both

on the details and on the reliability1

experience of the observer and report-

er) ; 3) For whatever reason, an ob-

server may submit acceptable details

of a sighting which took place several

months or years previously (the ac-

ceptability of such a record is then

based not only on the description but

also on the time lapse involved and

how obvious,lunmistakeable the spe-

cies is); 4) The reliability/ experience of

the observer may be taken into ac-

count by a member when voting, but

this should not be the only criterion

considered (the actual documentation

is always most important, regardless

of the observer); and 5) Additional de-

tails may be requested by the Chair-

man or volunteered by the observer

after a record is voted on, however

such details normally will not carry

as much weight as the original details

(unless these details consist of original

field notes).

With regard to the Committee's re-

sponsibility of maintaining the offi-

cial state list and the status of each

species, an official Checklist of Minne-

sota Birds was prepared by MORC in

1978 and included with the March

1978 issue of The Loon. Since that

time there have been changes in the

definitions of status terms and in the

status of some species:

- The term Extirpated has been re-

defined to read as follows: "Formerly

occurred regularly in the state, but

disappeared, and is not expected to

recur." Using this definition, the Eski-

mo Curlew and McCown's Longspur

are the only Extirpated species on the

151