Mercedes Foster

Sue--In your response to John Marzluff's commentary "Thinking Critically About 'A Vision for the Society for Ornithology'" you point out that the plan you and your committees are preparing for the SfO is not set in stone; rather, you note that the document and its elements are changing everyday as a result of efforts by representatives of the potentially interested societies (AOU, AFO, COS, and Waterbirds). Thus, you suggest that untiI a final draft is ready, it would be a waste of time to discuss the concerns John has raised. And, you have pointed out many times (elsewhere) that "all potentially interested societies will have ample opportunity to provide comment on the draft plan.” While providing opportunities for comments is certainly a good idea, commenting after the fact on an already completed draft plan is not the same as contributing to or being involved in the creation of that plan. I realize that having a committee of limited size is necessary if any real work is to be accomplished. However, the members of the committees should welcome comments, suggestions, and expressions of concern from any and all individuals who are interested in contributing to the development of the plan. Such statements undoubtedly will raise issues that committee members have not considered; they will also challenge committee members to clarify their own thinking about the consequences of actions they may propose. Likewise, input from outside the committees could greatly enrich the discussions and broaden the perspectives of those attempting define the new society. Although considering outside input could slow the process a bit, I suspect that such input would strengthen the plan ultimately produced, make it more comprehensive, and perhaps enhance its palatability. Consequently, I encourage any member of the ornithological community who has given serious thought to the issue of a new SfO to post his or her questions, concerns, and/or preferences on the Ornithological Exchange and/or to send them directly to committee members for consideration.-- Mercedes

I have not been involved in any of the planning or discussions of the SFO with the exception of a few emails I exchanged with Sue Haig in August/September 2011. I also have not been following the postings on Ornithology Express relating to the SFO topic. Today (02-10-12), however, I read them all―articles, comments, postings, and other exchanges. I was struck by: (a) the confusion that seems to exist among everyone involved in the discussions (and likely those who are reading the postings but not themselves commenting); and (b) the frequency with which participants seem to be talking at cross purposes without, apparently, understanding of the points being made by others. So, I am adding some comments below that I think embody many of the primary points being made. Perhaps they will help to inform the discussion. 1. There is a perception that approach taken by the “AOU SFO Committee” in developing the concept of the SFO and potential plans for its implementation plans has excluded meaningful participation by the other ornithological societies. This has led the ornithological societies to feel uninformed about what is actually being done or planned by the “AOU SFO Committee”. Participation of individuals appointed by the “AOU SFO Committee” that happen to be members of multiple societies is not sufficient. The societies themselves must appoint their own representatives to serve on SFO committees. Any actions that can be taken to enhance ornithology in the Western Hemisphere (an SFO or other endeavor) can be achieved only if all the societies have a stake in their development. 2. The SFO Committee wants to ensure that all the potentially interested societies will have ample opportunity to provide comment on the draft plan. That is certainly a good idea, but commenting after the fact on a plan prepared by the “AOU’s SFO Committee” is not the same as contributing to or being involved in the creation of that plan. More importantly, who will decide whether or not comments/ suggestions from other societies will be accepted/incorporated into the plan? The “AOU SFO committee?” Hardly an unbiased group. 3. The postings, articles, etc. indicate that the “AOU’s SFO Committee” is attempting to develop a plan for “how professional ornithology might be jointly organized to reflect 21st Century realities.” This suggests that the Committee is developing a plan that will indicate how the other societies can organize. It is likely that the other societies will want to determine (or at least have considerable input into) how they might organize. 4. The various NA ornithological societies approach various activities in their own distinctive ways, often differently from the way the AOU does. Their input could greatly enrich the discussion and broaden the perspective of any new society. In the long run, involving from the get-go all of the other societies that wish to participate might slow the process a bit, but likely would increase the probability of the project succeeding.