Sorry, Floyd, you missed my point.  I was pointing out that ECN is now 
exactly what it was formed to be contrary to.  There are two big 
differences: first, ECN has a bank account, and second the personalities 
of the leadership are totally different (thank goodness!).  Being 
cognizant of the danger is a protection from bad things happening.

These discussions should not be about the persons currently serving, it 
is about institutional concepts. Personification of a role is simply not 
appropriate or helpful.  But, as someone with a lot of experience with 
501c3 leadership, including ones large enough to have lawyers regularly 
involved, I would point out that the largest problems for non-profits 
since Sarbanes-Oxley and its successors  is conflict of interest.  For 
instance, we need a nomination committee that does not include any 
current officers or members that are eligible/interested/willing to be 
nominated. People in office who want to remain in office (or in our case 
are willing because no one else is stepping forward) have a definitional 
conflict of interest when serving as the nominating committee.  Conflict 
of interest is not dependent on the intentions of the person involved, 
it is positional.  Why does this matter?  We need contested elections so 
that the officers have a mandate, not an anointing.  We need the 
membership to stop exploiting a few willing and hardworking souls and 
spread the burden of professional service more widely.  But, 
volunteering to serve by saying so to a nomination committee of people 
who have announced they are interested in running can be intimidating, 
and suppresses participation.  A committee of independent people who can 
receive nominations and indeed solicit candidates should be in place.

But more importantly to the general membership: why do we not have more 
people offering to serve as officers of ECN? Most professional positions 
have an expectation of service to the profession that is met by serving 
as an officer of a professional society?  Is it really fair that that 
officers, once in place, feel they have to continue because there are no 
others coming forward?  These are jobs that take real time to do well, 
and we have been lucky to find people who will do them, and have done 
and are doing them very, very well. But, at some point it becomes a 
matter of exploiting peoples' dedication and good nature.

I think I can say these things because my own record of professional 
service is pretty deep.  I don't think I need to do more, making way for 
new people.  But, it also gives me the soap box to remind people of the 
opportunity and obligation to give back to organizations that we value 
and depend on.

On 9/14/2016 7:01 AM, Shockley, Floyd wrote:
> All,
> Just to help me understand how ECN and its leadership got pulled into 
> this conversation, can someone please forward the message that 
> suggested that ECN serve as a data portal for collection data?  I 
> donít appear to have received that message nor is ECN setup to do so 
> (for all of the same reasons that Norm mentionedÖno centralized 
> office, no stability in personnel, no funding and no physical 
> infrastructure to support a long-term commitment).  Only SysEB was 
> mentioned so far as I can tell, and I donít believe that is something 
> that they are prepared to take on either.  If the membership has 
> issues with the manner in which ECN is being managed in light of new 
> regulations that 501c3 organizations now must comply with that they 
> didnít have to 25 years ago, that is certainly something that can be 
> discussed at the business meeting next week.  And new leadership is 
> always be an option for changing course if that is the will of the ECN 
> members.  Remember that we are seeking nominations for all offices for 
> the 2017-2019 term. Looking forward to an energetic discussion on the 
> direction that ECN has taken in recent years.  See you all in Orlando!
> Floyd
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Floyd W. Shockley, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
> Collections Manager (Acting)
> Department of Entomology
> National Museum of Natural History
> Smithsonian Institution
> P.O. Box 37012, MRC 165
> Washington, DC 20013-7012
> Tel (office): 202-633-0982
> Fax (office): 202-786-2894
> Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Staff Website:
> *From:*Entomological Collections Network Listserve 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Brower
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:25 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Guidance on digitizing specimens for a project
> I agree with Mike.  A Network, is not a hierarchy.
> Andy
> Professor Andrew V. Z. Brower
> Evolution and Ecology Group
> Dept. of Biology
> Middle Tennessee State University
> Murfreesboro TN 37132 USA
> *From: *Entomological Collections Network Listserve 
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of 
> "Michael A. Ivie" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> *Reply-To: *"Michael A. Ivie" <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 12:58 PM
> *To: *"[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" 
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> *Subject: *Re: Guidance on digitizing specimens for a project
> Dear ECN community,
> Perhaps it is time for a history lesson.  Why does ECN exist and are 
> we keeping true?
> ECN was founded because the previous structure started getting too 
> "institutional" and unflexible.  It had officers, who once in place 
> wanted multiple terms, that ran things.  They wanted to become 
> important, powerful, represent the community to the outside world, and 
> affiliate the group with others where they would be the 
> representatives. They wanted to host programs similar to what Derek is 
> talking about, and to "run things."  ECN was created in a revolte to 
> escape these tendencies, and in fact was formally free of the ability 
> to be like that for two decades.  More recently, ECN has converged 
> towards the type of organization it was created to escape. We have 
> by-laws, a bank account, officers serving multiple terms, 
> inter-organizational affiliations created by those officers and 
> represented there by those officers, and now suggestions (not from the 
> officers) for hosting programs.  Those who do not learn from history 
> are condemned to repeat it.
> This is not a reflection on individuals, our officers are nothing like 
> the ones that got a hold of the ESA Standing Committee on Systematic 
> Resources, but neither were the officers of the SCSR before the ones 
> that caused the problem.  At one time that group put well over a 
> hundred people in their meeting rooms, so our current success is no 
> protection from further convergence unless we think about where this 
> is going.  ECN was created to foster interaction within our community, 
> it was never intended to be powerful.
> Mik
> On 9/13/2016 10:51 AM, Derek Sikes wrote:
>     This is all excellent to hear. A GenBank for specimen data is an
>     idea that needs to be kept alive!
>     Just to clarify my suggestion regarding SysEB - no physical
>     infrastructure would be needed. Datasets can be uploaded directly
>     from an author's computer into GBIF's servers (as presumably
>     happens with the Canadensys solution). All that should be needed
>     is someone to mediate/help the process (and encourage authors to
>     share their data!)
>     Very timely information for a paper I'm writing. Thanks Nico &
>     everyone!
>     -Derek
>     On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Norman F. Johnson
>     <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>         The xBio:D database at Ohio State has hosted data originating
>         from a large number of other collections for many years now.
>         This began with our taxonomic work: simply stated, almost none
>         of the collections from which the specimens came had a data
>         portal. So we've had to do it ourselves, all the while citing
>         the institution that actually holds the material in question.
>         As an extension, we now also serve as the physical repository
>         for other institutions, a logical extension of the same issue.
>         With the appropriate IPT the role of OSU is (or should be)
>         entirely transparent to a user going through something like
>         GBIF or iDigBio.  This seems to me to be an old issue that has
>         been solved many times.
>         On the suggested issue of centralization, it seems to me that
>         organizations such as SysEB are not a good choice. It lacks
>         stability in personnel, funds to maintain such an operation,
>         and the physical infrastructure to take on the long-term
>         commitment needed.
>         Norm Johnson
>         On 9/13/2016 9:02 AM, Dikow, Torsten wrote:
>             Hi Nico,
>             I am publishing material examined lists from taxonomic
>             revisions, with specimens originating from several natural
>             history collections some of which upload their data GBIF
>             and some donít, through an IPT instance installed at my
>             institution. As you will see
>             (, this GBIF IPT has
>             several data-sets and among them the huge occurrence
>             data-set from the entire NMNH collections.
>             I try as much as possible to utilize the original
>             institutional unique specimen identifier by asking the
>             curators to send these labels to me before attaching my
>             ďpersonal research identifierĒ as every single specimen
>             needs to fulfill the Darwin Core Triplet during GBIF
>             validation (institutionCode, collectionCode, unique
>             identifier).
>             Twelve years back, Rudolf Meier and myself lobbied for a
>             specimen depository from taxonomic revisions similar to
>             GenBank
>             ( I
>             would say that utilizing a GBIF IPT instance at an
>             institutional level fulfills this role and provides data
>             to GBIF, which was originally conceived for natural
>             history collection data only.
>             Miller et al. 2012
>             ( promote that
>             publishers might be a better way to provide published
>             specimen occurrence data to GBIF than individual
>             researchers as most taxonomists likely do not want to deal
>             with an extra step of uploading the specimen data through
>             a GBIF IPT. Obviously, journals published by Pensoft do
>             exactly this service (and many others) for the taxonomists.
>             I will touch on this (and other topics) during my talk at
>             the upcoming ECN meeting.
>             Cheers, Torsten
>                 Thank you, all.
>                  Sorry I dropped the ball there for a few days. I
>                 received several interesting off-line answers in
>                 addition.
>                  I think I should also try to clarify. First off, for
>                 the (some) botanists - in entomology there is much
>                 less of a tradition of "creating duplicates" (of
>                 purportedly the same individual..thinking about
>                 branches of an oak tree here). Insect specimens
>                 overwhelmingly remain and travel "entire" (even
>                 following dissection). I hope that distinction is fair
>                 enough to most.
>                  Here is the conflict, as simple as I can state it.
>                 There is an institution that the specimens ultimately
>                 belong to, and that loans them out to a researcher.
>                 Then there is a researcher, not affiliated with the
>                 institution, who right now has resources and arguably
>                 needs to "publish" the specimens via iDigBio, GBIF,
>                 etc. (as well as other outlets such as a research
>                 journal).
>                  Let's assume that the owning institution just really
>                 does not have the resources right now. Not even to put
>                 a locally unique specimen identifier on it (or, it
>                 does that, but there is no digital counterpart). And
>                 the researcher does. Beyond writing a kind,
>                 explanatory e-mail, and figuring things out
>                 (idiosyncratically), is there some more widespread
>                 accepted practice for resolving this conflict?
>                 Answering "I use this or that portal that I happen to
>                 have access to and which does it for me", is not
>                 really a generally applicable answer, right?
>                  If not, should we as a community (in our most hopeful
>                 moments, anyway) consider creating one or more that
>                 are very open for contributions? Something like an
>                 open portal for digitizing and
>                 iDigBio-/GBIF-publishing research-relevant specimens
>                 of/for owner institutions that "just can't right now,
>                 sorry".
>                 Cheers,
>                 Nico
>             . . . . .
>             Torsten Dikow, Ph.D.
>             Research Entomologist for Diptera
>             w 202.633.1005 <tel:202.633.1005> [log in to unmask]
>             <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>             . . . <>
>             . . . @TDikow <>
>             #asiloidflies
>             <>
>             #USNMDiptera
>             <>
>             . . . SI Entomology staff page
>             <>
>             . . . access to research data at ORCiD
>         -- 
>         Ohio State University
>         Norman F. Johnson, Professor
>         Moser Chair in Arthropod Biosystematics & Biological Diversity
>         Professor & Associate Chair, Department of Evolution, Ecology
>         & Organismal Biology
>         Professor, Department of Entomology Director, C.A. Triplehorn
>         Insect Collection
>         College of Arts & Sciences Department of Evolution, Ecology &
>         Organismal Biology
>         1220 Museum of Biological Diversity, 1315 Kinnear Road,
>         Columbus, OH 43212
>         614-292-6595 <tel:614-292-6595> Office / 614-292-7774
>         <tel:614-292-7774> Fax
>         [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>         <>
>     -- 
>     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>     Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects
>     Associate Professor of Entomology
>     University of Alaska Museum
>     907 Yukon Drive
>     Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     phone: 907-474-6278
>     FAX: 907-474-5469
>     University of Alaska Museum -  search 347,746 digitized arthropod
>     records
>     <>
>     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>     Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological
>     Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska
>     Entomological Network" at
>     <>
> -- 
> __________________________________________________
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
> NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
> US Post Office Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> PO Box 173145
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59718
> (406) 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>


Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
PO Box 173145
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718

(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
[log in to unmask]