LockedClerk or Executive Secretary - Who Ranks higher?

I had an interesting discovery over the weekend while doing a bit of research about callings/sustaining/setting-apart, etc... Validating a process implemented in my stake.

In the online tools, mobile apps, and MLS a Bishopric, Branch Presidency, and Stake Presidency are all listed in the following order:

President or Bishop
1st Counselor
2nd Counselor
Executive Secretary
Clerk

My question is why is the Executive Secretary listed 'above' the clerk in our lists, a clear decision had to be made because it is not alphabetical. I would suggest that this decision gives the illusion that the Executive Secretary is in some way 'higher' on the pecking order than the clerk, whether intentional or not. However, When reading through the Handbook 2 in the calling chart, callings are explained in the following order:

President or Bishop
Counselors
Clerk
Assistant Clerk
Executive Secretary

What say ye? Is there a conflict between the two messages, even if it is subtle? Why choose to list them differently in a handbook and the MLS/mobile/online tools?

I think you might be reading into this a little bit much. I don't view either of these callings as having any "rank"; they both serve under the direction and authority of the bishopric. That said, if you research the handbooks regarding procedures for calling a clerk, you will see that his duties require that his call receive more attention than that of the executive secretary.

I agree with MLH that neither the clerk or secretary have any rank, they each have important but separate responsibilities to support the Bishop and counselors that have nothing to do with leadership. Neither calling has inspirational rights or duties to guide and direct an auxiliary, quorum or class. If the Bishop/Branch Pres and both counselors are out of town on a Sunday, neither the clerk or secretary would conduct meetings. Meetings would be conducted by the HP Group Leader, his assistants, EQ Pres, his counselors, or the YM Pres, in that order. In the unlikely event they're all out of town, any HP or Elder designated by the Bishop would conduct -- which may well be the Clerk or Secretary but they wouldn't be chosen on the basis of any rank.

mattprasmussen wrote:If the Bishop/Branch Pres and both counselors are out of town on a Sunday, neither the clerk or secretary would conduct meetings. Meetings would be conducted by the HP Group Leader, his assistants, EQ Pres, his counselors, or the YM Pres, in that order. In the unlikely event they're all out of town, any HP or Elder designated by the Bishop would conduct -- which may well be the Clerk or Secretary but they wouldn't be chosen on the basis of any rank.

I refer you to Handbook II section 18.2, second paragraph. If the bishopric is absent, the stake president designates a priesthood holder to preside. Usually the HPGL, but not necessarily. I expect in most cases a member of the stake presidency would attend to preside.

Let's be clear... I had no question, nor did I assume that a clerk or an ExecSec would preside in any way in the event of a nuclear holocaust taking out the presidency or bishopric.

There was clearly a decision made to 'Advertise' the ExecSec 'next-in-line' to members of the church in directories in MLS, online tools, and mobile apps. My reasoning here, the reasoning I'm using to make the assumption has 2 pieces of evidence. 1st, the handbooks in the 'Chart-of-Callings' list clerks and assistant clerks ahead of the Executive Secretary. 2nd, the title Clerk is alphabetically ahead of ExecSec. To me, that indicates a real decision was made to put the ExecSec next in the list.

Let me add something else in the mix, I have seen MANY programs in the church having visited wards in many places.. I've seen lists of the 'bishopric' or ward leadership on the back of many of these programs... In ward leadership lists The Bishopric is always mentioned, the execsec is probably the next often mentioned followed by any number of people from the ward council. The clerk is absent in many of these areas, and is NEVER listed without the ExecSec listed, but I've seen many times where the Bishopric is defined as the Bishop, 1st, 2nd, execsec and no listing of clerks.... does that matter?

Here is another observation, when I'm out traveling with the Stake Presidency, when people ask me why or what I'm doing there in their ward, they typically don't say, oh, are you the clerk? No, they say, so are you the Executive Secretary? I've never been asked if I was the clerk, but I've been asked about being an ExecSec A TON!

Why might this have happened?

In my stake, I'm trying to raise the awareness of what a clerk does, why it matters, and why it is helpful to maintain the records of your family, keep them updated, etc... I find it diffucult when people act with confusion if the Clerk stops by... It is pretty easy to change once you start working with members, but there is a natural and immediate push-back when a clerk comes and asks information about a family, but if an ExecSec walks up and does the same thing, there is a more natural acceptance of them.

Again, this may just be something in my stake that I'm aware of and feeling to better market our group, but I was curious if others have similar observations. It gets very hard sometimes to motiviate a clerk when their/our role is often so behind the scenes and often there isn't an immediate 'spiritual' uplift... for instance...

Yeah, I just spent 2 hours making sure all our preferred names are set correctly. I just spent 4 hours fixing the ward missionary account situation left behind by another clerk.....

Hi John,

I imagine one reason the executive secretary is listed with bishoprics or stake presidencies and is a more recognised position in association with ward or stake leaders is because he is (or should be) the man members contact to speak with the bishopric or stake presidency. I know many units, including my own, that don't publish contact details for the bishopric or stake presidency but rather funnel all communication through the executive secretary.

This does not diminish the value or importance of the role of a clerk at all. As others have mentioned, there is a great deal of trust placed on a clerk and in many respects, he is second only to the bishop or stake president. We have been blessed with two wonderful clerks who have served with our stake presidency and each one has brought great strength and spirituality to their own work as well as the work of the presidency. Our first clerk, a young father, shared some thoughts about a year into his call that really impressed me. He said that although much of his work was administrative, he had received great spiritual blessings in the course of his service. He then proceeded to describe how his testimony had been strengthened by witnessing the tithing faithfulness of members, and the generosity of their other contributions even when circumstances made it difficult to contribute; and how he was inspired by the increasing numbers of members striving to hold a current Temple recommend. He spoke of greater insight in his personal scripture study as a result of his service, and of a deepening desire to live up to the Lord's expectations of him. He now serves as a counsellor in a bishopric.

Our current clerk is much older than the first one and has had a wealth of life experience - incidentally, he was released from the bishopric our first clerk was called to! Although the clerk is not officially a member of the presidency, we value his counsel as a fully participating member of our meetings. Rather than consider his calling just administrative, he uses the insights he gets as he reviews finance and membership records to suggest trends and issues or recommend courses of action. He has also become a trusted source of help and inspiration for ward clerks in our stake.

Perhaps the value we place on the clerks and executive secretaries in our wards and stake is because our units are so small and we rely on every faithful member to carry out the work of the church. In any case, I suggest a wise leader would make every effort to make members serving in any position feel important and valued, and help them to understand and feel the spiritual "why" and weight of their call. For what it's worth, I know that the work you do as a clerk, regardless of how menial and unrewarding it may seem at times, is of great value not only in maintaining a house of order and helping to facilitate soul-saving ministering, but also in helping to build, strengthen and perfect your own character.

Best wishes to you in your service!

Lionel

lionelwalters wrote:I know many units, including my own, that don't publish contact details for the bishopric or stake presidency but rather funnel all communication through the executive secretary.

On the other hand, most members don't need to talk to a clerk unless they are requesting their records or need a reimbursement.

And if you are interested in a different order or presentation, look at the List of Officers Sustained, where the stake presidency or bishopric are sustained, followed by the Clerk, the Executive Secretary, and then the Assistant Clerks.

Perhaps another reason a secretary might often get included as an unofficial part of a bishopric or stake presidency is that a secretary calling is more universal to presidencies in general, including Elders Quorum, High Priests Group, Relief Society, Young Men Presidency, Young Women Presidency, etc., etc., etc, none of which normally have clerks in their organization.

This is an interesting thread.

I never considered a "pecking order" for clerk vs. exec. sec. And I think with respect to their duties, there is really a grey area between what only an exec. sec. can do and what only a clerk can do - as defined by the bishop. Having said that, I do think it would be strange if only the clerk and not the exec. sec. scheduled appts with the bishop.

If a bishop is delegating what he can, I would imagine that if we listed them in order of the amount of work they do, the order would be reversed.

One reason why the exec. sec. is always listed ahead of the clerk may be because it "sounds" more prestigious. Also, if asst. clerks are listed, it would make more sense to group them with the clerk - it just looks better. I never really understood why the clerk is listed before the exec. sec. and then the asst clerks in the sustaining form.

Regardless, for consistency and the reasons I stated, I would always list the exec. sec. before the clerk - and I've been a clerk or asst clerk several times and never an exec. sec. However, I would always make a point to include the clerk in any bishopric list.

lajackson, that form is the third place where the list seems to be at odds to how we display them in our tool sets (MLS, online, mobile), I'm not too concerned with where one is in the order, but why it's different, in my little brain I find it interesting, yes my wife wonders about me too.. just like those reading this.

In the Handbook the Stake Clerk is set apart by the Stake President, the ExecSec can be set apart by a counselor --> How many callings are SP only? At the ward level, the SP or counselors can set apart a Ward Clerk, but the Ward ExecSec can be set apart by a High Councilman. The Clerk attends Disciplinary councils, the ExecSec does not, the Clerk handles the confidential records for members of the ward, on and on.

I tend to believe that the ExecSec is typically more visible to either a ward or a stake, and agree that they communicate regularly with members and the Bishopric. I totally get that from a Visibility perspective the tools have the order correct, but is it correct in terms of the hierarchy? We do believe in the 'order of things', and in this particular case, it seems reversed.

I love order in the Church, but I'm somewhat amazed at the amount of attention this insignificant topic is receiving. I would simply quote President Gordon B. Hinckley (This Is the Work of the Master)...

We are all in this great endeavor together. We are here to assist our Father in His work and His glory, “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). Your obligation is as serious in your sphere of responsibility as is my obligation in my sphere. No calling in this church is small or of little consequence. All of us in the pursuit of our duty touch the lives of others. To each of us in our respective responsibilities the Lord has said: “Wherefore, be faithful; stand in the office which I have appointed unto you; succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees” (D&C 81:5).

... and close with the words of the Savior (Luke 9:48):

...whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

aebrown hits the point. Hierarchy is a construct that mostly satisfies pride, though we do have to have an organized structure. In the end, God is not a respecter of persons, even within His own organization. So there's not much need to create a boat, just to discover opportunities to rock the boat.

Recently, our stake president counseled with our bishopric and told us that they had a recent discovery that the stake high council does not have "seniority" the way the Quorum of the Twelve does. He said the tradition probably started in an effort to model the High Council after the Apostles, though the directive can't be found anywhere. The same goes with 1st/2nd counselors. The implication of seniority or authority seems to be only a tradition or construct to know how to refer to each counselor when divvying up labor.

The way I see it, the Clerk is the Bishop's right-hand-man with regards to ordinances, finances, callings, and confidential paperwork. The Exec. Sec is the Bishop's right-hand-man with regards to schedules, appointments, agendas, and being the "point of entry" for ward members to meet with the Bishopric. The counselors are the right-hand-men with regards to auxiliaries, ministering, and any time the Bishop needs someone to act on his behalf (where authorized).

There is access that clerks have that Counselors don't to confidential information and forms. There is a reliance on the Ex. Sec. that the Bishop doesn't place on anyone else.

Everyone has a place, I'm not too keen on considering those places above/beneath one another.

aebrown, jaj78, very well stated, I hope that everyone that comes to this board, particularly those in the callings that would routinely bring them here, has this as the default assumption, that God is not a respecter of persons. It would be my sincere desire to discuss the organizational choices, design decisions, printed list orders as items that can be discussed with assuming that it must be for reasons of pride or a desire to be seen as more important that someone else. This post was started to point out only that organizationally there seems to be a different structure among the various ways we display these lists of positions or callings. The list in the handbook is different than the online list or MLS. without regard to authority, In my observation, if we can be consistent across all platforms, printed text, electronic recording, etc... then that state is preferable than a state where there is inconsistency. That does bring up, what is the authoritative source that we would keep all other lists in consistent with...... Is it a high priority to go out and drop everything to mandate conformity and consistency, unlikely and actually not preferred with the current workload I see.

jaj78, Here in the Timeline of MLS the update to version 3.2 in June of 2010 the list of HC were changed as you mention above

Listing of High Councilors. In stake MLS, the Organizations menu has an option called High Council. This option lists high council members in alphabetical order only. This order cannot be changed. Members of the high council should not be listed by seniority of service. Only Apostles serve by seniority.

This is the only place that I've seen the information that you mentioned above.

As a note to the discussion. I did a little clean-up in MLS yesterday along with some changes in our stake as new callings were updated. It appears that the order in MLS is what the online Directory uses as its order. In our other callings section, I changed the order of callings and grouped PFR, Public Affairs, Auditors, Seminary Teachers, etc... where prior the list was intermixed. The online tool this morning reflected the order in MLS they were moved to yesterday. So, one answer to my questions seems to be that those that have access to MLS, affect the way that items are grouped in MLS and thus will be reflected in the online tools.

JohnShaw wrote: As a note to the discussion. I did a little clean-up in MLS yesterday along with some changes in our stake as new callings were updated. It appears that the order in MLS is what the online Directory uses as its order. In our other callings section, I changed the order of callings and grouped PFR, Public Affairs, Auditors, Seminary Teachers, etc... where prior the list was intermixed. The online tool this morning reflected the order in MLS they were moved to yesterday. So, one answer to my questions seems to be that those that have access to MLS, affect the way that items are grouped in MLS and thus will be reflected in the online tools.

I don't think your MLS sorting affected the online directory. The calling display order in the online directory is currently by the order CDOL sends to it. CDOL orders by position type, so all the same position types (for standard positions) will always be grouped together there.

JonesRK, thanks for clarifying that... it seemed oddly coincidental... does that mean it is alphabetical in some way? or are you referring specifically to the other positions.

In my ward, I serve as both Ward Clerk and Membership Clerk (we have a small ward, and many who do attend are elderly with severe health problems that limit what they can do). I've always felt my responsibility is to make the bishopric's job, especially the Bishop's job, easier. This includes the Executive Secretary. I understand what the OP is saying, when I was a "normal" member, I never truly understood what the function of the ward clerk's job was and maybe that is how it should be. On the other hand, when I became Ward Clerk, I quickly came to the realization that although the general membership may not understand the WC's function, the bishopric and other leadership certainly understand the pivotal role of the WC and appreciate it.

In many ways, the WC's job can seem like a thankless job, but I know what blessings I've received.

One last comment, if I had a choice between what calling I would rather have, Bishop or WC, WC is easily the calling I would choose. I know Bishop's are blessed tremendously for their efforts, but the time and stress of their callings greatly outweigh mine. Which again leads me to what I said earlier, my job is to make the Bishop's job easier.

JohnShaw wrote:JonesRK, thanks for clarifying that... it seemed oddly coincidental... does that mean it is alphabetical in some way? or are you referring specifically to the other positions.

No it is not alphabetical. The standard position types are sorted in the admin section of CDOL and that sorting drives the order of the actual positions displayed.

failproof wrote:Perhaps another reason a secretary might often get included as an unofficial part of a bishopric or stake presidency is that a secretary calling is more universal to presidencies in general, including Elders Quorum, High Priests Group, Relief Society, Young Men Presidency, Young Women Presidency, etc., etc., etc, none of which normally have clerks in their organization.

I suspect you are right. The Clerk I think was really the only secretary of the bishopric, originally. The only reason there is even a ward executive secretary now is probably just a practical one, that the amount of work and record keeping and all that is needed in that role just placed too much all on the Ward Clerk to handle. The existence of the ward executive secretary is probably just a practical necessity. Even after spinning off the scheduling etc roles to an executive secretary, the Ward Clerk still needs 2 or 3 assistants to help with ward record keeping.

One way of looking at the division of responsibility between Exec Sec and Ward Clerk in supporting the bishopric: The Exec Sec is focused on the future: e.g. appointments, agendas. The Clerk is focused on the past: e.g. recording decisions made, keeping records after the fact.

I wonder, though, if even the existence of the ward executive secretary calling should be revisited. With modern technology, appointment scheduling and meeting agenda preparation and even record keeping are becoming so easy that the Ward Clerk really could handle it all now, if he had the right skill set and if he was fully engaged as he should be. The ward executive secretary is kind of a 5th wheel anyway, literally.

For the practical matter of why Executive Secretary is often listed prominently on the Ward Bulletin, I suspect that is because that is who members contact to get an appointment with a member of the bishopric. The Clerk and the Membership Clerk is also listed in our bulletin for making changes to their address etc.

For whatever reason, the Executive Secretary seems to have a larger workload than the Ward Clerk, but maybe that is just because there is a wide misconception by some Ward Clerks on what they can/should be doing to magnify their calling. Or maybe I am wrong about that. If the executive secretary role goes away, the ward clerk will by necessity be a much more vital role in the bishopric and in the ward.

Clearly the Clerk is the more intrinsically important calling. The Handbook makes that clear. A high counselor can issue the call and set apart an exec sec, but a Clerk is set apart only by a member of the stake presidency. And the Ward Clerk I believe requires the setting apart by the Stake President himself. The scriptures even mention the calling of "Clerk" more than once (e.g. 57:9, 85:1, etc). There is no mention in the scriptures of the ward executive secretary. Doesn't mean the executive secretary is not a real calling. The scriptures don't specifically mention the Primary President either, even though that is a real calling in the ward. Nevertheless, there is a special mention of the calling of "Clerk" and the importance of record keeping in the scriptures. No Clerk should feel like his calling in unimportant.

So if you had to pick an "order of importance", then clearly the Ward Clerk (and even the assistant clerks) would be above Executive Secretary. Although, not sure the value in overly focusing on who is "ahead" of the other. It could just engender prideful feelings in comparing yourself to others and perceived slights. We are all working together, each magnifying our own calling to the best of our abilities.

Having said that, this whole question goes away when the ward executive secretary role goes away and is swallowed back up in the role of the Ward Clerk, if and when that happens.

Handbook 1: 13.4.2 and 13.4.4 have lengthy descriptions of the responsibility a ward clerk and a ward executive secretary have, respectively. The ward clerk's is slightly longer.

The Handbook also explains that the ward clerk normally is set apart by a member of the stake presidency, while assistant clerks and the executive secretary are set apart by a member of the stake presidency or an assigned high councilor.

genman wrote: I wonder, though, if even the existence of the ward executive secretary calling should be revisited. With modern technology, appointment scheduling and meeting agenda preparation and even record keeping are becoming so easy that the Ward Clerk really could handle it all now, if he had the right skill set and if he was fully engaged as he should be. The ward executive secretary is kind of a 5th wheel anyway, literally.

I've been a stake clerk for 11 years (this time around). I'd never say that the executive secretary was a 5th wheel, or that the Stake Clerk could handle everything, regardless of anything. I spend considerable time every day performing the duties of my calling. I certainly appreciate the fact that we have a good Executive Secretary. During the era when I was first called to be a stake clerk, the Stake Executive Secretary position was created. At first, not many people understood its purpose. I think it's pretty clear now. I think it was divine inspiration to create the position. I also think it's pointless to consider who is "higher" in position than the other. I would never consider myself to be "higher" than the executive secretary and I wouldn't consider him to be "higher" than I am.

Rick Winterton
Stake Clerk

I agree that there really is no pecking order, I have served as both Exec Sec and Clerks many times at the ward level and the stake level. The callings are different. The Secretary works more closesly with the presidency in matters of scheduling and agenda issues and this makes him more visible to the members as he should be, being their main contact with the presidency or bishopric. However, an Exec Sec. can be called and set apart by a member of the High council, Whereas the Ward Clerk (assistant clerks excepted) must be called an set apart by a member of the stake presidency. This may have something to do with his responsibility to oversee finances with the bishop or Stake President, and his specific duties regarding disciplinary councils.

I have been a ward Exec Sec for just a little over 2 years now and can say that neither one of us outranks each other. We are very close but only when the other is absent (and on a very limited basis) do we do each others job. We always have constant complete communication to ensure callings and assignments to get recorded correctly.