Bishopric Meetings

Are there any Ward Leadership meetings which the Ward Clerk normally does not attend?
My Bishop does not want me attending our Welfare Meeting.

You should have access to the Handbook. Check and see what it says.

I don't remember ever being excluded from meetings when I was Ward Clerk. (That's not to say I wouldn't be tempted by the offer as long as they called me in when appropriate. There's always stuff I can be catching with on the computer.)

I think the Handbook is a great place to look, and if you find something, it might (and I stress might) even be a good idea to show your bishop.

However, please do keep in mind that anything said here is merely discussion among fellow clerks. Nothing said here can ever take the place of the counsels of your local leadership.

Jim.Hastings wrote:Are there any Ward Leadership meetings which the Ward Clerk normally does not attend?
My Bishop does not want me attending our Welfare Meeting.

I think who attends any of the meetings is up to the Bishop. I would say that "normally" the clerk and Exec. Sec. attend all/most meetings that involve the Bishopric but that would not always be the case. If it were me I'd be thankful for the extra time with the family and call it good. I'm sure the Bishop has his reasons.

If your bishop does not want you to attend Ward Welfare Committee Meeting, then you should follow his counsel.

Otherwise:
Bishopric Meeting participants = Bishopric (bishop + 1st Counselor + 2nd counselor) + ward executive secretary + ward clerk (handbook 1 (2006), page 67).

Ward Priesthood Executive Committee Meeting (PEC) participants = all those that attend bishopric meeting + high priests group leader + elders quorum president + ward mission leader + ward Young Men president + any others the bishop specifically invites as needed (handbook 2 (1998), page 317).

Ward Welfare Committee Meeting participants = all those that attend PEC + ward Relief Society presidency (RS president + RS counselors; handbook 2 (1998), page 318).

Ward Council Meeting participants = all those that attend PEC + RS president + YW president + Primary president + SS president + activities committee chairman + any others the bishop specifically invites as needed (handbook 2 (1998), page 317). The position of Teacher Improvement Coordinator has been discontinued and its functions absorbed into the various organization presidencies.

The ward clerk and ward executive secretary do not attend Ward Aaronic Priesthood Committee Meeting (APC), Bishopric Youth Committee Meeting (BYC), or Ward Committee for Single Members Meeting unless specifically invited by the bishop to do so (Handbook 2 (1998), page 318-319).

Because ward welfare and ward council meetings also include the PEC, some units have chosen to consolidate these meetings with PEC. That is, since PEC meets each week, then one of these weeks ward welfare meeting will be held instead of PEC as a kind of expanded PEC meeting. And on a different week, ward council will be held in lieu of PEC, again as a kind of expanded PEC meeting. I am not aware of any direction from CHQ encouraging or discouraging this practice.

Your local leadership instruction may vary, and should be followed.

In the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, on pages 72-73, there is a chart of ward meetings, including your ward welfare meeting. One of the columns on the chart is "Participants." The ward clerk is listed as one of the participants in the Ward Welfare Committee Meeting. Now, having said that, the bishop still has final say in such matters.

Not usually. There must be special circumstances. I'd discuss this concern with the Bishop as it is suggested in the leadership handbook that ward clerks participate there.

I can understand a Bishop wanting to reduce the amount of people in a Welfare meeting so that those who have sensitive information to report on feel more comfortable in doing so. Depending on the type of issues being reported on I can see wanting to keep this meeting to only those that really HAVE to be there. I don't know that I would put a ward clerk in the HAVE to be there group. Perhaps "could be" and maybe even "should be", but not "HAVE to be there".
IMO

I am not sure how to put this without offending, but there could also be an issue with the relationship between the clerk and; the Bishop, a person being reported on, etc...

tsheffield wrote:I am not sure how to put this without offending, but there could also be an issue with the relationship between the clerk and; the Bishop, a person being reported on, etc...

The circumstance where it would create an undesirable or awkward situation for the ward clerk to be present while a particular individual's or family's needs are discussed is the only situation I can think of where this could be justified. Having said that, I'm sure that there are other reasons that might also be justified.

However, if this is to be an ongoing thing, then either the bishop needs some additional training from the stake presidency, or trust and confidentiality issues between that clerk and bishop need to be addressed and resolved (Church Handbook of Instructions, Book1 (2006), page 21).

Part of this that doesn't make sense is that the ward clerk would be aware of whatever financial assistance might be being offered anyway due to his financial duties, so that probably ought not to be a reason to exclude him from the meeting. If the ward clerk has been dis-invited for good reason, an assistant ward clerk probably should be invited to fill in for him until the reason for excluding the ward clerk no longer applies.

The clerk's job is to record "minutes of ward leadership meetings. He also reminds the bishopric of items that need follow-up for further consideration" (Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1 (2006), page 142). I don't see how can he perform that function unless he (or an assistant clerk) is present in the meeting.

Having said all of that, I am not privy to the specific dynamics in play here. Therefore you should follow the the request of your bishop. If it still seems unjustified, then you might speak with the stake president about it. But be prepared if it is decided that due to the unique dynamics of the given situation it might be better if you had a calling or responsibility other than ward clerk .

As an additional resource, the online clerk training mentions under what circumstances the ward clerk should bring items to the attention of the stake presidency. If you have any questions, I recommend a thorough review of all that training prior to taking action.

I think if information is so sensitive that the ward clerk is not expected to be in the meeting, it would probably be a one-on-one between the bishop and the Relief Society president, or the bishop and the elders quorum president or high priests group leader.

I can understand where this brother is coming from. I was recently called as a clerk, to date I have not attended any Bishopric meeting (I hear after the fact one took place) as I am not told when they are. Due to their work, schedules etc. there is not a set day and time they hold a Bishopric meeting. I remind them to let me know when they are and I will attend, but I have yet to be informed of one prior to it happening. It feels like I am either not wanted or needed or possibly not trusted, which does make it difficult to fulfil my calling as it is covered in the Handbook of Instructions and by what I was told when I was set apart.

neilbrussard wrote:It feels like I am either not wanted or needed or possibly not trusted, which does make it difficult to fulfil my calling as it is covered in the Handbook of Instructions and by what I was told when I was set apart.

I'd suggest letting the stake clerk know. He's responsible for your training, and obviously he has the ear of the stake president.