Event booked at building they didn't have rights to

Tonight I found an event booked at a building the person does not have rights to. I saw a similar issue some time ago and posted about it. Neither she nor her ward have ever had rights to book things at this building. Any ideas?

craiggsmith wrote:Tonight I found an event booked at a building the person does not have rights to.

Do they have edit rights to a calendar? If so, then they can create an event at any building in the stake. I know that sounds odd. You'd think a ward editor would be limited to the building the ward meets in, but that seems to be how the system works.

There are several situations where it makes perfect sense to have someone schedule an event at a building that is not their "home" building. For example, one building may have a ball field; another may have the baptismal font; another may have some pavilions. These resources might be unique within the stake, and thus belong to the whole stake. Making all the buildings open to all the wards allows a ward to put a baptism on their own ward calendar even though the font is in a different building.

Hmmm, I thought the whole reason to specify which wards used a building was to restrict who could reserve at that building. I could have sworn that's how it used to work, but I'm getting old.

I guess this could make some things easier, but it makes it even more important to have good reservations in place.

Thanks.

craiggsmith wrote:but it makes it even more important to have good reservations in place.

That would be OK if there's only one ward to a building. But if there's multiple wards - you can't reserve the building for both of them to lock out the other wards.

RussellHltn wrote:...But if there's multiple wards - you can't reserve the building for both of them to lock out the other wards.

Actually, you can reserve for multiple wards if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't the reservation go down to the room level if you don't select the "Reserve entire location" check box? I guess your meaning may be that you can't do it on one single reservation? It would take multiple, detailed reservations to be sure.

But to Craigs point, what is the purpose of selecting which units "use" a given location (under the Locations page available to stake administrators)? I had not done any testing, but it had been my assumption that this setting would actually limit individuals in a ward from scheduling a location that their ward does not "use". I presumed that was the reason our stake center is set up for all the wards in our stake to use, since it is the only location with a font, and the only location with a stage. We actually chose to list our Bowery/Ball field as a separate location from the building that shares it's parking lot, so that location is also listed with all wards "using" it. But the building next to the bowery and one other in our stake, not having any other stake shared resources, only have the wards meeting in those buildings listed as "using" that location (along with the stake). Based on Craigs message and my testing using the beta version of the calendar, my assumptions appear to have been incorrect.

Unless, as he implies, this was previously how it worked and a recent change has impacted that?

failproof wrote:Actually, you can reserve for multiple wards if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't the reservation go down to the room level if you don't select the "Reserve entire location" check box? I guess your meaning may be that you can't do it on one single reservation? It would take multiple, detailed reservations to be sure.

You can't multi-select the ward named in the reservation. And you can't have more then one reservation for the same time for the same resource. Sure, you can reserve the gym for "ward a" and the RS room for "ward b" at the same time. But there's no way to designate that only wards a & b are allowed to schedule an event using reservations.

failproof wrote:But to Craigs point, what is the purpose of selecting which units "use" a given location (under the Locations page available to stake administrators)? I had not done any testing, but it had been my assumption that this setting would actually limit individuals in a ward from scheduling a location that their ward does not "use".

Beats me. That's what I thought as well. I can't find the thread that brought that to light.

failproof wrote:But to Craigs point, what is the purpose of selecting which units "use" a given location (under the Locations page available to stake administrators)? I had not done any testing, but it had been my assumption that this setting would actually limit individuals in a ward from scheduling a location that their ward does not "use". I presumed that was the reason our stake center is set up for all the wards in our stake to use, since it is the only location with a font, and the only location with a stage. We actually chose to list our Bowery/Ball field as a separate location from the building that shares it's parking lot, so that location is also listed with all wards "using" it. But the building next to the bowery and one other in our stake, not having any other stake shared resources, only have the wards meeting in those buildings listed as "using" that location (along with the stake). Based on Craigs message and my testing using the beta version of the calendar, my assumptions appear to have been incorrect.

Assigning a unit to a location affects which units may be added to a reservation for that location. It doesn't affect which units may include that location in an event that they are scheduling. See "Specify Locations Units Can Reserve" in Managing Locations.

Update: Note also that for units outside that stake, adding a unit has much greater effects, as it does allow them to include that location in an event (which of course they would not otherwise be able to do, since they have no connection to the buildings assigned to that stake).

Interesting, thanks everyone!

I actually did submit an enhancement request to allow multiple units to be attached to a single reservation, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. Usually we reserve specific weekend nights for each ward, along with the weekday activities, and that takes care of it. But in the stake center (of all buildings) they didn't want to choose specific nights for each ward and just wanted us to reserve those nights for any of the 3 wards, but we couldn't do that.

It's also interesting in that the building schedulers normally don't have many restrictions and don't need to be restricted -- it's the wards that do. So this current logic is somewhat counter-productive. But we do have situations where the wards need to reserve the stake center and this makes it easier.

I like this new calendar system it makes it easy for anyone to book an event without having to go through a building scheduler, much better system. I look at the day and time I would like to hold my event and if it open I book my event, no phone calls required just add it to a calendar.

It makes it easy for a ward to reserve all or part of a building for a specific time with the comfort that no other ward can book an event at that time. Of course the principle behind the reservation system to ensure a ward who have assigned nights to use the building, such as YM/YW nights have the building or at least the portion of the building they need. I don't think the reservation system was ever intended to reserve the facility for a specific event, which is what I often see happening.

I also think its wonderful that a ward not assigned to a specific building can schedule an event if the building has the facilities that is needed. We often have weddings receptions and funerals in the building I attend because it not as big or as far out of town as the Stake Center. I see no problems with this. Oh and by the way in our area funerals take priority over every other event.

craiggsmith wrote:But in the stake center (of all buildings) they didn't want to choose specific nights for each ward and just wanted us to reserve those nights for any of the 3 wards, but we couldn't do that.

All that's needed is for the wards assigned to the building to book events then the have the building or portion of the building they need for the time they needed. There is no need to lock out the use for others when the building may or may not be used. That would be a waste of a resource. All it takes is some planning a booking of events ahead of time.

craiggsmith wrote:It's also interesting in that the building schedulers normally don't have many restrictions and don't need to be restricted -- it's the wards that do.

Over all there is no need for any restrictions except in the case where the building, or portion there of, needs reserved for a specific ward like youth nights.

craiggsmith wrote:So this current logic is somewhat counter-productive.

No the logic is based on sound principles all one has to do is read the help section of the calendar to see the principles.

craiggsmith wrote:But we do have situations where the wards need to reserve the stake center and this makes it easier.

Yes, your getting it.