Why have a building scheduler?

RussellHltn wrote:We've previously talked about renaming the "building scheduler" to "building coordinator" as well as changing "reservations" to "restrictions".

Since the primary role of the "building Scheduler" is to make reservations/restrictions mostly for recurring activities, such as YMYW nights. Why have any such position?

Why not just place the responsibility as part of the stake administrator duties, one that can not be delegated, just like adding rooms and resources. It serves no purpose having the responsibility at the individual building level since everything can be accomplished right from one central location.

[Moderator note: This thread was split from the Calendar help for private events thread because it addresses a new topic. Please follow the Code of Conduct to stay on topic and do not start a new topic in an existing thread; instead start a new thread.]

Gary_Miller wrote:Since the primary role of the "building Scheduler" is to make reservations/restrictions mostly for recurring activities, such as YMYW nights. Why have any such position?

Wards and Stakes can combine the roles if they wish. But besides creating the reservations, building schedulers are 1) The point of contact for dealing with questions about the use of the buildings (or at least the Primary Building Scheduler is). 2) They have the power to change events scheduled for their location. That's a super power that no default admin can do.

One concern I have is how there are so many default admins. Seems ripe for "too many cooks in the kitchen". Especially since the website admin is a default admin. Sure, some units might want to run it that way, but I don't know as all of them do.

Gary_Miller wrote:Since the primary role of the "building Scheduler" is to make reservations/restrictions mostly for recurring activities, such as YMYW nights. Why have any such position?

Why not just place the responsibility as part of the stake administrator duties, one that can not be delegated, just like adding rooms and resources. It serves no purpose having the responsibility at the individual building level since everything can be accomplished right from one central location.

As RussellHltn pointed out, making reservations/restrictions is only one role. I wouldn't even call it the primary role, since for the most part (at least in our stake) that is set up once and rarely changes. The much more important role is conflict resolution. In order to function effectively in resolving conflicts, a person needs to know the building well.

My stake happens to be in an area with a very high density LDS population; we have only three buildings in our stake, and I've spent thousands of hours in two of those buildings and many dozen hours in the third one. So I have the needed knowledge, but only because the buildings are close, I've been around a long time, and have been a member of wards that attend two of the buildings.

But there are stakes that have a dozen wards over thousands of square miles and might have 8 or more buildings. Asking a stake admin to know all those buildings well enough to perform any of the tasks of a building scheduler seems like it's asking a lot. If I were a stake admin in such a stake, I would rely heavily on someone in each building to help me know what rooms need to be set up in each building, and a building scheduler would be great at that, and I would feel inadequate for the task of resolving conflicts in a building I visited rarely if ever.

So I really do think the role has merit even if the role and one of its tasks (reservations/restrictions) happen to be renamed. Stakes are welcome to assign multiple roles to the same person if they see fit, or to distribute the responsibility.

RussellHltn wrote: But besides creating the reservations, building schedulers are 1) The point of contact for dealing with questions about the use of the buildings (or at least the Primary Building Scheduler is).

Here we go again adding to the building schedulers roles.

While I could see that a building scheduler once was the point of contact for dealing with questions. Under the new roles this will quickly diminish since they will no longer be the pulse for calendaring, therefor they will not know whats really going on. The individual wards in a building will now become the experts in knowing whats happening in their building.

RussellHltn wrote: But besides creating the reservations, building schedulers are 2) They have the power to change events scheduled for their location.

If the calendar software functions as it should then there should be no need for anyone to have to change an event. If there becomes a need then the units meeting in the building should be able to work things out among themselves. The only time I could ever see the need to make any event adjustments would be for a funeral, and since most funerals are held during the day when the building is seldom used there not likely to me many conflicts.

RussellHltn wrote:That's a super power that no default admin can do.

I'm not a programmer. However, I know enough about programming to know this would be an easy power to move to a default admin position.

RussellHltn wrote:One concern I have is how there are so many default admins. Seems ripe for "too many cooks in the kitchen".

I agree there are to many default admin positions. With the exception that they have over all responsibility I don't see the need for Stake Presidencies or Bishopric to have admin rights. They have much more important things to do.

RussellHltn wrote:Especially since the website admin is a default admin. Sure, some units might want to run it that way, but I don't know as all of them do.

With the change from the classic site and the guidelines on unit web sites, I no longer see the need for a ward "Website Administrator" at all. Let alone being a calendar admin.

aebrown wrote:The much more important role is conflict resolution.

Like I stated in my previous post. If the calendar software functions as it should then there should be no need for anyone to have to change an event. If there becomes a need then the units meeting in the building should be able to work things out among themselves.

aebrown wrote: In order to function effectively in resolving conflicts, a person needs to know the building well.

Who knows the building better than those wards who meet in the building.

Some stakes have chosen to have one "Building Scheduler" for all the buildings in the stake. Its impossible for that individual to know the building better than the wards meeting in the building.

aebrown wrote:If I were a stake admin in such a stake, I would rely heavily on someone in each building to help me know what rooms need to be set up in each building, and a building scheduler would be great at that,

Set up for what?

It been my experience that those individuals responsible for the event does their own setup and take down. If they need media equipment they see the librarian. If they need other types of support they do their own coordinating.

aebrown wrote: and I would feel inadequate for the task of resolving conflicts in a building I visited rarely if ever.

Already answered.

aebrown wrote:If I were a stake admin in such a stake, I would rely heavily on someone in each building to help me know what rooms need to be set up in each building, and a building scheduler would be great at that,

Set up for what?

It been my experience that those individuals responsible for the event does their own setup and take down. If they need media equipment they see the librarian. If they need other types of support they do their own coordinating.

aebrown wrote: and I would feel inadequate for the task of resolving conflicts in a building I visited rarely if ever.

Already answered.

Gary_Miller wrote:Like I stated in my previous post. If the calendar software functions as it should then there should be no need for anyone to have to change an event. If there becomes a need then the units meeting in the building should be able to work things out among themselves.

That's not true; they don't have sufficient permissions to do at least one kind of conflict resolution. If a building is using the Reservations feature, and the wards in that building decide among themselves that a ward should be able to schedule an event on top of a reservation that is for a different ward, only a building scheduler can make that happen. For example, Ward A has the cultural hall on 1st and 3rd Tuesdays and a reservation has been created to enforce that restriction, but Ward B wants to have a particular event on the 1st Tuesday of July that uses the cultural hall. Ward B has no way of creating such an event without the help of a building scheduler.

Gary_Miller wrote:Who knows the building better than those wards who meet in the building.

I'm not sure what your argument is here; in my stake a building scheduler is always someone who meets in the building, so I completely agree.

Gary_Miller wrote:Some stakes have chosen to have one "Building Scheduler" for all the buildings in the stake. Its impossible for that individual to know the building better than the wards meeting in the building.

That's not a choice our stake would make.

Gary_Miller wrote:Set up for what?

It been my experience that those individuals responsible for the event does their own setup and take down. If they need media equipment they see the librarian. If they need other types of support they do their own coordinating.

I should have been clearer. I was talking about selecting standard rooms and adding custom rooms under Settings > Locations > Edit.

aebrown wrote:That's not true; they don't have sufficient permissions to do at least one kind of conflict resolution. If a building is using the Reservations feature, and the wards in that building decide among themselves that a ward should be able to schedule an event on top of a reservation that is for a different ward, only a building scheduler can make that happen. For example, Ward A has the cultural hall on 1st and 3rd Tuesdays and a reservation has been created to enforce that restriction, but Ward B wants to have a particular event on the 1st Tuesday of July that uses the cultural hall. Ward B has no way of creating such an event without the help of a building scheduler.

I think the point is: "How does the building scheduler resolve this conflict, and why can't the two wards just work it out, bypassing the scheduler?"

Edit adding: Thinking some more, I think that the building scheduler is needed now because of the fact that people outside the building (i.e. people in other wards in the stake) can schedule the building. If it was just the two wards that meet in the building that could do this, then a scheduler might not be needed.

Under the old system, the building A and B met in pretty much belonged to A and B. If outside Ward C wanted it, they called the old building scheduler who made phone calls to ward A and B to see if anyone was using it. Now Ward C can just go book an event in A and B's building without checking with anyone. All the buildings in the Stake are now a Stake resource. The schedulers serve as traffic cops.

TinMan wrote:I think the point is: "How does the building scheduler resolve this conflict, and why can't the two wards just work it out, bypassing the scheduler?"

I understand the point, but my answer stands IF the building is using the Reservations feature. In my scenario, there is simply no way for Ward B to have an event on its calendar that books the cultural hall on the 1st Tuesday of July if there is an existing reservation for Ward A reserving the cultural hall on the 1st Tuesday of each month. A building scheduler is the only person who can adjust the event for Ward B to override the reservation for Ward A (even a stake admin cannot).

Now if you want to imagine a different system that doesn't have building schedulers or where the reservation role is given to different people, then sure, it's conceivable that the wards could "just work it out." But in the current system if the location uses reservations that cannot be done.

aebrown wrote:I understand the point, but my answer stands IF the building is using the Reservations feature. In my scenario, there is simply no way for Ward B to have an event on its calendar that books the cultural hall on the 1st Tuesday of July if there is an existing reservation for Ward A reserving the cultural hall on the 1st Tuesday of each month. A building scheduler is the only person who can adjust the event for Ward B to override the reservation for Ward A (even a stake admin cannot).

Sorry. I assumed too much I guess. I assumed that Ward B could call ward A and say "Hey you have the building reserved on the first Tuesday in July. We would like to have an elders quorum party. Are you really using it?" If they say "No, go ahead," then I could put an event on my ward calendar with NO LOCATION and it would still appear on my calendar.

I would assume ward A would put a "Ward B Elders Quorum Party" event on some private calendar they have and it would book the cultural hall and not appear on any of their ward calendars.

I didn't know that a reservation made it so I could not even put informational things on my ward calendars.

Guess I was wrong.

TinMan wrote:Sorry. I assumed too much I guess. I assumed that Ward B could call ward A and say "Hey you have the building reserved on the first Tuesday in July. We would like to have an elders quorum party. Are you really using it?" If they say "No, go ahead," then I could put an event on my ward calendar with NO LOCATION and it would still appear on my calendar.

I didn't know that a reservation made it so I could not even put informational things on my ward calendars.

Guess I was wrong.

No, you're right that you could put informational items on your ward calendar. But that can be a risky practice.

In this scenario, that would mean that when Ward A says that Ward B can go ahead and use the building, neither ward would have an event that truly books the building on that date. Someone looking at the building usage would then see no event on that date. That means (among other things) that the Ward A Beehive class (who may not have been involved in the discussion where Ward B called Ward A for permission) could go right ahead and book the cultural hall on that date. It could get a bit awkward when the Ward A Beehives and the Ward B elders both show up at the same time.

Sure, you can have understandings that are "off the books," but that can easily lead to confusion, since it's pretty difficult to make sure that everyone knows about these side agreements. It's much safer to put everything on the one system of record -- the online calendar -- so that everyone can see it and so that the system can do proper conflict checking.

I would assume ward A would put a "Ward B Elders Quorum Party" event on some private calendar they have and it would book the cultural hall and not clutter any of their ward calendars. That would still be "on the books" and no one can book it from underneath Ward B's elders.

So explain how it works in "your world".

If ward A wants to use the building on Ward B's night, how does the elders quorum go about it through the building scheduler?

Gary_Miller wrote:With the change from the classic site and the guidelines on unit web sites, I no longer see the need for a ward "Website Administrator" at all. Let alone being a calendar admin.

Some wards may find it best to have someone take charge of a given web product. My complaint is that it's an "all powerful" position instead of a Product by Product admin. (That is, a calendar admin, Directory admin, Newsletter Admin, etc.)

But I really don't understand why you think everyone should confirm to your vision of how stakes and wards should be run.

TinMan wrote:I would assume ward A would put a "Ward B Elders Quorum Party" event on some private calendar they have and it would book the cultural hall and not clutter any of their ward calendars. That would still be "on the books" and no one can book it from underneath Ward B's elders.

It seems a bit awkward to have a "Other Location" event on Ward B's calendar that is the real event with no booked room, and a private event on Ward A's calendar that simply books the room, but you're right that this could be done. It would have the effect of making sure that the building is properly booked.

TinMan wrote:So explain how it works in "your world".

If ward B wants to use the building on Ward A's night, how does the elders quorum go about it through the building scheduler?

This is an area that is certainly a bit awkward, too. The building scheduler has rights to edit any events that take place at his building, so the adjustment can only be made if the event is somehow connected to the building. Here are some possible steps (I swapped the A and B in your question to make it consistent with the scenario in previous posts):

1. Ward B's EQ president tries to schedule the cultural hall for the 1st Tuesday in July. He receives a conflict message because Ward A has a reservation for every 1st Tuesday.
2. So he changes the time from 6:30pm to 6:30am (this is the really awkward part of this process) and saves the event. He may have invested some time typing in various details in the description, so he's grateful that there's a way to save the event.
3. He gets approval from Ward A to use the building.
4. He contacts the building scheduler and reports the approval of the change (that might be via a forwarded email)
5. The building scheduler edits the event and changes it to 6:30pm. That places a Ward B event on top of a Ward A reservation, but the building scheduler has the power to create that override.

The result is optimal -- a single event on the correct calendar for the correct ward that truly books the room(s).

To get to that optimal result, you have that ugly step 2 above. There are variations on the approach, such as temporarily scheduling a different available room, so that the building scheduler simply adjusts the rooms for the event. This would be far less awkward if a building scheduler had permission to see and edit events that have "Other Location" if the edit is to add room(s) in the location he schedules.

TinMan wrote:If ward A wants to use the building on Ward B's night, how does the elders quorum go about it through the building scheduler?

I think the simplest way is to have the Building Scheduler edit the reservation for just that night. Then the EQ Pres can schedule the event as normal.

Without checking with the other ward?

RussellHltn wrote:I think the simplest way is to have the Building Scheduler edit the reservation for just that night. Then the EQ Pres can schedule the event as normal.

Agreed. I guess since I am not a building scheduler, I wasn't paying attention to the options available to the building scheduler. And this approach does actually fit better what really happened -- Ward A had a reservation, and chose to give it up for that night. So simply removing that reservation for that night makes a lot of sense.

TinMan wrote:Without checking with the other ward?

Of course all this discussion assumes that Ward A agreed to give up its reservation.

Is it the building schedulers responsibility to contact the other ward in his role as conflict resolver?

TinMan wrote:Is it the building schedulers responsibility to contact the other ward in his role as conflict resolver?

I'd say that's up to the wards and stake involved; I could imagine it working either way. But in my stake, we generally have the wards work things out and then the building scheduler simply implements what they decided.

aebrown wrote:I'd say that's up to the wards and stake involved; I could imagine it working either way. But in my stake, we generally have the wards work things out and then the building scheduler simply implements what they decided.

That's what I was thinking. After Ward A/Ward B have their discussion, Ward A calls/emails the Building Scheduler who makes the changes and notifies Ward B when ready.

Thank you aebrown.

I think I am done arguing Gary's point for him. I just want to say that I agree with some of what he says.

RussellHltn wrote:
But I really don't understand why you think everyone should confirm to your vision of how stakes and wards should be run.

I think the problem goes both ways, Russell. Some of us resent the attitude that the Church has about some of these things that it is "my way or the highway."

But when I have a ward that has 30% of the members are older and are just trying to figure out how to get email off the internet, some of the changes that are "for the good of the majority" are, well, bad for a lot of people. The classic websites for example. We spent years getting our ward members comfortable going to the website and looking at a nice neat calendar that was all on one page and showed them what they needed to know. Now? Just forget it. I realize it is great for all those with gizmos that sync and adjusting bandwidth to accommodate ISP's, and it is all very interesting. But in my life, it doesn't really matter.

A second example: Ward Budget. I graduated college. I have run my own business for 30 years. I managed to figure out how to do my own income taxes including all the business taxes. But when it comes to the budget in the new CUBS system, I have no clue how much money we have, how much money we have spent, how much our allocations should be. Nothing. I actually called a young, CPA as a counselor and said "you figure it out and let me know when we are in trouble." There are allocation budgets, projected allocation budgets, and who knows what else. As bishop, I should be able to go to the MLS system, find a button that says "ward budget" and see what we have and what we have spent. But I can't. And not from lack of trying. My counselor has an excel spread sheet he sends me each month that lets me know how we are doing.

I am sure that "you all" would frown on that. It is "off the books" records. But it is something I understand. Sometimes the "this is the way it is so deal with it" attitude works both ways.



Stepping off my soapbox now...

TinMan wrote:So explain how it works in "your world".

If ward A wants to use the building on Ward B's night, how does the elders quorum go about it through the building scheduler?

I'll tell you how it worked in "my world," before the online calendar.
As EQ president in ward "A", I called the building scheduler about using ward B's night, and was told building policy said it was ward B's night, regardless of if they use it or not, so I needed to find an open night on my own ward's night....

True story! What a waste of building resources. I drove by on Ward B's night in question, to find the building dark and unused.

Will the new calendar change years of traditions like this one? Slowly, but yes, I think it will.
But, if the tradition of saving nights still exists in some wards, I certainly think one ward should call the other, and then ask the BS to change the reservation for the night. Then, ward A schedules the event and the resource on the correct calendar,the resource is reserved correctly, and the calendar does what it is intended to do...protect the resource AND become an information delivery service to tell and remind the Elders in ward A about the fun and eventful night they will have!

TinMan wrote:I think the problem goes both ways, Russell. Some of us resent the attitude that the Church has about some of these things that it is "my way or the highway."

In this case, I think I'm arguing for flexibility. But most of the time I'm more of a "work with the tools instead of beating yourself against the tools" mentality. Change simply won't come fast enough for those who try to work against it.

TinMan wrote:But when I have a ward that has 30% of the members are older and are just trying to figure out how to get email off the internet, some of the changes that are "for the good of the majority" are, well, bad for a lot of people.

A good example.

TinMan wrote:I actually called a young, CPA as a counselor and said "you figure it out and let me know when we are in trouble." There are allocation budgets, projected allocation budgets, and who knows what else. As bishop, I should be able to go to the MLS system, find a button that says "ward budget" and see what we have and what we have spent. But I can't. And not from lack of trying. My counselor has an excel spread sheet he sends me each month that lets me know how we are doing.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised but having a CPA background could be a hindrance to understanding the church's system. I haven't kept up with CUBS, so I'm not sure what it's like. I do know the old system was plenty confusing as well. Budget behaved much differently then Fast Offering which was different then "Other".

I have a suspicion that there's a Tree/Forrest problem. If you try to understand the tree before the forest, it's confusing. But I don't know if the training materials properly introduce the forest. Even if it did, too many are looking for an answer to a specific question and would probably skip past the introduction.

I'm sure that's the case in membership between Individual and Household views. Until you understand the difference, you're going to have problems.

I have another example:

How did you split my quote into three parts?

I have read through all the instructions here. I have googled it on the internet. I have experimented for about an hour trying to figure it out. I have Wiki'ed it as your signature suggests.

No luck. So I put my hat in my hand. Ask one of you tech guys a question you have never thought anyone would have a problem with.

Sometimes the forest instructions don't cover all the trees.

Oh. and PS. I am confident my counselor understands the budgeting portion of CUBS just fine. So far we haven't had any checks bounce... :p

TinMan wrote:How did you split my quote into three parts?

I will send you a PM so we don't fork the thread. [grin]

TinMan wrote:But when I have a ward that has 30% of the members are older and are just trying to figure out how to get email off the internet, some of the changes that are "for the good of the majority" are, well, bad for a lot of people.

TinMan,
Since the split that starts this thread talks of why have a building scheduler, if the actual issue hindering adoption is technical ability, use the same method you used for a finance clerk:

I see no harm in calling and keeping a "ward website admin" (their true MLS calling) handy, but label him/her your ward building scheduler or whatever other name your membership wishes, and tell your members who won't use the calendar to call them, but have the website admin and all other members who can, learn and do all the technical computer stuff correctly.

People over age 60 now constitute the fastest growing group of computer users and information seekers on the World Wide Web.

I know many of the new features, when truly revealed to users, are a blessing to many who have a computer, and who once used it only for email. Lds.org is a tool of "curious workmanship" to be sure, but well worth giving it due diligence to see where it takes us.

RussellHltn wrote:But I really don't understand why you think everyone should confirm to your vision of how stakes and wards should be run.

I don't expect anyone to confirm my vision. I understand perfectly well that there are many different ways to do the same tasks. All I do is point out a different way of accomplishing the task, one that I think is a better way based on correct principles. My hope is that others may analyze the situation using all the different input from all participant and come up with the best way. I'm an out of the box thinker, I don't believe in holy cows, but I do believe in making decisions base on the principles. On the other hand I see many participants here that have a hard time letting go of the "holy Cows" they just don't seem to be able to let go of current practices.

aebrown wrote:I should have been clearer. I was talking about selecting standard rooms and adding custom rooms under Settings > Locations > Edit.

Last I checked this was not function of the "Building Scheduler". Only "Stake Administrators" have this option.