Quarterly Report - Sacrament Meeting Attendance

My ward has roughly 20+ pregnant women. The stake president has requested that we include the unborn children in our quarterly sacrament meeting count (which increases the attendance by about 10%). Any thoughts on whether this is an acceptable practice? Is the policy on counting members flexible enough that various ward/stakes might have difference counting conventions like this?

Also, on Daylights Savings, our ward attendance dropped by about 25%, and I was asked to exclude that Sunday's count from our March average. Is this type of adjustment allowed and/or common? From looking at the Handbook, and at the instructions on the quarterly report, it appears that the method of counting is straightforward; however, in practice I'm wondering if its acceptable for these type of adjustments to be made.

bedwards00 wrote:My ward has roughly 20+ pregnant women. The stake president has requested that we include the unborn children in our quarterly sacrament meeting count (which increases the attendance by about 10%). Any thoughts on whether this is an acceptable practice? Is the policy on counting members flexible enough that various ward/stakes might have difference counting conventions like this?

The rules for counting attendance in sacrament meeting are straightforward: "Record the average sacrament meeting attendance for the last month of the quarter. Include in your count all individuals who attended sacrament meeting, members and nonmembers alike."

Frankly, I'm stunned that anyone would even suggest that you would count unborn children. How are you supposed to determine that a woman is pregnant? Is the stake president suggesting that a clerk would think that a woman is showing and ask her if she's pregnant? I've always felt that was a very risky question to ask any woman anytime. She might be a bit overweight, she might have a medical condition, she might have just had a miscarriage, she might have just delivered a baby who died at birth -- the list of very sensitive situations is long. And does a woman who is 3 weeks pregnant and doesn't show at all count?

I don't see how the term "individuals" would apply to a fetus in this regard. If this were intended, I really think there would have been guidance given on this rather odd interpretation.

bedwards00 wrote:Also, on Daylights Savings, our ward attendance dropped by about 25%, and I was asked to exclude that Sunday's count from our March average. Is this type of adjustment allowed and/or common? From looking at the Handbook, and at the instructions on the quarterly report, it appears that the method of counting is straightforward; however, in practice I'm wondering if its acceptable for these type of adjustments to be made.

That sounds completely unacceptable to me. I've never heard of it being done. If that were the intention of the reporting procedures, we would be told: "Record the average sacrament meeting attendance for the last month of the quarter, excluding any weeks that seem unusually low and might cause you to have a lower budget allowance than you would hope for."

It doesn't say that. So the rule is simple: you include the attendance for every Sunday in the last month of the quarter, where sacrament meeting is held. Period.

Doesn't the Stake President have the authority to make this call? He is the person with the keys to interpret the language of the Handbook, and thus, should be given the latitude?

I find in the second argument I am more liberal and would lean towards this stake president's interpretation. The first argument is creative to me, and I hope isn't intending to send a political message, but isn't one I would personally suggest to a Stake President who asked my opinion as the Stake Clerk.

JohnShaw wrote:Doesn't the Stake President have the authority to make this call? He is the person with the keys to interpret the language of the Handbook, and thus, should be given the latitude?

That's the general rule, but still it should be unusual for a stake president to go beyond interpretation and essentially override simple and clear language in the handbooks. If my stake president were to propose either of the quite unusual interpretations in the original post, I would strongly suggest that he get guidance from his line leaders before implementing this.

I guess a Stake President may feel that the request to

Record the average sacrament meeting attendance for the last month of the quarter

So is the Average meeting attendance for the last month accurately represented by 1 week that drops 25% or 50% in cases like I've seen? Maybe there is some room for interpretation. Maybe the Stake President is a statistician and believes that a number that throws off an average by a statistically significant number should be thrown out as not truly representing the average (which I believe is a pretty good statistical practice IIRC my sophomore stats class). If we look at the instruction from a mathematical approach, throwing out data may not be correct....

JohnShaw wrote:I guess a Stake President may feel that the request to

Record the average sacrament meeting attendance for the last month of the quarter

So is the Average meeting attendance for the last month accurately represented by 1 week that drops 25% or 50% in cases like I've seen? Maybe there is some room for interpretation.

I suppose I might buy your argument if I saw the slightest inclination to throw out attendance figures that were outrageously HIGH because of a missionary speaking in a sacrament meeting that draws a couple hundred extra people. I have never seen any such inclination.

JohnShaw wrote: Maybe the Stake President is a statistician and believes that a number that throws off an average by a statistically significant number should be thrown out as not truly representing the average (which I believe is a pretty good statistical practice IIRC my sophomore stats class).

(At least in the Quality world) data cannot be excluded just because it throws off the average or because someone disagrees with the numbers. One would have to prove that the data is part of a "special cause" that has now been corrected to exclude it from consideration. Unless one could state that low sacrament attendance due to Daylight Savings Time will never happen again, it would be a stretch to justify arbitrarily throwing that week out.

If the purpose is to track attendance, the numbers should be included. If the purpose is to show the best numbers possible to get higher budget allowances, then...

bedwards00 wrote:The stake president has requested that we include the unborn children in our quarterly sacrament meeting count (which increases the attendance by about 10%).

Also, on Daylights Savings, our ward attendance dropped by about 25%, and I was asked to exclude that Sunday's count from our March average.

Is there any possibility at all that the stake president was joking, and someone accidentally took him seriously by mistake?

A time or two I have said a few things in jest, seen the shocked reaction on the faces of the members who heard it, and had to explain that I was just kidding. And invariably, what I said always got out, and not that it was meant in fun. (Which is probably why I do not do a late night TV show.)

JohnShaw wrote:Doesn't the Stake President have the authority to make this call? He is the person with the keys to interpret the language of the Handbook, and thus, should be given the latitude?

I don't believe the Stake President does have the authority to go against written church policy. This sort of thing really bothers me personally and I would raise my concerns to the Bishop and Stake Presidency. If that goes nowhere, I think this is serious enough that I would consider going above the Stake President to the area authority. Honestly this is shocking to me. I know that we should sustain and follow our leaders, but there comes a point where if the leaders are doing things unethically, and in this case I believe dishonestly, then I'd take action.

My ward has roughly 20+ pregnant women. The stake president has requested that we include the unborn children in our quarterly sacrament meeting count (which increases the attendance by about 10%).

Holy cow! I hope he was joking. He's asking you to lie for money. It's theft. Why even bother with the pretense of counting pregnancies? Does he think that God would buy that flimsy excuse?

You're right not to just go along with it. Unrighteous orders have no priesthood authority (D&C 121:36-37). The Nuremberg Defense is for moral cowards.

Before this, the worst artificial, attendance inflation that I had heard of was a unit that would always be sure to schedule the yearly Primary-program Sacrament meeting for a Quarterly Report month.

Anyway, I'm hoping that this is just a joke. As a joke, it's pretty funny.

My ward has roughly 20+ pregnant women. The stake president has requested that we include the unborn children in our quarterly sacrament meeting count (which increases the attendance by about 10%).

This was REALLY funny

Strange. I believe the attendance numbers are used mostly for budget allocation and to allow ward and stake leaders to direct their attention to issues in the unit such as low attendance of the members on record or a high number of members for the building size. I think in all three of these scenarios it does not make sense to count the unborn. They do not require additional funds from the Church for activities, they are not on the church records yet so the percentage attendance becomes somewhat meaningless, and they do not take up more than one seat on the bench or in a classroom so it does not help with decisions about building and ward size.

You always have sporadic variations for holidays, missionary farewells, visiting families, etc. but this is a case where it would change the average over many months.

That being said, the Stake President has the authority and is the one responsible for the outcome. If that is what he asks and the Bishop concurs, then that is what I would do. I may voice my concern over the issue, but in the end they are the ones held accountable for the policy.

A clerk in this situation should call Church Headquarters for clarification (and backup). Theoretically, his local leaders, also, wouldn't want to cheat, and if they do, they shouldn't be leaders. In the Church, if an order is illegal or unrighteous, it carries no authority (D&C 121:37), and it is our duty to oppose it. Any decent leader would want his people to oppose it.

boy, how might that affect fund raising?

I've had issues with our ward's "traditional" attendance counting method. As Clerk and previously as "Asst. Clerk for Mem Recs" we've always based our count on "number of sacrament cups used". Then we were told to add 10% for those in attendance who chose that day to not receive sacrament. In my previous ward, while also serving as Membership Clerk, I held a "golf counter" in my pocket, walked up and down each of two asiles, counted to 10, pressed "counter button" once and repeated process until all were counted. Counting from back of chapel or cultural hall could include "children's dolls" or exclude small children below bench top.

I suppose you could also get down on the floor in the back of the chapel, get a sight line under the pews all the way to the front, count all the feet, and divide by two.

ulupoi wrote:I suppose you could also get down on the floor in the back of the chapel, get a sight line under the pews all the way to the front, count all the feet, and divide by two.

You would have to add in a factor for the percentage of children resting on the bench without feet dangling. [smile]

Reason given to me for counting "Sacrament Cups Used" had something to do with my not wandering up and down aisles during post Sacrament talks. Maybe some have found that practice rather intimidating, as if we were looking for fugitives, illegal aliens or attempting to enforce some kind of "Sunday dress code".

jfackerson wrote:Reason given to me for counting "Sacrament Cups Used" had something to do with my not wandering up and down aisles during post Sacrament talks. Maybe some have found that practice rather intimidating, as if we were looking for fugitives, illegal aliens or attempting to enforce some kind of "Sunday dress code".

Although I've seen a variety of techniques proposed (including counting sacrament cups), I personally don't see how any of them fulfill the requirement: "Record the average sacrament meeting attendance for the last month of the quarter. Include in your count all individuals who attended sacrament meeting, members and nonmembers alike."

It says "include in your count" (not estimate). I've never found a clerk quietly counting attendance to be at all intimidating, but I'm not inclined to give credence to conspiracy theories. And even if the bishop proposes that an alternate method be used, I would hope that no alternative to counting is ever used before the alternate technique goes through a reasonable verification process. That would require doing an actual count as well as the estimate, and then comparing those numbers over a number of weeks. Just picking an alternate method out of thin air would be an abdication of the bishop's responsibility for accurate record keeping.

On a related topic, we are required to count heads during each session of stake conference. There was one such priesthood leadership meeting in our stake when the stake clerk was trying to count heads, and the presiding authority asked him to do it from the back of the room, and not to walk up and down the aisles. Oh well, we tried.

In my ward, the clerk sits on the stand, all the way on the side. From there, he has a pretty good view and can count the members attending.