I once heard that only a very small number of buildings in the world did not have Internet access. I believe it was in a public setting (an LDS Tech monthly broadcast?), but I will not repeat it here just in case.mevans wrote:I imagine there are places the church reaches that the Internet does not (or does not reach cost effectively).
The timeline is here.mevans wrote:There is a tentative timeline for improved clerk resources to come out this year. I tried looking for the post, but gave up. That's going to help clerks, but it won't help you as EQ pres. HT/VT wasn't on the list.
Wayne, what we did in my ward was to also assign the finance clerk the position of Assistant Ward Clerk as well that way they have access to Clerk Resources. We also had to do the same thing to the membership clerk in order to allow them to authenticate the weekly batch when they fill in for the finance clerk.waynecooke wrote:Per the download: doc20130905154437.pdf It was interesting. It mentioned financial impact (I am financial clerk in our ward), so I followed the instructions to find out about the "Clerk Resources". It seems that only Ward Clerks can get on there. At least it wouldn't let me on, through either the "Tools" access, (no Clerk Resources on the drop down menu) and when I tried lds.org/clerk it said, in bold letters: "Access Denied" "You are not authorized to access this page". So I guess it will be a while before I can use it.
Instead of giving each clerk two callings, wouldn't it work to just have both of them called as "Ward Assistant Clerk"? From what I understand, Ward Assistant Clerk can do membership and financial work, and it sounds like you want them to be able to do both. You shouldn't have someone assigned as "Ward Assistant Clerk--Finance" or "Ward Assistant Clerk--Membership" unless you want them to only work in one area. (P.S. Does it bother anyone else that those calling names use double-hyphens instead of dashes?Gary_Miller wrote:Wayne, what we did in my ward was to also assign the finance clerk the position of Assistant Ward Clerk as well that way they have access to Clerk Resources. We also had to do the same thing to the membership clerk in order to allow them to authenticate the weekly batch when they fill in for the finance clerk.
)The advantage of giving them two callings is that members can look at the directory and see which clerk should be approached for membership issues and which for financial issues. Both may help out in both areas, but usually each has an area of primary responsibility.sbradshaw wrote:Instead of giving each clerk two callings, wouldn't it work to just have both of them called as "Ward Assistant Clerk"? From what I understand, Ward Assistant Clerk can do membership and financial work, and it sounds like you want them to be able to do both. You shouldn't have someone assigned as "Ward Assistant Clerk--Finance" or "Ward Assistant Clerk--Membership" unless you want them to only work in one area. (P.S. Does it bother anyone else that those calling names use double-hyphens instead of dashes?Gary_Miller wrote:Wayne, what we did in my ward was to also assign the finance clerk the position of Assistant Ward Clerk as well that way they have access to Clerk Resources. We also had to do the same thing to the membership clerk in order to allow them to authenticate the weekly batch when they fill in for the finance clerk.
This is the reason we assigned both callings. That way when the Stake Clerk or someone else needs to find the finance clerk in the ward they know who to call.eblood66 wrote:The advantage of giving them two callings is that members can look at the directory and see which clerk should be approached for membership issues and which for financial issues. Both may help out in both areas, but usually each has an area of primary responsibility.
Finance and membership information are controlled pretty carefully. A bishop may call someone as an Assistant Clerk–Membership because he doesn't want him working with finances, or vice-versa with the Assistant Clerk–Finance working on membership data. Without permission from the bishop, I wouldn't feel comfortable letting the membership clerk help with tithing – though I assume you have permission in your ward. If it were up to me I'd just have them both called and set apart as general assistant clerks, and let the ward clerk delegate from there... But I do understand it's handy to let ward members know when they look at the directory who those assignments are delegated to.Gary_Miller wrote:It would be much better to have the Finance, Membership and Assistant Ward Clerk positions all having the same privileges in both MLS and Clerk Resources since they are all Assistant Ward Clerks. But for some reason CHQ thinks otherwise and until they change it then we will continue to use the work around so all the Assistant Clerks can assist each other, there is no other way.
At some point you end up with the old "too many cooks in the kitchen". I like the idea that certain things are only accessible to certain people. One of the things that concerns me about the calendar is too many default admins.Gary_Miller wrote:It would be much better to have the Finance, Membership and Assistant Ward Clerk positions all having the same privileges in both MLS and Clerk Resources since they are all Assistant Ward Clerks.
I assume you're talking about the tool in MLS. I'm not sure why they set it up that way. However, as long as people are entering things properly, it seems to me to be more of a "cleanup tool" than something regularly used by those who enter callings.drepouille wrote:We discovered, however, that the membership clerks could not see or run the custom calling tool, probably because they did not have Admin privileges. Do you think membership clerks should have Admin privileges?
I realize its the Bishops responsibility to determine who does what. However, I don't fully understand while there is a need to always bother the Bishop with permissions. The clerks working together are quite capable of managing the duties and permissions on their own.sbradshaw wrote:Finance and membership information are controlled pretty carefully. A bishop may call someone as an Assistant Clerk–Membership because he doesn't want him working with finances, or vice-versa with the Assistant Clerk–Finance working on membership data. Without permission from the bishop,
Why would you not feel comfortable if the person meets the requirements as set forth in the handbook (the only difference is they he should hold the Melchizedek Priesthood) and the person is trained to help out. Even though they may not do this on a regular bases there is always a Bishopric member who does to help them.sbradshaw wrote: I wouldn't feel comfortable letting the membership clerk help with tithing
We did not ask for permissions we just assumed that everyone should be able to help each other and other members when necessary. There was no reason to ask permission we just did it because its our responsibility.sbradshaw wrote: – though I assume you have permission in your ward.
I think the lds.org permissions were selected based on the expectation that the Ward Clerk was sufficient backup for the more specialized assistant clerks. That is obviously not always the case but in many units it probably is. In the 7 years I've been ward clerk in our ward I can't remember a time when both the financial clerk and I were gone and couldn't handle donations.Gary_Miller wrote:I guess my point of view comes form Clerking in a Military Ward where we had to make sure we could fill in for each other because you never knew when someone maybe gone for any length of time.
Even though the same standards of worthiness apply for all clerks if their calling doesn't require access to certain information then there is no reason for them to have permissions. It sounds perfectly reasonable in your situation to have all assistant clerks backup both specialties but that isn't always the case. Based on this principle I wouldn't expect the permissions to change for the specialized callings especially when there is a work around.An MLS user should receive only those rights needed to perform his or her calling.