Add the Ward Assigned High Councilor to messaging

We typically use the Send a message feature in Leader resources to send meeting minutes from Ward PEC and Ward Council. The Assigned High Councilor always wants to be included on the minutes, however, on the Send a Message system when you choose LEADERS, and then choose the Ward Council or Ward PEC distribution lists it does not include them. I then have to go look up their email address and copy it in.

So I recognize that this feature apparently does not exist, but I propose having the ability at the stake level to assign high councilors to certain wards, like a calling/assignment, and that would then add them to this email list.

I don't feel the Assigned High Councilor has any need to have the minutes form a Ward PEC or Ward Council. Minutes form these meetings should confidential and only be given to the members of the committee/council. The High Councilor is only a visitor when he attends these meetings.

Interesting observation that the Assigned High Councilor is a visitor and should not receive minutes. I had assumed that if they're in the room hearing the confidential information, then having them receive the minutes is no different. However, I will go look at the handbook and think about this further.

I did check Handbook #2 and it does state - 4.4 Ward Council - The ward council includes the bishopric, ward clerk, ward executive secretary, high priests group leader, elders quorum president, ward mission leader, and presidents of the Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, Primary, and Sunday School.

So you're right that it does not include them as a default member. I guess in a branch like ours where the High Councilor might take a much more active role than in a normal ward an exception may make sense but could see this may not be the norm in normal wards.

Nothing changes just because your a branch.

".......... They also attend bishopric, priesthood executive committee, and ward council meetings if invited or assigned."( Handbook 2,15.3.1)

They are not members of these meetings and have no need for the minutes.

The High Councilor is there as a representative for the Stake President and nothing else. They only have a advisory and administrative responsibility as described in Handbook 2, 15.3.

First of all, I don't believe there is any easy way for you to have the high councilor automatically added to your list of leaders on the ward level. While there may be some circuitous way via the stake I wouldn't advise it. It will probably always be easier to simply add the high councilor's email by hand.

Second, I respectfully disagree with Gary_Miller. There are scenarios where the High Councilor may have legitimate need of PEC or ward council minutes. The High Councilor may have volunteered to perform something on behalf of the ward before the stake in his capacity as a liaison. He may have been asked to focus on some element of training for the High Priests' Group (which you wouldn't have as a branch ) or Elders' Quorum etc. which is certainly within the purview of his responsibilities. Having the minutes is a means of him having a record of his commitments etc.

Even though the High Councilor is not explicitly enumerated as a member of the PEC or ward council if he is invited by the council or assigned by the stake I would say he is a member for at least that specific meeting. What if the stake president were to assign a high councilor as a persistent member of a council in the case of a small unit which may need some additional support from the stake leadership? If he was absent from one of the councils he usually attends would he be considered ineligible to have a copy of the minutes?

Since it is the perogative of the bishop and/or stake president with regards to whom is invited to be member temporary or persistent of PEC or ward council, as long as they are okay with you sharing the minutes with the high councilor it is fine.

mdyoung wrote:Second, I respectfully disagree with Gary_Miller.

No problem its called a discussion it OK to disagree.

mdyoung wrote:Since it is the perogative of the bishop and/or stake president with regards to whom is invited to be member temporary or persistent of PEC or ward council, as long as they are okay with you sharing the minutes with the high councilor it is fine.

Your right in this regard as long as the Priesthood Authority Presiding over the meeting feels the HC should have a copy by all means give him a copy. However, I would not just send him a copy just because he was in attendance at the meeting, or at his request without the authorization of the Presiding Priesthood Authority.

bbuyack wrote:So I recognize that this feature apparently does not exist, but I propose having the ability at the stake level to assign high councilors to certain wards, like a calling/assignment, and that would then add them to this email list.

From the first reply, this discussion went off on a tangent, mostly irrelevant to the actual request. Regardless of the particular purpose mentioned, I agree that it would be helpful to have the ability to connect a high council adviser to a ward. That would enable or at least lay the groundwork for a variety of helpful connections:

• Messaging
• Ability to appear in the ward's directory
• Access to ward calendars

These connections could facilitate the high councilor's responsibilities to an assigned ward as described in HB2, 15.3.1.

aebrown wrote:From the first reply, this discussion went off on a tangent, mostly irrelevant to the actual request.

It was relevant to the discussion to point out what the real duties are according to the HB is for HCs as its those duties that should be driving the information given to a HC, as well as the development of those capabilities.

aebrown wrote:Regardless of the particular purpose mentioned, I agree that it would be helpful to have the ability to connect a high council adviser to a ward.

They are connected to a ward through the stake organization. There is no need to have any further connection.

aebrown wrote:That would enable or at least lay the groundwork for a variety of helpful connections:

These capabilities are already in place at a level that should be good enough, or are not necessary.

aebrown wrote:Messaging

Capable through the directory.

aebrown wrote:Ability to appear in the ward's directory

Not necessary to have the HC appear in the wards directory they can all be seen in the stake directory.
The ability for a HC to view the ward directory is already in the directory, and if they want more details they can get it through the Stake or Wards Clerks Office

aebrown wrote:Access to ward calendars

They can have access to any ward events by just using the week view and selecting the building the ward meets in. While this may not be the most Ideal method it should be enough to provide the HC information on ward events.

aebrown wrote:These connections could facilitate the high councilor's responsibilities to an assigned ward as described in HB2, 15.3.1.

I see nothing in the HB that would facilitate the HC responsibilities by having connections to the information described above anymore than they currently have.

In all my years as a clerk I have yet had a HC member ask for any of the information being discussed here. This includes the period before the information was available on computers.

Gary_Miller wrote:I see nothing in the HB that would facilitate the HC responsibilities by having connections to the information described above anymore than they currently have.

In all my years as a clerk I have yet had a HC member ask for any of the information being discussed here. This includes the period before the information was available on computers.

This may be true in some areas of the Church, and I have lived in many places where the status quo would make that a true statement.

But more recently, and in many areas, the stake presidency has realized what a wonderful resource they have in the high council, and those who serve in that calling are worn out helping with the work.

That said, while I agree it would be nice to have the assigned high councilor automatically show up in messaging, that would require the stake to keep up those assignments in MLS, along with a change to the messaging system. I suspect, for now, that the ward clerk will just have to add him to the distribution list for any information he sends out.

Gary_Miller wrote:

aebrown wrote:Regardless of the particular purpose mentioned, I agree that it would be helpful to have the ability to connect a high council adviser to a ward.

They are connected to a ward through the stake organization. There is no need to have any further connection.

No they are not. There is no connection of a particular high councilor to a particular ward. That's what's being requested.

Gary_Miller wrote:

aebrown wrote:That would enable or at least lay the groundwork for a variety of helpful connections:

These capabilities are already in place at a level that should be good enough, or are not necessary.

Paper membership records were good enough, too. But there are benefits to the systems that we have now, and it's entirely appropriate to suggest improvements to those systems.

Gary_Miller wrote:

aebrown wrote:These connections could facilitate the high councilor's responsibilities to an assigned ward as described in HB2, 15.3.1.

I see nothing in the HB that would facilitate the HC responsibilities by having connections to the information described above anymore than they currently have.

The fact remains that a high councilor may be assigned duties by the stake president, within the realm of those handbook responsibilities. Some of those duties would be facilitated if electronic tools connected the high councilor to the ward.

Gary_Miller wrote:In all my years as a clerk I have yet had a HC member ask for any of the information being discussed here. This includes the period before the information was available on computers.

Interesting. I have received multiple requests from high councilors for access to such information.

The bottom line is that in my opinion what is being discussed here is a reasonable enhancement request. I wouldn't put it high on the priority list, but I see no reason to preclude the possibility of such enhancements being added in the future.

aebrown wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:In all my years as a clerk I have yet had a HC member ask for any of the information being discussed here. This includes the period before the information was available on computers.

Interesting. I have received multiple requests from high councilors for access to such information.

The bottom line is that in my opinion what is being discussed here is a reasonable enhancement request. I wouldn't put it high on the priority list, but I see no reason to preclude the possibility of such enhancements being added in the future.

Which goes to show there's no "one size fits all".

It's safe to assume that any such enhancement would need to be approved by the Priesthood Department. No "improper" request is likely to be fulfilled.

aebrown wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:

aebrown wrote:Regardless of the particular purpose mentioned, I agree that it would be helpful to have the ability to connect a high council adviser to a ward.

They are connected to a ward through the stake organization. There is no need to have any further connection.

No they are not. There is no connection of a particular high councilor to a particular ward. That's what's being requested.

Interesting, because when I look at my stakes high council in the directory, I not only see who is on the High Council but also what units as well as other responsibilities (Such as PFR) they are responsible for.

Gary_Miller wrote:Interesting, because when I look at my stakes high council in the directory, I not only see who is on the High Council but also what units as well as other responsibilities (Such as PFR) they are responsible for.

I don't see this in mine. All I see is "Stake High Councilor". Could it be your stake has used custom callings to make that assignment?

If you check the CDOL, custom callings show up in orange text.

I just checked and I don't see it in mine either.

It would be handy to see a list of the high councilor's assignments. I would be interested to see how it is done.

aebrown wrote:I agree that it would be helpful to have the ability to connect a high council adviser to a ward. That would enable or at least lay the groundwork for a variety of helpful connections:

• Messaging
• Ability to appear in the ward's directory
• Access to ward calendars

These connections could facilitate the high councilor's responsibilities to an assigned ward as described in HB2, 15.3.1.

We have been talking with the Clerk Resources team about this and are working to get permission to add the ability to include the high councilor's responsibilities on their position. Ideally we would make it broader than that (e.g. Bishopric assignments) as well.

As you said that would lay the groundwork (and also make it visible to others) for some other cool enhancements.

Gary_Miller wrote: Interesting, because when I look at my stakes high council in the directory, I not only see who is on the High Council but also what units as well as other responsibilities (Such as PFR) they are responsible for.

Those are all custom positions. That makes it useful for you to see the responsibilities, but not usable to grant extra rights.

russellhltn wrote:I don't see this in mine. All I see is "Stake High Councilor". Could it be your stake has used custom callings to make that assignment?

I'm sure the assignments are done using Custom calling as one sees the list as High Councilors which I'm sure is the standard calling, then below they are all listed again with their assignments as the calling.

russellhltn wrote:If you check the CDOL, custom callings show up in orange text.

Unfortunately with the recent boundary changes in our stake (last Sunday) I no longer have access to the CDOL as well as many other tools I once had. The road in front of my house was the boundary and you can't live on the edge with out it affecting you. Currently I'm a man with out a calling.